Altruism 8 June 2004 Evolutionary Perspective • Inclusive Fitness/Kin Selection – Carnegie Foundation – Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama (1994) • Does our implicit understanding of helping match the evolutionary psychology model of altruism? Helping and Altruism Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994 Life or death situations 4 Tendency to help • Helping others is a direct function of recipients’ ability to enhance the inclusive fitness of the helpers • Study: Imagine individuals asleep in different rooms of a rapidly burning building – You only have time to rescue one of them • Ss circle the target they’re most likely to help • Ss cross out the target they’re least likely to help Everyday situations 3 2 1 0 0.5 0.25 0.125 Kinship 0 More Burnstein et al., 1994: Tendency to help by Age of Target 3.0 Everyday situations Life or death situations 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 > 1 yr. 10 yrs. 18 yrs. Age of Target 45 yrs. 75 yrs. Even More Burnstein et al., 1994: Tendency to help under famine conditions. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 > 1 yr. 10 yrs. 18 yrs. Age of Target 45 yrs. 75 yrs. More Evolution • Reciprocal Altruism – Evolutionarily stable strategies, or why “pure” altruism can’t exist • Helping in big cities vs. small towns Social Exchange Theory • Cost-benefit or economic theory of helping: 50 – help only if it will get you more than you give • Allen NY subway experiment – 3 Conditions – DV: % subjects correcting Scary Muscle Guy 25 Control Insult Threat Empathy Altruism Theory Batson • “Pure altruism” exists • Occurs when people help because they empathize with the sufferer • If no empathy, then helping = social exchange (not altruistic) Negative State Relief Model • No such thing as pure altruism • We help others to make ourselves feel better – If we can make ourselves feel better in a way that’s easier than helping, we won’t help • Evidence? Negative State Relief, cont’d • Kids must learn that helping makes them feel good – Perry (1986) – Cialdini & Kenrick (1976) More Negative State Relief Schaller & Cialdini, 1989 – Post-tape expectation: news vs comedy vs “easy help” • One DV hours • One IV – How many hours are subjects willing to donate to Katie? • Results? News Comedy Easy Help Even More Negative State Relief: Effects of Guilt • McMillen & Austin (1971) – IV1: confed either gives away answers or not • DV: % lying – IV2: expter asks for help or not • DV: minutes helping • Regan (1972) – Field experiment • IV: guilt vs. control • DV: % helping Negative States Don’t Always Lead to Helping • Thompson et al. (1980) – IV: Self- vs. otherfocused grief – DV: % giving anonymous help 100 80 60 40 20 0 self-focused other-focused What about Positive States? • Ibsen et al. (1976) Field study – IV: free stationary vs. control – DV: % willing to help • Why do happy people help? – Prolongs good mood • • • • • Good mood Positive thoughts Positive behaviors Good mood Etc. What Kinds of Situations Increase or Decrease Helping? • Location location location…. • Granet field experiment: – Helping in subway vs. in airport • 2 theories tested: – SES? – Familiarity? Having the Time to Help • Darley & Batson (1973): Seminary students in a hurry… – IV’s: hurry vs. control group; speech topic – DV: helping 70 hurry control 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 jobs good samaritan parable Where We Live • Levine – Helping in 36 cities of different sizes • Results: – Geography – Population vs. population density – SES Who do we help? Gender • Eagly & Crowley (1986) meta-analysis – Short term help by males vs. by females – Why? Similarity Bias • Emswiller (1971) field experiment How to Increase Helping? • Teach moral inclusion • Model altruism – Sarason et al., 1991 – Hearold, 1986 • Attribute helpful behavior to altruistic motives (Batson, 1978; 1979)