Defining generosity, it can be stated that several common themes emerge in such definitions. Such themes mainly emphasize the purpose of a generous act and the requirement of being gratuitous. Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion in Society (CSRS) for that matter adds those requirements to the act of giving “one’s financial resources, time, and talents” (Collett & Morrissey, 2007). The distinction between giving and generosity can be seen in that the former might or might not be done with generosity, and thus, generosity might be extended beyond giving. Such extension implies that generosity is dependent on magnificence which ensures that the community as a whole benefits from the virtue. The interchangeability of the giving and generosity as an act can be seen in the involvement of the concept of reciprocity. That is, despite the focus on giving something for free, there is a two-way relationship, which is not necessarily connected to two parties in an exchange.
Social Learning Theory
Generosity can be represented as a behavior that can be explained through social learning theory. According to Bandura’s social learning theory (SLT), relabeled as social cognitive theory (SLT), an action can be explained through its expectancies and incentives. In that regard, both aspects might confirm reciprocal action of a relation, even when such incentives are not apparent. Taking relation as an example, Generosity is regarded as a vital virtue in the religious context (Claire & Manuel, 2001). Christian teachings put a lot of emphasis on the virtue of generosity. The same can be said about Islam as well, where Muslims are expected to give alms to the poor. This forms one of the basic pillars of the Islam faith and even children grow up knowing that offering a helping hand to the less fortune is important. Nevertheless, even in such relationship, there is a value of an expected outcome, incentives and rewards expected in such context. Such statement can be supported through the way US Christians are found to be giving less money for charity than the rest of the world. One explanation is that churches are vague about expectations for giving (Smith, Emerson, & Snell, 2008). The lack of information about expectations can be seen as an important aspect of social cognitive theory, where there is an emphasis of information acquired on informative and motivational role of reinforcement (Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988, p. 178).
Motivation
Motivation is also an important factor in explaining generosity. According to Claire and Manuel, several acts of generosity serve as lessons for those who do not truly embrace the virtue (2001). A study of people donating blood at a public hospital raised a few questions. What motivated the blood donors? Why did others who were in their company refuse to donate their blood yet they were healthy? The blood recipients were total strangers and yet the donors did not bother to undergo this sacrificial exercise. It is obvious that external factors may have contributed, but internal factors played the greatest part in the execution of the act. In that regard, moral obligations can be seen as important aspects in motivation. The motivation behind exercising generosity changes with time. The moral obligation at first seems to be an external force but as time passes by the obligation becomes internal. Repeated exercise of generosity is of great importance in the cultivation of the virtue (Smith, 2009). The aforementioned stated can be similarly linked to expected outcomes and consequences, where a hypothesis formulated by Skinner states that “the frequency of a behavior is determined by its consequences (i.e., reinforcements)” (Rosenstock, et al., 1988, p. 176).
Development of Prosocial Behavior
According to Lightman (1982), generosity like other virtues is acquired by acting. In that regard, such acting can be categorized as a prosocial behavior, i.e. an act which benefits others and such benefit is the primary goal (Collett & Morrissey, 2007). There are several factors stated to contribute to the development of prosocial tendencies. Internal factors are involved with biological and genetic bases of action, in addition to temperament affects. The affects found to be associated with the tendency to engage in a prosocial act include positive emotionality, empathy, the ability to take the perspective of others, high self-efficacy, and moral reasoning (Collett & Morrissey, 2007).
External factors, on the other hand, are found to be more interesting for social psychologists due to the ability to influence such behavior. Studies have shown that it is possible to teach children the value of generosity (Smith, 2009). A study showed that children can develop prosocial behaviors through modeling. Social learning theory states that children’s moral judgments are easily modified, especially by using an adult model (Lightman, 1982). Social learning theory and motivation are essential ideas as it relates to generous behavior. Generosity is a virtue that can be cultivated through psychological means.
The manifestation of the virtue of generosity is usually different in children. Most of them exercise the virtue for fear and also to please their seniors. As discussed, the more the virtue is exercised the more intrinsic it becomes and hence can be acquired. Children are usually preoccupied with play, and if parents are not keen, some virtues might be unlearned by children. According to Smith (2009), the inculcation of generosity starts at a tender age when the child is able to distinguish between what belongs to the individual and what belongs to another person.
The Rationale for Developing Generosity Virtues
The rationale for modeling children’s behavior and teaching them the importance of sharing can be seen through the negative aspects of materialism. The lack of generosity can be seen as one of personality traits that form materialism, a “the value a consumer places on material possessions” (Polak & McCullough, 2006, p. 343). Materialism is recognized as pervasive problems for individuals and the society. In that regard, it is argue that gratitude can be seen as “either as a global personality disposition or as a temporary emotion or mood state [that] may be able to counteract materialistic strivings and their negative effects on well-being” (Polak & McCullough, 2006, p. 348). In that regard, following the reciprocity concept found in giving, it can be stated that gratitude is the other side of such relation. That is, the side responsible for the positive outcome in generous behavior. Gratitude plays a major role in encouraging generosity as a prosocial behavior, functioning as a social reward for the benefactor (Polak & McCullough, 2006). Contributing to more generous acts, gratitude in turn, can be seen as an important factor in reducing materialistic striving and its negative effects.
References
Claire, A. & Manuel, V. (2001). Developing Generosity: donating blood (3rd ed). New York Printing Press
Collett, J. L., & Morrissey, C. A. (2007). The Social Psychology of Generosity: The State of Current Interdisciplinary Research.Science of Generosity. Web.
Lightman, E. (1982) Continuity in social policy behaviors: The case of voluntary blood donation. Journal of Social Policy, 10 (1), pp. 53-79.
Polak, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (2006). Is Gratitude an Alternative to Materialism? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 343–360. doi: 10.1007/s10902-005-3649-5
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183.
Smith, C., Emerson, M. O., & Snell, P. (2008). Passing the plate : why American Christians don’t give away more money. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. (2009). Science of Generosity. John Templeton Foundation