Mandee Caulfield
Shelby Smith
Jeffery Taboada
Evaluate research investigating altruism
Altruism is when someone helps another person with no reward, even if there is a cost for them.
Biological:
Kin Selection Theory: the closer/ more related the greater the chance of altruistic behavior. This theory predicts that
altruism depends on the number of genes shared by individuals, in other words the more related you are the more likely
you are to help that person.
Selfish Gene Theory (Dawkins, 1976): This theory argued that there is an innate drive for the survival and passing on of
one’s own genes.
Reciprocal Altruism Theory (Trivers, 1971): “You scratch my back, and ill scratch yours”
Axelrod & Hamilton (1981) tested this theory, using the prisoner’s dilemma. Prisoners interacted in pairs for this
experiment. Individuals A and B can choose to cooperate or to defect, if both cooperate both gain some kind of a reward
if both defect there is no payoff for either of them. If the players only play against each other once, the best strategy is
to defect so that there is a chance that one’s own gain is maximized. Viewed in evolutionary terms there is no chance
that cooperative behavior can evolve so natural selection will favor the defectors and the cooperators will eventually be
eliminated from the population.
Psychological:
Negative State Relief Model (Schaller & Cialdini, 1988): This model argues that the egoistic motives lead us to help
others in bad circumstances in order to reduce the distress we experience from watching the bad situation. It also
explains why people walk away and avoid the situation as another means to reduce the distress.
Empathy Altruism Model (Batson et al. 1981): Suggests that people can experience two types of emotions when they see
someone suffering. The two types are personal distress (anxiety/fear) which is egoistic helping, and empathetic concern
(sympathy/compassion/tenderness) which leads to altruistic behavior. If you feel empathy to another person, you will
help him or her regardless of what you may gain from it. Relieving the person suffering becomes the most important
thing. When you do not feel empathy you consider the costs and benefits of helping in making your decision.
Batson Experiment: Students were asked to listen to tapes of an interview with a student named Carol; she
talked about how she was in a car accident and the struggles that it brought. Students were each given a letter asking
them to meet with Carol and share class notes with her to help her with school. Experimenters varied the level of
empathy by telling one group to try to focus on how Carol was feeling (high empathy level) while they told the other
group that they did not need to be concerned with her feelings (low empathy level). The experimenters also varied the
cost of not helping, the high cost group was told that Carol would be in their psychology class when they returned to
school and the low cost group was told that Carol would finish the class at home. The results confirmed the empathy
altruism hypothesis; those in the high empathy group were almost equally likely to help Carol in either set of
circumstances which the low empathy group helped out of self interest.
Evaluation: constantly replicated and the theory is consistent, but short term altruism and the interpretation of
the results has not taken personality factors into account.
Distinguish between altruism and pro-social behavior.
Prosocial behavior: any behavior that is intended to benefit others or has positive social consequences.
Egoistic motivation: performance of prosocial action in order to feel good about oneself.
Altruism: performance of prosocial action without expectation of benefit for oneself.
Altruistic motivation: a concern for the welfare of others despite the possible costs of acting, not personal motivation. (Patrick
Morgan)
Altruism is an example of Pro-Social Behavior that deals with helping others at your own expense. Those that display altruistic
behavior value the benefits of others more than the benefits of themselves.
Prosocial and altruistic behaviors are both behaviors that serve for the good of others and society. However, research has shown
that there are important differences between the two types of behaviors.
Batson and Coke (1981)
Altruism is a subcategory of prosocial behavior and it refers to behavior that benefits others rather than oneself.
Hogg and Vaughan (1998)
Prosocial Behavior refers to acts with the intent of benefiting others. Aggressive and violent behavior is frowned upon in
society and is considered “antisocial behavior.”
An altruistic act has no benefits for the person who has performed the act and may come at some cost to the person,
whereas prosocial behavior can have some rewards for the person. Is there ever genuine altruism? Or are people always
looking to be compensated for an act of kindness?
Sam Hinson
Tony Ho
Jay Patel
Scottie Stroup
Brad Wolfe
Eli Haraldsson
Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.
Chris Pirrung, Amanda Pinto, EWLTAWN LEWWAAONG (& Mrs. Cook added the important charts)
Introduction
Altruism: when one person helps another with no reward and even at some cost to oneself.
Psychologists argue that there are two types of altruism: biological altruism, with roots in evolutionary psychology, and psychological
altruism, which is based more on cognitive psychology.
Kin Selection Theory (Biological Level of Analysis)
Based off evolutionary theory
Kin Selection Theory is the theory that animals favor kin over others.
W.D. Hamilton (1963) published a THREE-PAGE paper on the relationship between the development of altruistic behavior
and the morphology of the animal. He further went on to say that animals favor those who are related to them by blood, but could not
explain why animals would help others that weren’t direct descendants.
Dawkins (1976) wrote a book called The Selfish Gene which provided support for an innate drive to survive and propagate
one own’s genes.
Reciprocal-Altruism Theory (Cognitive Level of Analysis)
Based off of cognitive psychology
Trivers (1971) is the original creator of the Reciprocal-Altruism Theory in the book The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism, which
states that altruism is performed often for a return in favor or act.
Batson et al. (1981) conducted a study concerning electric shocks and empathy. Subjects watched a confederate receive
electric shocks and were given the option to help. Most did, supporting that empathetic emotions evoke altruism. There is some
criticism about this as to whether the motive is truly empathetic and Cialdini et al. (1973) used negative state model as alternative
Conclusion
Analyze the importance of each theory in respect to the studies given as support.
Mention that these are from two different explanations of altruism (biological and cognitive) and their roots are also very different.




Strengths of Kin Selection Theory
Empirical studies
Mathematical computer simulations demonstrate that KST
is one of the possible selection processes (along with
reciprocity)
Strengths of Empathy-altruism Theory
Supported by many experimental studies
To some degree, can predict conditions when altruistic
behavior will happen (levels of empathy correlate to
willingness to help)










Kin Selection Theory
Focus is on genes
Altruism is self-sacrifice
Based on egoism
Unanswered question: Explains observations of kin
behaving altruistically but does not explain why it occurs?
Difficult to test evolutionary theories although there is
empirical studies to support kin altruism (organ donation)





Limitations of Kin Selection Theory
Can’t explain non-relative behaviors
Anthropologists believe that shared environment, familiarity,
and social bonding can also contribute to kinship
Limitations of Empathy-altruism Theory
Hard to generalize findings from experiments
Altruism is the result of empathetic motivation or is the
motivation to escape one’s own negative feelings the
cause?
People help for other reasons than empathy
Empathy-altruism Theory
Emotion empathy is the primary factor for altruism
Altruism is a behavior that increases another person’s wellbeing
Does not rule out the possibility of an “altruistic personality”
Unanswered question: Some people may feel empathetic
but choose not to help?
Easy to test under lab conditions but difficult to
operationalize concepts like empathy
Evaluate research investigating bystanderism/ Evaluate factors influencing
bystanderism
Intro
-What is bystanderism
Bystanderism is not helping someone who is clearly in need of help
The research into bystanderism attempts to answer the questions: Will people help? and why or why
not?
Kitty Genovese -In 1964 a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death by a serial rapist and murderer.
The murder took place over a period of about half an hour which the victim was screaming for help. The
press reported that 38 of her neighbors watched from their windows as she attempted to escape from her
murder. Not one of them called the police
Latane and Darley investigated factors of why people don't help in these situations
 Diffusion of responsibility - When several people watch an incident (Such as that of Kitty
Genovese), they seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer
assistance.
Latané and Darley(1968) did a lab experiment in which they told student participants that they were going
to be interviewed about living in a high-pressure urban environment.
- they were told to preserve anonymity and that they would be interviewed over an intercom.
-Some
of the students were told that they were doing to going to be in groups with other members. Some were
told 5, some were told 2, and others were told 1.
- all comments made from the other groups were pre-recorded.
- At some point one of the voices cried for help and had an epileptic seizure.
- only 85% rushed to help. When they thought there was one other person, this dropped to 65%. With 4
people it dropped to 31%.
Significance of this study shows how believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a
person taking responsibility. Also the results could have dropped in percentage since others were not able
to see the screaming victim.
Pluralistic ignorance
 When In a group, people often look to others to know how to react ( informational social influence)
 Just like the Kitty Genovese case, others would not react because of no reaction from the others.
 Latané and Darley ( 1969) tested this theory by asking participants to sit on a waiting room before
participant king in an experiment. Here they heard a female call out for help.
 Participants react more often and quickly alone then with a group.
 Significance: In order for people to help they needs to understand clearly that help is needed.
Social Identity theory states that we are more likely provide help for for those that we perceive to be
similar to us
 Katz (1981) People are more likely to help those in their own ethnic group than others that are not
Graves and Graves (1985) Taking on the role of a caregiver at a young age provides children with the
opportunity to learn how to behave in a prosocial manner. Which increases the likeliness of that person to
provide help to those in need.
Pilivan et al. (1969)
 Observing an emergency situation always creates emotional arousal in bystanders
 Arousal can be increased by several factors including empathy with the victim, proximity to the
emergency, and the length of time that the emergency persists
Johnia Murray
JanTaviaWarts
March 12, 2014
1A IB Psych II
Using one or more research studies, explain cross – cultural differences in pro-social
behavior.


Culture does play a role in pro-social behavior and the likelihood to help in some situations. Structure of family
plays a significant part as well. Several studies explain this well.





Whiting (1979) conducted a study on the levels of nurturing and helping behavior in children ages 3 – 11 in six
different countries. Kenya, Mexico, and the Philippines scored very high and the U.S. scored at the very bottom
of the six countries. He concluded that pro-social behavior correlates with children’s involvement in the
responsibilities of family life. Also, helping is least likely to happen in societies where completing school is held
higher than being assigned to help with farming and household chores. Graves and Graves (1985) conducted an
experiment as well. His conclusions were that taking on the role of caregiver at a very young age provides
children with the opportunity to learn how to behave in a pro-social manner. In 1981, Katz said that people are
more likely to help those in their own ethnic group than others that are not. That is a part of social identity
theory which is the desire to provide help for those that we perceive as being similar to us (members of our in –
group).
In the 1990’s, Levine et al. conducted an experiment that assessed helpfulness towards strangers. This
experiment expanded over 36 cities across the United States and 23 large cities around the world. Independent
field experiments were conducted in each city. It measured the helping behavior in various situations. The study
focused on simple acts of assistance in everyday situations. Some of the situations were picking up a dropped
pen for someone, pick up a dropped magazine for an injured person, help blind man across a busy intersection,
or provide someone with change when asked.
The first studies were carried out in 36 U.S. studies of various sizes and regions. The small and medium sized
cities in the South East were the most helpful. Residents of large northeastern and west coast cities were least
likely to help. The best indicator of helping behavior is population density. In the 23 international cities during
the blind man scenario, citizens of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), San Jose (Costa Rica), Lilongwe (Malawi), Madrid
(Spain), and Prague (Czech Republic) helped the man across the street whereas in Kuala Lumpu (Malaysia) and
Bangkok (Thailand), they offered help less than half the time. Less than one third are likely to see their pen again
in New York City than in Rio. The two highest ranking cities in terms of helping are in Latin America: Rio and San
Jose.
Levine also hound helping rates tend to be high in countries with low economic productivity. Also it’s higher in
cities with a slow pace of life. That was measured by the walking speed. It is also high in cultures that emphasize
value in social harmony. The idea that a city’s “personality” affects individual behavior is known as simpatico
hypothesis – people in communities where social obligations take priority over individual achievements tend to
be less economically productive but show more willingness to help others. This isn’t true in all cases; however,
pedestrians in fast paced first world cities like Copenhagen (Denmark) and Vienna (Austria) were very kind to
strangers whereas their counterparts in slower paced Kuala Lumpu aren’t helpful at all. Helping tends to be less
dependent on the nature of the local people than on characteristics of the local environment. The place that a
person is raised in has less of an impact on helping behavior than the city they currently live in.