The Social Production of Altruism: Motivations for Caring Action in a Low‐Income Urban Community

Abstract

Contemporary social science paints a bleak picture of inner-city relational life. Indeed, the relationships of low-income, urban-residing Americans are represented as rife with distress, violence and family disruption. At present, no body of social scientific work systematically examines the factors that promote loving or selfless interactions among low-income, inner-city American individuals, families and communities. In an effort to fill that gap, this ethnographic study examined the motivations for altruism among a sample of adults (n = 40) who reside in an economically distressed housing community (i.e., housing project) in New York City. Content analyses of interviews indicated that participants attributed altruism to an interplay between 14 motives that were then ordered into four overarching categories of motives: (1) needs-centered motives, (2) norm-based motives deriving from religious/spiritual ideology, relationships and personal factors, (3) abstract motives (e.g., humanism), and (4) sociopolitical factors. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Does Neighborhood Social Capital Buffer the Effects of Maternal Depression on Adolescent Behavior Problems?

“…Living in a neighborhood with higher social capital allows the adolescent to look outside the family for support and to access resources. Important resources include non-familial adult role models or pro-social peer groups that promote positive behavioral outcomes (Lenzi et al 2012; Mattis et al 2009; Stanton-Salazar 2011; Wandersman and Nation 1998). Furthermore, as this finding suggests, a fruitful area for future research is the development and evaluation of interventions intended to enhance neighborhood social processes.…”

Perceptions of Community Norms and Youths’ Reactive and Proactive Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Action

“…For example, there is a rich literature demonstrating the importance of community‐level factors such as collective efficacy on behaviors as diverse as civic engagement, responses to violence, and partner violence (Berg, Coman, & Schensul, ; Collins, Neal, & Neal, ; Duncan, Duncan, Okut, Strycker, & Hix‐Small, ; Emery, Jolley, & Wu, ; Wickes, Hipp, Sargeant, & Homel, ). Similarly, it has been demonstrated that community gender norms can influence sexual health (Schensul et al., ), that community norms, social control, and social connection are associated with neighborhood crime (Henry, Gorman‐Smith, Schoeny, & Tolan, ), and that community social norms may influence altruistic or helpful acts between residents (Mattis et al., ). In sum, there are a number of dimensions of community life that appear to influence what people think, feel and do, so a logical extension of the existing research would support the contention that individuals’ perceptions of community norms would influence their DSV‐related bystander behavior (Banyard, Edwards, & Siebold, ).…”

Happiness is the Wrong Metric

“…For example, Latane and Darley and Piliavin et al found that high proportions of people did assist researchers pretending to be in distress (Latane and Darley 1970;Piliavin et al 1969). Even in poor urban areas, where a lack of social capital or physical resources is thought to discourage altruism, a vast majority of residents reported witnessing affirming behavior including "saving the life of someone who was in danger; taking permanent custody of, or providing temporary care for, the children of neighbors; providing housing for homeless individuals and families; intervening to protect others from crime or violence; and providing money, food, clothes, guidance, and encouragement to others" (Mattis et al 2009). …”