I have given you a half-wilted posy on the street, and in return, I am using our interaction to enhance my online brand. You’re welcome.
Image created with Dall-E
In my last piece, we discussed how great it is to connect with strangers. Now, in a total flip of the switch, I give you:
Why do so many “random act of kindness” videos feel so icky?
A recent trend that flew through TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms came in the form of filming ‘random acts of kindness’.
Some involved an individual approaching a stranger and gifting them with flowers or money. Others involved sneakily paying for a stranger’s groceries when they weren’t looking. More complex versions of this trend involved someone first asking for a favour (such as asking a stranger to buy them a bottle of water), and, if the person gave a favourable response, rewarding them with a much larger gift, like paying for all their groceries or a large sum of cash.
There was a time when you couldn’t spend more than a few minutes on social media without something like this forcing its way into your feed.
In theory, random acts of kindness demonstrate the best humans have to offer: Compassion, empathy, and other-centredness. So why, when we’re watching these videos, can they prompt a tense friction between emotions — a positive response on one hand, but on the other, a kind of ickiness? Is this trend a true promotion of kindness and caring for those around us, or is it an inherently ego-centric gimmick that is far more centred on the promotion of the kindness-giver than anything else?
Let us explore some potential behavioural science behind and around it all…
Watching eyes and reciprocity
Pro-social behaviour — that is, doing something with the intent to help others — is a wonderful thing.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we tend to do better when others are around: The ‘watching eyes’ effect is a term reflecting how, in the presence of other people, we tend to be more generous, cooperative and pro-social. In fact, this effect even extends to fake eyes — in one study, having pictures of eyes on a donation sign resulted in more donations than other images.
Image created with AI (DALL-E)
When you think about it, this makes sense: When we feel like others are watching us, then we are more attuned to how we want to be perceived, and so we engage in socially-acceptable or socially-celebrated actions to help shape those perceptions in the positive.
This is where I think the first trigger for uneasiness comes in with random acts of kindness that are filmed in public and put on social media.
A large part of the beauty of a random act of kindness arguably lies in its one-directional nature: I am giving something to you, and I am not asking for or expecting any reciprocal act on your part. When, however, it is filmed for public viewing — like a kind of ‘watching eyes effect’ on steroids — the act of filming itself may dull some of that shine. The generosity of the action gets lost in a potential ulterior motive of reputation-management or brand promotion on part of the giver: I have given you a bouquet on the street, and in return I am using our interaction to enhance my social media presence and increase my following. This becomes less one-directional and more reciprocal, as even though the receiver does not have to specifically do anything in return of the kindness, they are effectively providing a narrative to enhance the giver’s brand in the eyes of others.
But is this enough to justify the ‘ickiness’? Aren’t all ‘kind’ acts also beneficial for the giver?
The Selfish Side of Prosociality
Doing good feels good. Yes, we might give to charity because it’s a worthy cause — but we also might be motivated to give in part because it prompts nice feelings. We might help a person on the street because they need it, but there may also be a tiny part of us that also likes the idea of being seen as a brave, helpful person in the eyes of others. Research suggests that engaging in more pro-social behaviour may elevate our mood and help mitigate the effects of stress. Links have been drawn between volunteering and wellbeing in older people, and kind acts and peer popularity in children.
In the research, it’s also worth noting that the benefits of pro-social behaviour are often thought to be potentially bi-directional: That is, maybe doing good things makes people happier, and maybe happier people are also more likely to do good things for others.
The point is, the research generally indicates that a myriad of benefits can come with acts of kindness. So in one sense, there is virtually always going to be a selfish side to prosociality. At the evolutionary psychology level, it could be argued that this trait evolved for the sake of perpetuating collaboration, trust, and ultimately, survival.
Where does the central benefit lie?
Here is where I feel inclined to disclaim that, of course, there are some wonderful humans doing wonderful things online for others — spreading genuine kindness and encouraging others to do the same. The question is, what differentiates what one might identify as genuine videos from those that feel like a production team has scoured the streets for an appropriately apologetic-looking ‘target’ of kindness?
I would argue that the distinguishing feature for the ickier trending videos is where the centrality of the benefit lies. That is, if we watch a clip and it seems like the kind act was conducted purely for the sake of creating nice content, then the perceived motivation of ‘kindness for public brownie points’ covers our viewing experience with a layer of inauthenticity. The receiver might come across as a ‘vulnerability target’, chosen to be exploited based on their appearance, age, or some other arbitrary trait the giver has deemed somehow apologetic. Used for a video and then discarded, like any other production prop.
I’d suggest certain aspects of the content itself present us with cues that affect our perception of how authentic or inauthentic the giver’s act is. For example, if the giver punctuates their kind act with regular glimpses at the camera, doesn’t spend much time with the receiver other than to thrust flowers or money at them, or ‘tricks’ the receiver into taking a gift rather than presenting it as such — these may come across as more gimmicky and less authentic. Further, when some videos suggest that the receiver has been judged as in need of a mood-booster (‘You looked like you needed to smile today’ or something to that effect), this can come across as judgemental and condescending. I can recall watching one of those where the recipient responded along the lines of ‘oh no, I’m fine, I was just sitting and thinking’.
On the other hand, if the video seems more like it’s genuinely documenting an act despite the presence of a camera, then maybe that’s what feels more wholesome. Maybe it all depends on our interpretation of authenticity on part of the receiver.
Is it all that bad?
So, overall, does this mean everyone should stop filming acts of random kindness altogether? I’m not sure where I sit on that one. Although a part of me says ‘yes, stop, leave everyone and the posies alone’; you could also argue that this ‘genre’ of social media is still theoretically better than a lot of the stuff we see online. That the icky-feeling videos are an inevitable consequence of the genuine ones, which actually do intend to spread awareness, positivity, and compassion. That nice stuff done with personal interests in mind is still nice stuff done. That this trend, at the very least, gets people thinking about others more broadly. That inauthentic niceties could be just one pervasive symptom of a much bigger, systemic problem when it comes to virtual identity. So, I don’t know. What do you think?
A small meaningful action:
Take on the challenge this week of conducting a random act of kindness… offline
Beautifully, prosocial acts conducted in the wild are usually well appreciated. Recently, I popped over to my local cafe for my soy piccolo and learnt that a patron before me had paid it forward for my coffee; it made my day.
In fact, spontaneous kindness is usually valuable to both the giver and receiver in significant ways. A series of studies in 2022 tested a whole slew of random kind acts, including delivering flowers, baking goods for others, buying coffee, giving someone a lift, writing a lovely note, or giving a stranger a hot chocolate at an ice rink. As you’d expect, the studies found that random kindness givers felt significantly more positive than usual after being kind to someone.
More fascinating, though, was the incongruence between how a giver expected a receiver to respond, and how the receiver actually responded. While the kindness performer anticipated that the receiver would feel good about their random act, “across a variety of different actions, in many different contexts, performers systematically perceived their random act of kindness to be a more minor action than recipients perceived it to be and systematically underestimated how positive recipients would feel afterward” (p. 14). In other words, people appreciate random, kind acts significantly more than we anticipate. So, perhaps we could all serve to benefit from consciously doing a little more good for others, feeling good in doing so… and maybe just keeping it off the internet.