Study on the Prosocial Intergroup Behavior in Norway

Introduction

Prosocial intergroup behavior

Prosocial behavior is a universal concept observed on a world-wide basis through acts of donations, protests, petitions and other voluntary behaviors. Various factors may serve as motivations for why individuals choose to engage in prosocial behavior. The world in the 21st century is in a global crisis, and humanity is confronted by wars, extreme climate change, inequality and health emergencies. Currently, over five million people live in extreme poverty making up 7.8% of the world population. Impacts of global warming have caused rising seas and increased coastal flooding, longer and more damaging wildfires, and more destructive hurricanes and earthquakes, leaving locals homeless and in need of help. Political conflicts and health emergencies, such as the Syrian civil war and the Rohingya crisis, has created a massive abruption in the economic status of various neighboring and non-neighboring countries as refugees arrive in search of safety and opportunities. According to the UN refugee agency, 68.5 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, where an estimated 25.4 million are refugees, and over half are children and adolescents under the age of 18.

Humanitarian aid organizations helping others in suffering states are mostly supported through volunteer workers and donations on a world basis. Well-known, non-profit organization, including Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross, World Food Programme and Oxfam International work towards a common goal of ending suffering and injustice for all human beings. Who chooses to help, with what means and why, is research needed to help motivate and increase prosocial behaviors within the world population and to help make both benevolent and activist support most sufficient. Working together towards ending suffering situations for others is a collective action not easily accomplished as there are several organizations working on different projects, devoting time and dedication, reaching for any donations or volunteer help they may receive. Most often, it is the developing countries needing help and support from the developed countries. Countries belonging to the wealthier part of a world economic scale often see their help as an obligation, encouraging their society to engage in prosocial intergroup behavior. Norway is ranked the fourth wealthiest country in the world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and contributes annually to a variety of non-profit organizations and countries in need of aid. This research will therefore investigate what factors motivate and demotivate prosocial intergroup behavior within the Norwegian population.

A study done by Duclos and Barasch (2014), present the influence of in-group membership on interdependent individuals and how it effects their preferred amount of donation, suggesting out-group discrimination. Furthermore, it was stated that independent individuals do not differentiate between in-group and out-group members considering donation behavior. For non-profit organizations, the main source of income is benevolent support. The rates of prosocial spending are found to be higher in wealthier countries compared to their poorer counterparts (Biswas-Diener et al., 2013). In 2013, Biswas-Diener and colleagues (2013), did a study on prosocial spending and found that even though there may be differences in wealth, the subjective well-being reported post-spending was equally experienced regardless of individual and national income.

Volunteerism can be distinguished from bystander interventions through its long-term and planned characteristics (Penner, 2004). Penner (2004), gave weight to the importance of studying volunteerism, as he suggested it is a more common form of prosocial behavior than help in emergency events. Volunteerism typically involves people choosing to help others in need (Omoto & Snyder, 2002) and is suggested to consist of four main components; free will, no monetary reward, aiming to help strangers/beneficiaries, on a long-term basis or in a formal setting (Cnaan, Handy, & Wadsworth, 1996; Haski-Leventhal, 2009). Volunteerism may be thought of as an umbrella term consisting of various prosocial behaviors, and it is important to make a distinction between altruism and volunteerism. Although altruism and volunteerism share similarities, the concept of free will is profound in volunteerism, whereas altruism is considered to be of an instinct rather than a conscious choice (Haski-Leventhal, 2009). In a simple summary, volunteerism is a thought-out and long-term helping behavior without expectations of compensation.

Collective action is a humanitarian response representing aspects of the self, shared with others in a social identity (Thomas & McGarty, 2017). In a metanalysis by van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears (2008), the authors discovered three distinct socio-psychological aspects on collective action; Subjective senses of injustice, efficacy, and identity. The Authors identified affective injustice to be a better predictor of collective action, confining directly affective injustice to social identity. Next, they classified politicized identity to be the most prominent forecaster in collective action, as an individual may feel a stronger internal obligation for participation. Lastly, the authors explained, both incidental and structural disadvantage had different inclinations on collective actions, though identity was found to be prominent for a collective action towards both disadvantages. Responding to incidental disadvantages was suggested to be associated with occupational groups rather than groups established in stigma, political connection or through nationality/ethnicity. Whereas responding to structural disadvantages were a force within groups associated with stigma, political connection or through nationality/ethnicity. Willer (2009), investigated the motivational effect of status within a group, and how this could influence collective action. It was concluded that contributing to collective action could increase individual value within a group, resulting in personal gains. These personal gains were suggested to enhance motivation, ensuring future collective action.

Another suggested motivation is wanting to improve group stereotype (Cassidy et al., 2007). Cassidy and collegaus (2007), found that people wanting to improve negative stereotypes of their in-group members will produce helping behavior towards out-group individuals. Though group membership have been strongly suggested to influence collective action, factors such as empathy and attitudes may contribute on greater levels (Penner., Dovidio., Piliavin., & Schroeder., 2005). In a study, Gaertner et al., (2010), found evidence stating that members identifying relatively strong with their racial group were influenced by empathic concern, inducing support for policies of social change benefitting outgroup members, even in situations where the change would be at cost of their own group. Collective action is in sum a prosocial behavior performed by either an individual or a group of people striving to change identified injustice.

A voluntary act or intention beneficial to a group other than one’s own is defined as prosocial intergroup behavior. Two forms of prosocial behavior leading to different outcomes of social change may be distinguished as benevolent and activist support (Thomas & McGarty, 2017). Thomas and McGarty (2017), explains these of actions as distinct forms of generosity, defining benevolent support to “reflect efforts aimed to reduce disadvantage through the transfer of money, goods, or services” (p. 5) and the activist support to “reflect efforts to reduce disadvantage by challenging the system that maintains the disadvantage” (p. 5). Though, these forms of prosocial behavior walk different paths, they are walking towards a common goal, which is fighting humanitarian disadvantages. Benevolent support may elevate a crisis through food or money donations, however, activist support is a stronger prosecute in producing a change within a disadvantaged system. Still, creating a political or societal change may require resources only benevolent support can provide, therefore, both forms of support are most beneficial when combined.

Though, both benevolent- and activist support are similar in being prosocial behaviors, they differ in terms of motivation and perception (Grönlund, 2011; Thomas & McGarty, 2017; Wilson, 2012). Grönlund (2011) described the motivation of activist support to be fighting injustice, influencing and making the world a better place, whereas the motivation of benevolent support was helping others. An individual or collective perception of control and responsibility regarding the one’s in need may influence the form of support given (Eisenberg, Eggum, & Di Giunta, 2010). In benevolent support, the perception of helping manifests in reducing suffering, believing that one’s actions may affectively address the situation, whereas in activist support the perception of helping entails actions towards a third party (Thomas & McGarty, 2017).

As both prosocial behaviors are generated by the intention of positive outcome for others, a combination of both benevolent and activist support may arise.

Demographic factors, personality traits, group-identification, and volunteer activators (volunteers encouraging civilians to be active) are suggested factors contributing to either benevolent or activist support (Bennett, 2003; Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007; Penner, 2004). The demographic factors such as age, gender, education, income, and religion are indicators significantly associated with volunteerism (Choi, 2003; Penner., Dovidio., Piliavin., & Schroeder., 2005; Quintelier, 2008; Tidwell, 2005; Wang & Graddy, 2008). Educational level has been strongly associated with volunteering, suggesting that higher educational level may produce a better income, giving an individual more freedom regarding prosocial behavior (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin & Schroeder, 2005). In psychology, personality and temperaments have been concluded to contain stable sets of characteristics associated with the predisposition of prosocial behavior (Penner et al., 2005; Caspi et al., 2003). However, as described by Penner et al. (2005), it is not clear exactly why certain attributes lead to prosocial responses. In benevolent support, such as donating money or goods, an individual may experience a sense of happiness after sharing with those less fortunate than themselves. Dunn, Aknin, & Norton (2014), describes how prosocial spending is observed in both the brain and the body as it produces activation in the brain’s reward areas, as well as participants experiencing a happier mood after sharing money with others. Aknin et al. (2013), found in their study that prosocial spending in both poor and wealthy countries is equally linked to subjective well-being, although it was stated that the rates of prosocial spending is higher in wealthier countries. Though wealthier countries may be able to produce more prosocial spending, the less wealthy or even poorer countries may contribute by other means. Donating time to help or signing petitions may be a more frequent way of volunteering in these countries, as money is not in surplus.

Prosocial intergroup behavior in Norway

According to data presented by the OECD retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm (28.02.2019), Norway was ranked number four with a score of 58,122 US dollars per capita on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) chart in 2016. In 2017 it was reported that since the year 1952, the amount 531 862 million Norwegian kroners (NOK) have been contributed to foreign support by Norway. Norway has not only donated millions of NOK to countries and organizations, but also signed more than 150 000 policy agreements within 160 countries around the world (Rossehaug & Babyev, 2017). With Norway being among the wealthier countries of the world, helping the less fortunate countries by giving support annually and during crisis situations may be expected from both the Norwegian citizens as well as the less fortunate individuals globally. In fact, Norway is on world summit in aid channeled through non-governmental organizations (NGO) (Lie, 2006). Norwegians also contribute by volunteering, a trend that is found to be just as popular now as it has been throughout Norwegian history (Wollebæk, Selle, & Strømsnes, 2008).

Volunteer work is a strong held tradition in Norway dating back to the middle ages, where the term “Dugnad” originated (Sivesind, 2016). Dugnad is a form of voluntary work performed by citizens, which not only benefits one self and kin, but rather the whole community, city, and country. Along the evolvement of the concept of dugnad, an increasing trend of engaging in world-wide humanitarian work has emerged within the Norwegian population. In 1974, the national telethon “TV-aksjonen” was created in order to educate the country on global issues as well as raise money for philanthropic involvement on a world basis (Furuli, 2016). TV-aksjonen is a dugnad held annually, emphasizing the collective responsibility of Norway as a developed country. It demonstrates the way in which dugnad is a historic tradition in Norway that should be upheld, while reminding the citizens of how their humanitarian contributions help make significant changes (Furuli, 2016).

In a report containing updated figures on voluntary efforts in Norway from 1998-2017, Fladmoe, Sivesind, & Arnesen (2018), stated that gender differences in participation has diminished, though, men still spend more time on volunteer work than women. Apart from gender differences, other factors producing additional prosocial behavior were mentioned. Higher education was concluded to be the only factor having importance transversely within organizational categories. Younger individuals within the ages 16-24 were found to be overrepresented in societal organizations, and those who had children were concluded to engage more in volunteer work linked to sports, welfare, religion and beliefs.

To this date, the amount of research within the scope of Norwegians prosocial intergroup behavior is scarce. Thus, the aim of this study will be to investigate what factors effects the motivation and demotivation, questioning the support versus the challenges of prosocial intergroup behavior in Norway.