Altruism

1
Altruism

• By Mr Daniel Hansson

2
Learning outcomes

• Distinguish between altruism and prosocial
  behavior
• Contrast two theories explaining altruism in
  humans

3
Questions for discussion

1. Try out how egoistic/altruistic you are by taking
   this test http//www.queendom.com/tests/access_pa
   ge/index.htm?idRegTest692
2. To what extent are people egoistic?
3. What do you think are the reasons for people
   acting altruistically?
4. In the movie Pay it forward, a boy comes up with
   an idea that everyone has an obligation to do
   three good deeds in repayment for every good deed
   that one receives. Such good deeds should be
   things that the other person cannot accomplish on
   their own. This type of helping is expected to
   spread exponentially through society, creating a
   social movement. Do you think the idea can work
   in reality? Why or why not?

4
Important Definitions

• Prosocial behavior Every behavior that benefits
  others or society. E.g. controlling aggression
  and other antisocial behaviors, emphasizing
• Altruism (psychological) Prosocial behaviors
  without expectation of benefit to oneself.
  Sharing, helping and cooperation are altruistic
  behaviors.
• Altruism (evolution) A behavior that reduces the
  fitness (chance of survival) of the helper but
  increases the fitness of the victim

5

• Oscar Schindler. Saved 1,200 people during World
  War II

6

• Raoul Wallenberg. Saved 100,000 people during
  World War II

7

• Harald

• Harald Edelstam. Saved 1,300 Chileans during
  Pinochets military coup in 1973

8
Two theories on altruism

• Kin altruism hypothesis/Inclusive fitness
• The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

9
Batsons (1991) Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

• There are two main motivators for helping
• 1. Egoistic, cost-benefit analysis
• 2. Feeling empathy for the victim, non egoistic

10
(No Transcript)
11
Supporting research Toi Batson (1982)

• Participants were asked to help a girl named
  Carol who couldnt attend lectures. She had lost
  her legs. She needed help with lecture notes.
  Participants listened to an audio recording of
  Carol.
• Independent variable A Empathy level
• Condition 1 Participants were asked to imagine
  how Carol is feeling (High empathy condition)
• Condition 2 Participants were asked to be
  objective and not concerned with how Carol felt
• (Low empathy condition)
• Independent variable B High or low cost
  conditions
• Condition 1 High cost. Carol would be in the
  class. It would be embarrassing to deny her the
  lecture notes
• Condition 2 Low cost. Carol would not be in the
  class. It would not be as embarrassing to deny
  her the lecture notes.

12
Independent Variables of Toi Batson (1982)
High empathy independent variables Low empathy Independent variables
Empathized Carol would be in the class Did not empathize Carol would be in the class
Empathized Carol would not be in the class Did not empathize Carol would not be in the class
13
Findings of Toi Batson (1982)

• The high empathy group were equally likely to
  help in either condition
• The low empathy group was more likely to help
  Carol in the high cost condition

14
Classroom activity

• The class will be divided into two groups
• One of the groups should now leave the classroom

15
Scenario 1

• Your sister has been unexpectedly admitted to the
  hospital for a relatively serious surgical
  procedure. Once she is back at home, she is
  bedridden for a solid week. She states that she
  understands that you have stuff to do, but would
  greatly appreciate if you could do two errands
  for her as well as some minor grocery shopping.
  She makes it clear that she has lots of other
  people helping out, and that she has spread the
  favors around, so she really only needs you to do
  these specified errands. Unfortunately, you have
  an extremely busy week and you cannot see that
  you have got time to help her. What is the
  likelihood between 1-5 that you will help her?
  (1Very unlikely, 5Very likely)

16
Scenario 1

• Your distant cousin has been unexpectedly
  admitted to the hospital for a relatively serious
  surgical procedure. Once she is back at home, she
  is bedridden for a solid week. She states that
  she understands that you have stuff to do, but
  would greatly appreciate if you could do two
  errands for her as well as some minor grocery
  shopping. She makes it clear that she has lots of
  other people helping out, and that she has spread
  the favors around, so she really only needs you
  to do these specified errands. Unfortunately, you
  have an extremely busy week and you cannot see
  that you have got time to help her. What is the
  likelihood between 1-5 that you will help her?
  (1Very unlikely, 5Very likely)

17
Scenario 2

• You are on a canoe trip with your son and his
  friend in Kanchanaburi. Unfortunately the canoe
  capsizes in a streamy river. You manage to grab
  hold of a rock. During a split second you have a
  chance to save either your son or his friend
  before they disappear under the water. You can
  only try to save one. Who will you go after?

18
Kin selection hypothesis/inclusive fitness
Hamilton (1964)

• Some behaviors have evolved to increase the
  fitness of an organisms close relatives
• We are more likely to help close relatives than
  distant relatives because we have the same copies
  of the same allele
• An individual can sacrifice himself if the total
  copies of the allele is increased (I would
  sacrifice myself for 2 brothers or 8 half-cousins)

19
Supporting research

• Animal studies Vampire bats are more likely to
  share blood with close relatives. (Wilkinson)
  Squirrels are more likely to warn relatives than
  non relatives for predators (Sherman)
• Human studies In helping scenarios, humans are
  more likely to help close kin in emergency
  situations (Burnstein, Crandall and Kitayama,
  1997)

20
Contrasting the theories

• Explanation Kin selection biological focus, more
  reductionist (only focus on one factor).
• Empathy-Altruism model focus on cognitive and
  situational factors (thinking feeling empathy,
  cost benefit) Focus on two factors
  (interactionistic)
• Generalizability Kin selection theory based on
  animal research has more supporting research but
  difficult to generalize to humans (although there
  is research on humans). However, kin selection
  theory has been tested across cultures with
  similar results (e.g Madsen et al. 2007)
  Empathy-altruism focuses on humans but has less
  supporting research. Toi and Batson (1982) was
  conducted on female American psychology students
• Applicability Kin selection theory fails to
  explain altruism when helping non related
  strangers. Empathy-altruism can explain altruism
  when helping non-related strangers
• Egoism-altruism Kin selection hypothesis - more
  egoistic helping.
• Empathy-Altruism hypothesis Helping can be less
  selfish under some circumstances.

21
Conclusion

• The hypotheses may complement each other
• More research may be needed (e.g. to test the
  generalizability of the Empathy-Altruism-Hypothesi
  s)
• The theories may contribute to our understanding
  of helping behavior and can have applications in
  areas such as economics