Human relationships: altruism Flashcards
Distinguish between pro-social behaviour, altruism, and egoism
- Pro-social behaviour includes behaviour intended to benefit another person, such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperating, reassuring, defending, donating to charity and showing concern. (Schroeder et al. 1995). It is considerd to be too vauge, however, since it doesn’t consider the motivation behind the act.
- Altruism is one type of pro-social behaviour which occurs without the expectation of a personal benefit as the ultimate goal. The desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper.
- Sometimes the reason for engaging in pro-social behaviour is a selfish one. For example, to put money in a charity box in order to feel good – egoistic motivation behind the action.
There is strong evidence that egoism accounts for pro-social behaviour.
The Kin Selection Hypothesis, Theory
Background
Altruism occurs and is likely to have been selected during human evolution. It is advantageous to the survival of the group to display selfless, helping behaviour.
Theory
This theory predicts that the degree of altruism depends on the number of genes shared by the individuals. Particularly, **direct descendants. **This increases the chances of the genes that caused the helping behaviour to be passed on, since more members of a group are likely to survive.
The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, model
Batson et. al. (1981)
The theory suggests that people can experience two types of emotions when they see someone suffering.
- Personal distress (anxiety and fear) which leads to egotistic helping egoistic helping. One considers the consider costs and benefits of helping. One may help in order to relive yourself of stressful or negative feelings, or to avoid the shame or embarrassment of not having helped.
- Empathetic concern (sympathy, compassion, tenderness) which leads to altruistic behaviour. Helping because you want to relive the preson’s suffering regardless of what you will gain. We do it because we feel **empathy **for them
Madsen et al. (2007)
**Kin selection in UK and South African students **
Aim: To test the kin selection hypothesis experimentally using participants from two different cultures.
**Theory: **Kin selection hypothesis
Participants: Male and female UK students. Zulu Male South Africans.
Design: Experimental
**Procedure: **
- Participants were asked to preform a physical exercise that becomes increasingly painful (Leaning, back against a wall, with the knees bent so that the thighs are parallel to the floor.)
- Each participant had supplied a list of biological relatives who DID NOT share a home with them.
- The participant were told that one specific relative selected at random from the list would recive payment according to the length of time they could stay in the “seated” position. (Payment for UK participant: 40p per 20 seconds. Payment for Zulu participanst: food items)
**Results: **
- UK participants:* They spent more time, on average, in the uncomfertable position when the money was going to **more closely related family members. ** Females were more equitable than males.
- Zulu participants: *They also made more effort to stay in the uncomfertable position when the money was going to family members biologically closer to them. The Zulu participants did not seem to distinguish btw cousins and bilogically closer relatives (siblings, aunts, nephews, etc)
Conclusion:
It appears that kin selection is indeed a powerful motivator to preform altruistic deeds.
Strengths and Limitations:
+ Applicable to different cultures (increases validity)
+ Gains emperical data, not subjective or bias
- Not a natural setting, one would not have to do this in real life
- No femal South Africans were tested, so it is not generalisable to them.
Toi & Batson (1982)
More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation.
Aim: To test the empathy-altruism theory
Participants:
84 female undergraduates, volunteers from an introductory course in Psychology
Method:
- The participants listened to a (fictive) interview with Carol Marcy, a freshman in the class who had had both of her legs broken in an automobile accident and was worried about being able to still pass the course.
- The reseachers manipulated the level of empathy:
- Half of the participants were asked to listen to the interview, trying to be as objective as possible. (low empathy condition)
- Half of the participants were asked to imagine the perspective of the person being interviewed. (high empathy condition)
- The researchers also manipulated how costly it would be to not help Carol.
- In one condition participants learned that Carol would come back to class next week. (high-cost condition)
- In one condition participants learned that Carol would be studying at home and would not come to class. (low-cost condition)
- After listening to the interview, subjects were asked to help Carol in going over the missed lecture notes.
The dependent measure was whether the subjects filled out a slip agreeing to help Carol.
Results:
- Those in the high empathy group were likely to help out in either set of cercomstances (low cost and high cost)
- Those in the low empathy group were only likely to help out if there was a high cost. This was probably to avoid the guilt of having to see her in class after not having helped.
Strengths and limitations:
+ Manipulate the levels of empathy, and do not rely on observed behaviour to seek out the actor’s true motivation (objectivity). Uses quantitative data
- Since the participants were told to either be empathetic, or be objective, there may be some participant expectation.
- It’s impossible to know the level of empathy the individual experiences
- Not generalisable, esp. to males
Define empathy
It is the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and to experience events and emotions (e.g. joy and sadness) the way that person experiences them.
Studies supporting Kin-Selection Theory
Sime (1983)
- Analysed accounts of how people fled from a burning building
- Found that individuals, unrelated group members, separated before exit
- While those with family members, together before exit
Simpson & Kenrick (1997)
- Suggest that our in-group bias can be accounted for in kin selection
- In helping situations we tend to help people who are more similar to us
Burnstein et al. (1994)
- Asked participants to report how likely they are to help people of varying degrees of relatedness, e.g. grandmother, cousin or unrelated acquaintance.
- More likely to help closer relatives, this effects became more extreme as the possible cost of the participant increased.
Batson et al (1983)
Aim: To test the empathy-altruism hypothesis by measuring empathy by self-reports (instead of manipulating the level of empathy)
Participants: 10 male and 10 female undergraduate students
Method:
- Participants were asked to report their emotional state after observing a same-se stooge randomly receiving electric shocks while completing a task.
- The stooge showed extreme discomfort. (Due to a childhood accident)
- The participants were able to voluntarily take the place of the stooge.(logically expecting that they would be able to tolerate the shocks better)
Results: High levels of empathy predicted the decision to volunteer.
What causes cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour?
Cultural norms and values causes differences. Such as…
Collectivisim – Which puts emphasises on the group, its decisions, attitudes and needs, and one’s duties towards it. Thus, helping is governed by group needs, equality-based resource sharing (fairness), obligatory reciprocity (return favours).
Individualism – emphasises the individual and their goals, rights, attitudes and needs. Thus, helping is governed by individual needs, economics, equity-based resource allocation (fairness) and voluntary reciprocity.
How does social identity theory in different cultures effect pro-social behaviour?
People in all cultures are likely to help someone they define as a member of their in-group. The group the individual identifies with.
People in all cultures are less likely to help someone they perceive to be a member of the out-group. The group they do not identify with.
(Brewer & Brown 1998)
Levine et al (1990s)
Background: A series of studies about cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour was conducted by Levine et al. during the 1990s.
Study one
Aim: To assess helpfulness towards strangers in 36 cities in US.
Method: Field experiment.
Focused on simple acts of assistance, for example, will a dropped pen be retrieved, will a blind person be helped across a busy intersection?
Results: **People in small and medium-sized cities in the south-east were the most helpful. People from large, north-eastern and west coast cities were the least likely to help. **Population density **seemed to be the best predictor of helping behaviour.
Study two (2001)
Background:
Levin considerd several (indipendent) variables:
The city’s poplation density, whether it has *individualism or collectivisim, *and the city’s notion of simpatico/simpatia (refers to a range of social and emotional traits e.g. being friendly, polite, good-natured, pleasant. (no English translation)).
Aim: To assess helpfulness towards strangers in 23 international cities.
Method: same as previous
Results:
- Two highest-ranking cities in terms of helping are in Latin America: Rio de Janeiro and San José.
- Helping rates tended to be high in countries with low economic productivity, and a slow pace of life (measured by walking speed).* May be explained by a more traditional value system in countries that are less developed, where social obligations take priority over individual achievements (collectivism). These countries tend to be less economically productive, but show more willingness to assist others (Value of social harmony*). HOWEVER that doesn’t explain why Copenhagen (Individualistic, fast-pasted, first world) and Vienna (Individualistic, fast-pasted, first world) helped a great deal, and Kuala Lumpur (Collectivistic, poorer, slow-paced) were not helpful at all.
- Countries high in simpatia were all above the mean in terms of helping behaviour. HOWEVER a possible confounding variable is that all countries high in simpatia were also Roman Catholic.
Strengths and Limitations:
- It’s difficult for a researcher measure prosocial behaviour, and to identify which behaviours are valid indicators of pro-social behaviour. Are dropping a pen, helping someone cross the street, etc. valid indicators?
- It’s difficult to translate behaviours across cultures, since some behaviours are not easily tested in multiple cultures. A lost letter might not be returned for fear of it being a scam, or because of litteracy problems in the country.
- Can we really generalize about an entire culture? And can we see universal trends? The simpatica hypothesis failed to apply to all cultures.
- You can’t establish a cause-and-effect relationship in a feild experiment, since there are so many confounding variables.
What are 2 factors influencing bystanderism
Situational
Circumstances surrounding the specific situation.
Dispositional
Relatively permanent personality factors
What is the bystanderism? And what are two factors that may increase bystanderism?–Darley & Latané (1970)
- Bystanderism a term, where the presence of other people, or the preception that others are witnessing an event, makes it less likely the individual is going to help.
- Cost-reward model -the cost of time** **– operationalised the cost of time (Darley and Batson, 1973)
Diffusion of responsibility –when many witnesses are present, it reduces the psychological costs of not intervening.
Darley & Latané (1968)
Experiment to investigate bystander intervention and diffusion of responsibility
**Aim: **To investigate if the number if witnesses of an emergency influences the ppls helping.
**Theory: ** Diffusion of responsibility
**Participants: **72 students (59 female, 13 male).
**Method: **IV: number of bystanderds that were thought to be listening. DV: The time it took the participant to react to the emergency.
**Procedure: **
- The participants were put in individual booths and told they would discuss, via an intercom, about personal problems that college students could have in urban areas.
- During the discussion, a confederate participant pretends to suffers a seizure over intercom.
- They were later defriefed and given a questionnaire to describe their reaction to the experiment.
**Results: **Number of bystanders greatly effected the participant’s reaction.
- Alone condition: 85% went out to get help.
- 4 bystanders: 31%
- gender did not make a difference.
- The questionnaires: 18/65 chose “I did not know what to do”. 26/65 chose “I did not know exactly what was happening”. 20/65 “I thought it must be some sort of fake.”
Evaluation:
- Eco. val.: experiment took place in a lab, and the bystanders could only hear the victim, and not see them.
- Ethics: they were decived and exposed to an anxiety-provoking situation.
- Participant bias: psy. students participating for course credits.
What is the cognitive decison model? – Darley & Latané (1968)
This is a model of bystandarism, consisting of 5 steps illustration what is required if a bystanderd should decide to help.
- The bystanderd must notice the situation (might not happen if they are in a hurry)
- Must interpret the situation as an emergency (someone screaming and asking for help might be seen as a dramatic family fight)
- Must take some personal responsibility, though other people are present
- Must decide/consider how they can help
- Must implement the way to help
At each of these stages, the bystander can make a choice to help or not.
