Altruism and Prosocial Helping

Learning Outcome HR.2.A. – Distinguish between

altruism and prosocial helping

Warm-Up Create a list of times when you have

helped others during this school year. Why did you help them? What was

your motivation?

“Friends” Example Good Deeds Do Not Exist!

Are you a member of Team Pheobe or Team Joey?

Prosocial Behavior Behavior that benefits others or has

positive social consequences. Acts intended to benefit others. Any behavior that is initiated with the

purpose of increasing another person’s physical or psychological well-being and has a positive consequence for that person.

What prosocial behaviors do you engage in?

Altruism When one person helps another

person for no reward, and even at some cost to oneself.

Evolutionary Biology Explanation: Behavior that benefits other

organisms but has some cost. (Cost & Benefit measured in reproductive fitness)

Kin Selection Theory

Cognitive Psychology Explanation: Empathy-Altruism Theory

Theories of Altruism

Learning Outcome HR.2.B – Contrast two

theories explaining Altruism

Evolutionary Explanation

Kin Selection Theory (Hamilton, 1963) Individuals are more likely to sacrifice

themselves for relatives than non-relatives.

I only saved you because

I am your father!

Kin Selection Theory Hamilton based much of his theory on

observations of insects and animals… R x B > C

Genetic Relativeness x Benefit > Costs

SciShow on Altruism

Building on the Kin Selection Theory

Selfish Gene Theory (Dawkins, 1989) What looks like self-sacrifice could, in

reality, promote survival of your genes. If your brother survives, your genes do as

well. Egoism: The theory that one’s self is, or

should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own actions.

Roles in a Beehive

Naeger et al (2013) Aim: To determine the role of altruism in a

Queenless bee colony. Method: Observed behaviors in a bee hive suffering

from colony collapse. (No queen to lay eggs anymore).

Findings: Worker bees begin to lay eggs (genetically selfish

action) but also continue to work cooperatively to supply and defend their colony (altruistic).

Conclusion: While selfish behavior did increase, the bees still demonstrated larger amounts of altruism than Kin Selection would predict.

Critical Thinking?

Simmons et al (1977) Aim: To investigate the likelihood that close relatives would

become kidney donors. Method: Performed research on the likelihood that family

members donated their kidneys. Results:

86% of parents agreed to be donors but only 47% of siblings agreed.

It was found that when siblings were donors, the recipient and the donor were significantly closer in age and more likely to be of the same sex than were non-donors. Generally, the recipients felt very close to the potential donors, but not always.

Conclusions: The theory predicted that parents and siblings should have been equally as likely to volunteer. This shows that sharing genes alone is enough to get you to act alturistically.

Critical Thinking?

Stewart-Williams (2007)

Aim: To investigate the nature of altruism directed towards kin and non-kin.

Method: Had 295 college students take a questionnaire on past and hypothetical instances of helping. Three types of helping were questioned.

Low-Cost Helping: Asked how often the participants had helped and were helped by others in regards to instances such as emotional support.

Medium Cost Helping: Asked how often the participants had helped and were helped by others in regards to instances such as help during illnesses, crisis, or financial needs.

High Cost Helping: Asked hypothetical questions about likelihood to donate a kidney or risking their life to help others.

Stewart-Williams (2007)

Findings: Low Cost: People helped Friends more than

Siblings. Medium Cost: People helped Friends and

Siblings equally High Cost: People were willing to help Siblings

more than Friends. Conclusions: The likelihood of altruism was

impacted by the costs associated with the action and the person receiving the help.

Critical Thinking?

Kin Selection TheoryStrengths

Supported by Empirical Studies (Real-World Examples of animals and humans)

Mathematical simulations (Hamilton’s equation) support the theory.

LimitationsDoes not explain why

people help people who are not related to themselves.

Blood alone does not create kinship ties. Community does so as well.

Does not address why cooperation continues when it offers little advantage.

Evolutionary Explanationsfor Prosocial Behavior

Direct Reciprocity – “I’ll scratch your back, then you scratch mine.”

Spatial Collection - “Lend me some sugar, I am your neighbor!”

Kin Selection – R x B > Costs Indirect Reciprocity – “I’ll scratch your

back, and someone else will scratch mine.” Group Selection – “There is no I in Group.”

The Situation James is paired up with a stranger in

a learning experiment on the value of electric shocks. James is assigned the role of the control (no shocks) and his partner is assigned the treatment (electric shocks). After watching his partner receive shocks, he is asked if he wants to switch roles and James agrees.

How can this be explained?

The Empathy-Altruism Theory: Batson et al. (1981) By feeling empathy for another

person, it is possible for true altruistic behavior to occur.

When we see a bad situation we face… Personal Distress (anxiety and

fear) Empathetic Concern (sympathy

and compassion)

Perspective Taking True altruism requires perspective

taking. This requires three traits.

1. The observer must have had similar experiences.

2. The observer must be attached to the victim.

3. The observer must imagine what it is like to be in the victim’s shoes.

Batson et al (1981) Aim: To investigate individuals’ willingness to

help if they had an escape. Method:

Using college students, researchers had participants read a short description of Elaine.

One story led to high empathy and the other low empathy.

They then watched Elaine participate in a memory test in which she received electric shocks. Some participants were offered the choices of either taking her place or filling out a questionnaire. The other half were offered the choices of either taking her place or watching the remainder of the trials.

Batson et al. (1981) Findings:

High Empathy: Most participants agreed to help Elaine. The difficulty of escape had little impact.

Low Empathy: Participants were less likely to help. Easy escape: Less Helping Difficult Escape: More Helping

Conclusion: Feeling empathy for a person drastically

increases the likelihood of altruistic behavior. Negative State relief motivates altruistic

behavior.

Critical Thinking?

Empathy-Altruism Theory

StrengthsExperimental

Studies defend the theory.

The theory can predict how likely someone is to help another.

LimitationsEcological

Validity?Is altruism the

goal, or is stopping negative feelings?

Empathy does not always predict altruism.

Contrasting the TheoriesKin Selection

Theory The focus is on genes that operate beyond human consciousness. Largely based on observations of insects.

Altruism is seen as a behavior that has a cost to the individual.

The theory is based on egoism.

The theory can explain why humans are more likely to help our kin. The theory does not explain why we help non relatives.

Testing the theory is very difficult because it is based on evolutionary processes.

Empathy-Altruism Theory

The focus is on the human emotion empathy as the primary motivation for helping.

Altruism is seen as a behavior that benefits the individual.

The theory is based on altruism existing.

The theory can explain why people tend to behave altruistically in situations where they feel empathy. The theory does not explain why people feel empathy but do not help.

It is relatively easy to test the theory under lab conditions but difficult to bring it into the real world.

The Joker’s Social Experiment

Why do the people on the ferries make the decisions that they do? What motivated them?

Is this an example of Altruism? Why or why not?

Which explanation of altruism explains this situation better? Is there another explanation for this behavior?

Do you think people would really act this way?

Cross-Cultural Studies of

Prosocial Behavior

Warm-Up Create a list, based on your own

predictions, ranking the four cultures which we saw in Babies on their likelihood to help. Be prepared to explain your thinking. United States Japan Namibia Mongolia

Learning Outcome HR.2.C - Using one or more research

studies, explain cross‑cultural differences in prosocial behavior.

Whiting (1975) Aim: To investigate the impact of child-rearing differences and

their impact on prosocial behaviors. Method:

Examined children aged 3-11 in Kenya, the Philipines, Japan, India, and the United States.

Findings: Kenya most prosocial Mexico and the Phillipines more prosocial Japan and India less prosocial United States least prosocial

Conclusions: The responsibility to participate in household chores and in the

care of younger children was very important in determining prosocial behavior.

Children who competed in school and performed few household chores were less likely to help.

Levine et al (2003) Aim: To investigate the role that culture

plays in shaping the likelihood of helping in a non emergency situation.

Method: Observed helping activities in a field experiment across big cities in 23 different countries (e.g., Rio de Janeiro, Amsterdam, Shanghai, Tel Aviv, New York, and 18 others) and assessed how frequently strangers were being helped in three different non-emergency spontaneous helping situations requiring little effort (e. g. alerting a stranger who dropped a pen).

Levine et al (2003) continued

Findings: Rio De Janeiro Brazil ranked #1 Copenhagen Denmark ranked #7 Shanghai China ranked # 8 Mexico City Mexico ranked #9 New York USA ranked #23 Conclusions: Countries that emphasize social

responsibilities over personal achievement, and have a slower pace of life, tend to be more helpful to strangers on the street. However, there are exceptions

Critical Thinking: ?

Korte & Ayvalioglu (1981)

Aim: To investigate the rate of helping in differing sized communities.

Method: A stranger asked for help in a large city, suburb, small town, and squatter community in Turkey.

Findings: Small towns & squatter communities helped the most. Large Cities helped much less Suburbs helped the least

Conclusion: Small communities are more willing to help. Also, economic factors may play a role in shaping this behavior.

Critical Thinking?