This article does not claim to provide answers about social traits or morality in general, but simply summarizes the findings of two recent scientific papers that appeared in the journals Science and Nature, describing interesting research on social ethics and moral behavior. The broader implications of the studies are left to the reader to reflect upon.

The article published in Science magazine presents a line of evidence that spending money on others makes us happier. The Nature article comes up with a – perhaps – more surprising finding: preverbal infants can evaluate social actions, and strongly prefer individuals who help others. The results of the two articles thus suggest that not only do we become happier by doing good to others, but we also feel sympathy for other individuals who do so, even before we start talking.

Spending on others makes us happier

In order to investigate the effects of spending money on others, researchers at the University of Vancouver in collaboration with Dr. Michael Norton of Harvard University, first asked a representative group of 632 Americans to rate their general happiness, report their annual income, and estimate how much they spend monthly on: i) bills and expenses, ii) gifts for themselves, iii) gift for others, and iv) charity donations.1 The first and second items of expenditure were averaged to calculate an index of “personal spending,” whereas the third and fourth items were used similarly to deduce a “prosocial spending” index. Data analysis revealed that significantly greater happiness was associated with higher prosocial spending, whereas personal spending was found to be unrelated to happiness.

Second, a group of employees who received a profit-sharing bonus from their companies were put to a similar test. All sixteen employees reported their annual income as well as their general happiness one month before receiving the bonus. Almost two months after the bonus, the same participants reported their general happiness and were asked to estimate how much of their bonus was spent personally or prosocially. The prosocial spending was again found to be the significant predictor of happiness, whilst the income and the bonus both remained insignificant.

Finally, the researchers designed experiments in order to further decipher the correlation between happiness and prosocial spending. To this end, forty-six university students were asked to assess their happiness in the morning, and were given $5 or $20 (a one time stipend) to be spent by 5 p.m. on the same day. Some participants were randomly instructed to spend the money on a bill, an expense, or a gift for themselves (personal spending condition), and the rest were told to spend the money on a gift for someone else, or a donation to charity (prosocial spending condition). After 5 pm, participants were asked to report their general happiness. The participants in the prosocial-spending group reported greater post-stipend happiness, with the effect of stipend size (i.e. $5 or $20) remaining insignificant. This work hence demonstrated that spending money on others promotes more happiness than spending money on oneself-a result that was apparently counterintuitive. Interestingly, when the conditions of the experiments were described to 109 students from the same university and they were asked their opinion on what condition would make them happiest, they were doubly wrong about their prediction: a significant proportion estimated that the $20 on personal spending would cause the highest happiness.

Preverbal infants can evaluate social actions

The second study by a Yale group describes experimental designs where preverbal infants (i.e. infants having not yet learned to speak) were made to watch animated events.2 (The group of infants chosen for the experiments were 6–10 months old.) In the first scheme (see figure, Scheme 1), a character (a red, circular object with eyes) tries to climb a slope, but fails in its first two attempts (A). At the third attempt, another character comes into the picture, either helping the climber by pushing from behind (B), or hindering it by pushing down (C). When the infants were encouraged to choose between the helper and the hinderer, they almost always reached for the helper (only 2 of 26 infants chose the hinderer). Interestingly, when the climber was made to look like an inanimate object as a control, infants did not show any preference for B or C. (Eyes were removed from the climber, and the climber no longer underwent self-propelling motion with the experiment unchanged in all other aspects.) This suggested that the infants did not choose the helper in the first experiment because they simply preferred the action or the shape or the color (further control experiments) of the helper, but instead their choice was purely social: With the eyes removed from the climber, the infants no longer identified the climber as an individual, and did not perceive the events as social interactions.

It is known that infants look at unexpected events for longer times.2 After the experiment described above, the same infants were subjected to a second test where their observation times were measured. In the display (see figure, Scheme 2), the climber sitting atop a hill initially goes back and forth (D) between the helper and the hinderer, and eventually approaches one of the two (E, the climber ends up approaching the helper; F, the climber ends up approaching the hinderer). On average, the infants stared at the display longer when the climber approached the hinderer (which is a surprising action), compared to the climber approaching the helper (which is an unsurprising action). These findings altogether suggest for the first time that the preverbal infants, although themselves unaffected as third parties (hence remaining unbiased), could make judgments about the value of a social act by differentially evaluating those who perform in positive and negative ways.

Social cooperation

Social ethics is not only puzzling for philosophers and sociologists, but also for biologists because social traits are not inherently specific to humans. For instance, altruistic forms of behavior appear to be ubiquitous in nature and occur in creatures from bacteria to mammals. Even within a rapidly growing bacterial culture, a minority of cells are known to commit to reduced growth rates.3 This slow-growing subpopulation can survive an antibiotic encounter to regenerate the colony, providing an insurance policy for the whole population despite their reduced self-benefit. Towards the other end of the spectrum of living beings, vervet monkeys have watchmen that warn fellow monkeys in the presence of predators by attracting attention to themselves,4 increasing their own risk of being attacked. On first reflection, altruism contradicts the selfishness which is the natural outcome of the underlying assumption of Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest. If only the fittest survive, according to natural selection, how can such magnanimous behavior continue to exist, when individuals who do not maximize their own interest should have been wiped out long before we can come to know them? Biologists are nowadays trying hard to reconcile altruism with selfishness, and altruistic behavior poses yet another challenge for evolutionary biologists (see a recent article in The Fountain for a detailed review5).

Reflections

• Surely We have created human of the best stature as the perfect pattern of creation. (Tin 95:4)
• Those men and women who give alms and lend to God a goodly loan, it will be increased manifold to their credit, and they will have an honorable, generous reward in addition. (Al-Hadid 57:18)
• The Prophet (may peace be upon him) reported that God said, “I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray.” Every child is born with the fitrah (an innate disposition towards virtue, knowledge, and beauty). Everyone is born in the nature of Islam. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Bill Sayoran is a freelance writer living in Boston. He can be contacted at billsayoran@gmail.com.

Notes

1. “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness”, Science, vol. 319, 21 March 2008.
2. “Social Evaluation by Preverbal Infants” Nature, vol. 450, 22 November 2007. Videos of the animated events can be found at the Nature magazine website: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/suppinfo/nature06288.html
3. “Is Bacterial Persistence a Social Trait?”, PLoS ONE, Issue 8, August 2007.
4. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
5. “Darwinism and Altruism: Is There A Problem?,” The Fountain, Issue 64, July–August 2008.
6. http://saifur.tripod.com/religion.html

The history of family life can be divided into two phases: “before TV” and “after TV.” Its affects on the whole family are so immense that they are outside the scope of this article. Instead, we will concentrate on the affects of television on children, and especially on children under the age of 3.

During our interviews with parents, almost all of them had one question: “What is the effect of television on our child?” The importance of this question can be better understood after we have studied the effects of television on our children. The effects of TV depend on how much the children watch TV, their personality, whether they watch alone or with adults, and whether their parents talk to them about what they have watched. Therefore, it would not be true to say that television is absolutely harmful or beneficial. If the necessary precautions are taken, it can be a useful source for both the child’s educational and social development, while, on the other hand, it can have very harmful and lasting effects on children if not properly monitored and if the child is left to decide when, how much and which TV programs to watch. The effects also vary according to the child’s age. This magic box has different effects on children of different age groups.

The worst, and unfortunately permanent, effects of television on children occur during the 0-3 age group. This is because some of the psycho-social attributes that are acquired in these years persist in a person’s character throughout life. Any problem that originates from this period will affect the rest of a person’s life.

The Effects of Television on the 0-3 Age Group

During this period some parents do not (or cannot) spend enough time with their children for a variety of reasons, and they leave their child alone with the television. Some of the reasons for a lack of time being devoted to the child may be socio-economic factors, the life-style of a working mother, problems between the parents themselves, the necessity of housework, parents working additional jobs, a chronic illness in the family, psychiatric problems of the parents, the child being the product of an unwanted pregnancy, the child’s physical illness, or dozens of other reasons – all of these can affect family life. Because of these, intentionally or not, some parents often cannot pay enough attention to their child; the only thing they are able to do being to keep up physical maintenance (i.e., feeding the child and keeping him or her clean). In these cases, TV comes in and fulfills the role of the parents, and the child ends up spending too much time in front of the television.

Experiencing full emotional sensations and the complete attention of the parents sets the groundwork in the first three years of life for a strong and healthy psychological make-up. Physical contact, talking to the child, making him or her feel that he or she is loved, playing with the child, spending time with the child all have a positive effect on the development of the psycho-social side of the child. Spending time with a baby prevents him or her from becoming alienated in relationships with other people and helps him or her to recognize the social environment, starting with the parents. Along with this relationship, a close tie between the child and the mother develops. This relationship starts in the mother’s womb and continues during infancy. The child begins to be able to communicate and express his or her needs. As time goes on, the child starts to be able to establish a dialog with other people.

Since the basic foundation of communication is speech, children have to learn how to talk. In order to be loved by people, they have to understand people and respond to emotional stimulation. Children need encouragement in order to socialize and develop communication, especially from those who are in charge of the upbringing. This encouragement and approval, attention to the child’s needs (food, clothing, hygiene, safety, etc), paying attention to the child’s problems, spending time with the child, kissing, caressing, talking and playing with the child all go towards helping the child feel that he or she is loved; these constitute an encouragement for the bio-psycho-social development of the child.

The reason we mention all these is so that we can better understand the television-child relationship. When the child is left for a long time in front of a device that does not respond to his or her words, looks and smiles – a device devoid of sensual and social stimulants, without emotion – and when the child is deprived of physical closeness to the person with whom he or she has established close ties – problems will occur as time passes. Although television provides sounds and images, the child is not yet of an age to interpret, accept and benefit from these. The problems developed here will appear later in the form of an incompleteness or inadequateness in the socialization, individualization and the psycho-social aspects of this person.

Why is TV more harmful for children? The child will not have friends or a social environment to make up for the social and sensual incompleteness mentioned above. He or she does not play a role in an interchange, and the child does not have a chance to contribute. Psycho-motor and psycho-social sufficiency has not had a chance to develop and he or she does not have an alternative environment in which to develop.

If a child is less than 3 years old and stays too long (how long changes from child to child, but generally for more than an hour) in front of a television, and particularly if the parents have any of the problems mentioned above that prevent them from spending more time with the child, then some insufficiency and delay can be witnessed in the child’s psycho-social functions. These functions are those that are necessary for the development of social improvement (sensual interaction and responsiveness, adaptation to the social environment, taking an interest in people, showing sympathy to others, paying attention to other children of the same age, etc) and communication (talking, meaningful gestures and mimicry, spelling words out by syllables, perception, making sounds, forming sentences, etc). If such conditions occur, a child psychiatric must also investigate what other reasons may have caused such conditions. The replacement of time that should be spent with other people with time spent before the television has very serious drawbacks.

If the children stay too long in front of the television during this period, some psychiatric abnormalities may develop. The child may show symptoms of indifference to his or her surrounding, for example, he or she may not look around when called, the child may avoid making eye contact, or show indifference to other people and children of the same age, the child may experience difficulties in taking part in emotional or social communication, he or she may try to stay on his or her own, or may display repetitive behavior, like turning around or rocking back and forth, the child may become obsessed with objects, he or she may be slow to speak and construct sentences, or may display problems in establishing dialogue, or the child may be unable to respond sentimentally. Therefore, in order to prevent excesses, it would be appropriate for the parents to put a limit on television for the benefit of normal psycho-motor and psycho-social development in the child.

At the same time, it would be appropriate for both the father and the mother to spend as much time as possible out of their normal daily life with the child, playing with him or her, speaking to the child, showing the child that he or she is loved, showing an affinity with him or her, taking the child out, paying attention to his or her physical needs, paying attention to his or her normal growth stages, laying the ground for communication with other children, sparing some time only to be with the child, telling him or her stories. In short, parents do not have to ban television watching completely for their children, but the appropriate thing for the good of the child is to restrict and balance it with other activities.