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)