Bayanihan: A Literature Review on Helping Behavior

By

Girard Vincent S. Aquino (2005)

Introduction

In line with the recent December 2004 Asian tsunami that took the lives of more than 100,000 people, this paper wishes to review the literature on altruism as a psychological construct, and relate it to a seemingly synonymous phenomenon in the Philippines, the “Bayanihan”.

Various definitions have been proposed and used regarding altruistic acts. Among them, Leeds (1963, cited in Quigley, et.al, 1987) defined altruistic acts as “one that is beneficial to at least one other person, emitted voluntarily, and not motivated by the donor’s expectations of achieving any immediate reward for self.” However, it is not for this paper to distinguish between these definitions.

What is pertinent is the behavior of people across the globe to aid in the victims of the December Tsunami, particularly their motivations for lending aid.

Jim Lobe, a writer for One World United States said in his December 28, 2004 article that the relief operations for the tsunami victims “could be the biggest relief operation in history”. It is in this light that the author wishes to evaluate the existing literature on altruism.

Bayanihan in the Philippines

In the Philippine setting, a phenomenon called the Bayanihan is also being likened to the behavior that western cultures term as altruism. The Bayanihan has been defined as “the valued practice to cooperate and self-help in bringing about community projects and activities among Filipinos (Kintanar & Assoc., 1996).”

At first glance, it seems that the two terms, altruistic or prosocial behavior and bayanihan are synonymous.¹ However, there is a slight distinction between these two. Particularly in bayanihan, for other people to help, an affiliation or association between the two people must exist. This bond, according to Professor Aurora Lim of Kalayaan College, is necessary. However, she added that a closely knit bond, such as those of family, is not needed. Even subtle associations with other people are enough to elicit bayanihan. “If you live in Tondo, and you marry someone from Cavite, in times of distress, you can call upon your friends in Cavite to aid you.” She added that the basic principle in bayanihan is that people help each other, pagtutulungan, in times of calamities, accidents or whatever situation where help is required by another person. The bond that is required need not only be from those of direct associations such as friends and family, but the simple fact that people are neighbors is enough to elicit bayanihan. She added that bayanihan might also occur with people who simply know each other, either by face or by name, kakilala. Indeed, this has been the case for an ethnic tribe in the Philippines, the Tausugs.

Family occasions that invite a large number of guests, such as weddings, birthdays, and funerals require the help of other people to prepare meals, wash dishes or serve beverages. “Preparations for several hundred guests may be backbreaking if only the members of the household or the family bear the burden. But friends, relatives and neighbors all come to help. Some relatives come several days before the big day to split firewood, clean rice... (Bruno, 1973).”

Another one of the interesting principles underlying this bayanihan phenomenon among Filipinos is their concept of “utang ng loob” or debt of gratitude, its popular translation. This has been generally defined as when people who are helped by another acquire an unspoken debt of gratitude to that person that may extend unto his future generations, which is not necessarily required to be returned in monetary terms. If a person volunteers to help a widow during her husband’s wake, the widow is then required to aid that person when the need arises. This could be in the form of assisting in family gatherings, or preparing food in such occasions. However, this debt is rarely brought up should the person require help from the widow. Unless the person who owes the debt, in this case, the widow is not able to communicate socially acceptable reasons for turning down the assertion, it is unlikely that issues about the debt would be raised, or magkakasumbatan. The widow is then “morally bound” to return the favor, ensuring a smooth interpersonal relationship between the two parties.

Another interesting aspect about bayanihan is that when a person helps another person voluntarily, for example a neighbor, the person is the active giver, and the neighbor is the passive receiver of the debt. The neighbor is left with little choice but to accept the favor, and in addition, acquire a debt of gratitude.

What is particularly different about this phenomenon, compared to western views on the reciprocity norm, is that the debt is never completely repaid, especially when the debt owed is much greater such as a doctor saving a couple’s child. It is especially in these cases that the debt extends unto future generations, even 50 years, according to Professor Lim. The parents of the child, the child saved, and the future offspring of the child would have an “utang ng loob” or debt to the doctor. In these cases, the debt is sometimes returned in terms of services. If for example, the future children of the saved child would own a spa, it is not unlikely that they would give free services to the doctor, or his family, as a present or a form of payment for the debt. Indeed, this has been the way that politics in the Philippines has been said to function according to Professor Lim and most Filipino writers.

In such a case where people acquire an “utang ng loob”, their failure to return the debt would result in a heavy moral sanction. Pe-Pua’s (not in reference) notion of this sanction is the “ungrateful” person being labeled as “walang utang ng loob” – one of the worst moral insults one could ever attain in Philippine society, having a collectivist cultural orientation. Literally, “walang utang ng loob” could be translated as “having no sense of gratitude”. However, the gravity in which this term is used in the Philippine context is much greater for the insult is directed primarily on the essence of the person and insults one of the core concepts of the Filipino individual, kapwa.

On the other hand, having the concept of debt tied with these supposedly altruistic acts, it is not surprising to wonder whether bayanihan is purely altruistic in itself. Professor Lim stressed the clear distinction between bayanihan and the supposedly altruistic vision of the Red Cross. She said that the difference lies in the vision of the Red Cross to help every human being in need. “If there is a war between the United States and Russia, the Red Cross is bound to help regardless of the person’s affinity to whichever country.” In this case, no affiliation is required but that of being human.

Altruism as a Social Psychology Construct

In the previous section of this paper, it has been mentioned that there are variations in the definition of altruistic behavior. Myers (1999) has described altruism as a “motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self-interests.” He adds that it is the exact opposite of selfishness. “An altruistic person is concerned and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return” (Myers, 1999).

However, Myers (1999) also raised the question on whether a purely altruistic behavior really exists. It has been mentioned that people who engage in helping behavior may receive intrinsic rewards such as an increase in one’s sense of self-worth (Myers, 1999). In a graduate study by del Rosario (1976), she said that “people tend to maintain a positive self image both in the eyes of others, as well as their own.” At that, it could not be helped to argue that seemingly genuine altruistic acts could indeed have an egoistic motivation or an anticipation of an intrinsic reward. Del Rosario adds that “people are concerned with a positive public as well as private self-image.” It would be difficult to test whether a helping behavior is purely altruistic or motivated by internal motives. Quigley (1987) adds that a person “may expect to receive eventual rewards, such as what might occur as a result of karma, a generalized norm of reciprocity, or more external rewards from divine sources.” Even in cases where participants are placed in non-emergency situations, such as that of Quigley’s (1987) experiment, people are suspicious of the internal motives of a helping person. “In the condition in which the prosocial actor initiated the interaction, observers apparently suspected an ulterior motive and the donor was perceived as less altruistic than if the recipient initiated the interaction” (Quigley, Gaes & Tedeschi, 1987). Indeed, attributions play an important role in the interpretation of altruistic behavior. The lack of external evidence leads people into attributing the behavior to the person, while in the presence of which, they attribute the behavior to external motivations (Myers, 1999).

Research also suggests that altruism is also motivated by the presence of models who engage in helping behavior. Bryan and Test (1967) validated this in their experiment when they found that the presence of a person helping a woman with a flat tire increased other people’s helping behavior. It is uplifting to see that people do not only model undesirable behavior, but prosocial behavior as well.

It has also been found that people tend to evaluate the person’s predicament, whether it could have been avoided or whether it was inevitable. Russell and Mentzel (1989) found that “if the observer attributes the victim’s plight to uncontrollable factors, positive affect is likely to result. On the other hand, if the observer ascribes the actor’s condition to inner, controllable factors, a negative emotional response is likely to occur.” This response they added could range from sympathy to disgust.

Bayanihan and Altruism

The distinction between altruism and bayanihan has been made clear. Although both acts are forms of helping behavior, the latter necessitates that an affinity be present between two people for it to occur. However remote the affinity may be, such as that of simply being from the same neighborhood or regional origin, this subtle similarity would be enough to breed liking that facilitates helping behavior.

Social psychologists have said that people help more those who are familiar to them, those whom they find similar to themselves, and those that they have affiliations with – all of which are prerequisites of bayanihan. Sinha and Jain (ND) said that “we are more likely to help those we like, who appeal to us, and with whom we feel some sort of identification or affiliation.”

An apparent contradiction between altruism and bayanihan is obvious. In the former, the altruistic person receives a positive reinforcer for the helping behavior, while the latter leaves and bounds the person in need, with a moral responsibility to return the favor – sometimes extending several generations.

The Filipino Character

At this point it worth asking why the bayanihan phenomenon has been made popular in the Philippines, and why it has been claimed to be uniquely Filipino. Among other reasons, what is of greater pertinence to the phenomenon are the characteristics that make up the Filipino people. In addition, given the fact that the Philippines was under the rule of Americans for so many years, it is not surprising that a lot has been written about the Filipino character by foreign authors and personalities.

Charles Elliott (cited in Kalaw, 1939) said that “Filipinos are not easy to understand, and it is not surprising that even honest observers have reached different conclusions as to their character.”

The Filipino people, according to Governor Wood and Forbes (also in Kalaw, 1939) “possess many fine and attractive qualities – dignity and self-respect, as shown by deportment, personal neatness and cleanliness, courtesy and consideration to strangers and guests, boundless hospitality, willingness to do favors for those with whom they come into contact which amounts almost to the inability to say “No” to a friend.”

Kalaw (1939) adds that “most writers agree that the most important of our social virtues are our hospitality, politeness, courtesy and consideration for strangers, personal neatness, kindness, love for home and family, and our law abiding nature.”

Renato Constantino (1966) among others, said that “Filipinos are a hospitable and generous people... the majority have considered it a privilege to be able to offer their foreign friends all the opportunities for advancement.”

Hospitality, generosity and friendliness are among the most prominent features of the Filipino character. It is therefore not surprising that within this society’s norms, a phenomenon called bayanihan has been termed and inculcated, perhaps to distinguish from simply being helpful, and to emphasize that helping behavior is ingrained in the culture’s mores. Del Rosario (1976) once again adds that “society has a built-in strong force which makes the individual evaluate his behavior with respect to how other persons see him... to a considerable extent, external standards become internalized. Standards that a person originally perceives as outside of himself are now perceived as his own.”

Camilo Osias (1940) has defined the Filipino philosophy or way of life. According to him, the Filipino way of life revolves around the pluralized concept, which could be likened to collectivism. “The Filipino way of life recognizes the value and sanctity of human personality and seeks cooperation and solidarity among the nations, and within the nations” (Osias, 1940). He adds by saying that this kind of philosophy also recognizes the interdependence of men and nation. “Filipinos have developed a spirit of cohesion. They are homogeneous racially, culturally and spiritually.” Although, the Philippine archipelago having many different ethnic tribes may speak contrary to the cultural homogeneity of the Filipinos Osias has mentioned.

The Role of Learning and Attitudes on Altruistic Behavior

Myers (1999) said that “we sometimes say, what we think others want to hear.” Is it not also reasonable to suppose that people also do what they think others would want them to do? And in that sense, where would purely altruistic acts have a place, if people have learned the socially acceptable manner of acting. In church, we have been taught of how to act in a manner that is most pleasing to the eyes of God and of people. By the time that we have reached the point of maturity where we are already able to grasp concepts such as “utang ng loob”, we have already learned so much; and it has already been inculcated in our system. We already possess the tacit knowledge of how to act, in this situation, where another person is in need. Rushton, (1982, cited in Sinha & Jain, ND) has reinforced this when he stated that “the likelihood of helping behavior is determined by the stage of moral development, which in turn may be related to the stage of cognitive development.” Similarly, learned attitudes may also influence helping behavior by having preconceived notions of how to act. Therefore, a mental process to decide whether to help or not is not necessary. The argument is similarly circular to how the question, “it any act truly altruistic?” We do actually get internal rewards such as a boost in self-esteem and a projection of a positive self-image, which begs the former question. In the same manner, can an action be characterized as a “concern” for the well-fare of others when it has been socially conditioned and already part of the behavioral repertoire of people – an instinctive action wherein processing is not needed?

Recommendations

It is important to further research regarding altruism, the bayanihan phenomenon in the Philippines, and their relation to both learning and attitudes. Professor Lim also said that she does not think bayanihan still exists among Filipinos. “Kahit sa mga magkapit-bahay, impersonal na”, she said. Therefore, it is also appropriate that studies be also done in urban areas, to test the findings of Hedge & Yousit (1992, in Myers, 1999) that altruism is weaker in these areas; and in rural areas, to see whether bayanihan is still observable in the Philippine culture. Whether helping behavior is primarily motivated by the anticipation of an increase in one’s self-worth remains to be further studied.

Back to Index

Bibliography

Bruno, Juanito A. “The Social World of the Tausug.” Centro Escular University:

Research and Development Center. 1973.

Bryan, J. & Test, M. “Models and Helping: Naturalistic Studies in Aiding Behavior.”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.6, No.4, p. 400-407. 1967.

Constantino, R. “The Filipinos in the Philippines.” Malaya Books Inc. 1966.

Del Rosario, Marlyn. “The Effect of Shame and Guilt on Altruistic Behavior: A Test of the

Self-image equilibrium theory.” Graduate School paper, Ateneo de Manila University. 1976.

Kalaw, Maximo M. “An Introduction to Philippine Social Science.” Solar Publishing

Corp. 1939.

Myers, David. Social Psychology. 6^th ed. McGraw Hill Inc. 1999.

Osias, Camilo. “The Filipino Way of Life.” Ginn & Company. 1940.

Quigley, B., Gaes, G., & Tedeschi, J. “Does Asking Make a Difference? Effects of

Initiator, Possible Gain, and Risk on Attributed Altruism.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(2), p. 259-267. 1987.

Russell, G. & Mentzel, R. “Sympathy and Altruism in Response to Disasters.” The

Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), p. 309-317. 1989.

Sinha, A. & Jain, A. “The Effect of Benefactor and Beneficiary characteristics on

Helping Behavior.” Journal of Social Psychology, 126 (3), 361-368. (ND)