Evaluate two theories
explaining altruism
Prisoner’s Dilemma
 Play
a game of ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’
 http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/p
d.html
 Remind
the person next to
you what altruism is.
 How
does altruism fit into Darwin’s
idea of ‘survival of the fittest’?
Course Companion page
259
 “Altruism
is a rather puzzling behaviour. It
does not appear to make much sense that
an individual would risk his or her life for
a stranger.”
Course Companion
Two theories of Altruism
 Psychologists
believe there are two
types of altruism:
Two theories of Altruism
 Psychologists
believe there are two
types of altruism:
 Biological
altruism (with its roots in
evolutionary psychology), and
Two theories of Altruism
 Psychologists
believe there are two
types of altruism:
 Biological
altruism (with its roots in
evolutionary psychology), and
 Psychological
altruism (based more
on cognitive psychology)
Two theories of Altruism
Biological
altruism
Kin selection
theory
Reciprocal
altruism theory
Altruism
Psychological
altruism
Negative state
relief model
Empathyaltruism model
Biological Altruism
 Is
altruism innate or a learned behaviour?
 (Nature
 At
or nurture?)
what age to humans start to help each
other?
Biological Altruism
Kin Selection Theory

Richard Dawkin’s (1976) ‘selfish gene theory’
implies that there is an innate drive for the
survival of one’s genes. In his controversial book
he claimed that it is our genes which compete
for survival and propagation rather than
individuals.
Kin Selection Theory

Richard Dawkin’s (1976) ‘selfish gene theory’
implies that there is an innate drive for the
survival of one’s genes. In his controversial book
he claimed that it is our genes which compete
for survival and propagation rather than
individuals.

Kin selection theory predicts that the extent of
altruism depends on genetic relatedness.
Kin Selection Theory

In a house fire, who would you save first, your brother/sister or your
neighbour?
Kin Selection Theory
 If
our sole purpose in life is to pass on our
genes, why do we live so long?
 That
is, why do humans live way beyond
their reproductive years?
Kin Selection Theory
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory
 Trivers
(1971) suggested this theory in order
to explain why people behave altruistically
to those who are not genetically related.
 With
the person next to you, try to work
out what is meant by Reciprocal Altruism
Theory
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory
definition
It may
benefit an animal to behave altruistically if
there’s an expectation that the favour will be returned at
some point in the future.

Reciprocal Altruism
Theory
 Trivers
suggested that altruism can benefit
the helper, regardless of genetic
relatedness to the recipient.
 If
A helps B, (as long as B remembers),
there is a chance that B will return the
favour to A in the future. This would
benefit both A and B, thus altruism has
survivial benefits.
Reciprocal Altruism: Prisoner’s Dilemma
Axelrod & Hamilton (1981)

Criminals A and B commit a crime together
Reciprocal Altruism:
Prisoner’s Dilemma

Criminals A and B commit a crime together

They are caught by the police and are interviewed separately
Reciprocal Altruism:
Prisoner’s Dilemma

Criminals A and B commit a crime together

They are caught by the police and are interviewed separately

They both know that without the testimony of the other, there is not
enough evidence to imprison them for more than a year
Reciprocal Altruism:
Prisoner’s Dilemma

Criminals A and B commit a crime together

They are caught by the police and are interviewed separately

They both know that without the testimony of the other, there is not
enough evidence to imprison them for more than a year.

However, they also know that if they collaborate with the police and blame
the other one, the other would go to prison for 20 years, but they would go
free.
Reciprocal Altruism:
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory

Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) tested their theory of
reciprocal altruism using a game based on the ‘prisoner’s
dilemma’.
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory

Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) tested their theory of
reciprocal altruism using a game based on the ‘prisoner’s
dilemma’.

If both players cooperate, they both gain, but if they both
defect there is no pay off for either of them.
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory

Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) tested their theory of
reciprocal altruism using a game based on the ‘prisoner’s
dilemma’.

If both players cooperate, they both gain, but if they both
defect there is no pay off for either of them.

If the players only play against each other once, what is the
best strategy?
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory

Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) tested their theory of
reciprocal altruism using a game based on the ‘prisoner’s
dilemma’.

If both players cooperate, they both gain, but if they both
defect there is no pay off for either of them.

If the players only play against each other once, what is the
best strategy?

What if the players had to play against each other many
times?
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory
Axelrod & Hamilton found that a ‘tit for tat’
strategy used in this game demonstrated
cooperative behaviour.
They argue that this kind of cooperation is
evolutionarily adaptive.
Evolutionary explanations
of altruism

Re-read pages 258-261 of the course companion

Read ‘The kin selection hypothesis’ section of Pearson (p255-256)

Also read page 16 of Pro-Social and Anti-Social Behaviour
(Routledge)

Write detailed notes (about 200 words) on:

The evolutionary explanations of altruism, explaining kin selection
theory and reciprocal altruism theory.

(You will be adding to these notes later when we have discussed psychological
explanantions of altruism.)
Psychological explanations
of altruism

Discuss this issue with the person next to you:
 Why
do we give money to beggars? (How
many reasons can you think of ?)
Not Waving But
Drowning
Psychological explanations
of altruism

Where biological explanations of altruism can be seen in
many animals, psychological explanations of altruism are
witnessed only in higher-level mammals.
Psychological explanations
of altruism

Where biological explanations of altruism can be seen in
many animals, psychological explanations of altruism are
witnessed only in higher-level mammals.

While biological explanations of altruism occur almost
automatically, psychological explanations of altruism
arise as a result of cognition. That is, this type of altruism
relies on the ‘helper’ understanding the situation. This
kind of altruism is not innate.
Negative-state relief model

When encountering a homeless person asking for money,
we can either:

Give them some money or

Walk away
Negative-state relief model

Schaller and Cialdini (1988) proposed the negative-state relief model.

Pro-social behaviour results from egoism rather than altruism.

We help others in order to relieve the stress we feel when encountering
a bad situation.

This model also explains why people walk away. Walking away also
alleviates distress.
Negative-state relief model
 This
model does explain some behaviour,
however feelings of distress do not always
lead to helping behaviour.
Negative-state relief model
 This
model does explain some behaviour,
however feelings of distress do not always
lead to helping behaviour.
 Neither
does this model predict how
people will behave – will they help, or
walk away?
Empathy-altruism model

Batson disagrees with the notion that we only help to relieve negative
feelings.

Batson et al (1981) suggests that people experience two kinds of
emotion when they see suffering.
Empathy-altruism model
Personal
distress
(e.g.anxiety,
fear)
Empathic
concern (e.g.
sympathy,
compassion,
tenderness)
Empathy-altruism model

According to Batson, if you feel empathy towards
a person, you will help, regardless of what you
may gain from it.

Relieving suffering becomes the most important
thing.

If a person feels no empathy, then they would
consider the costs and benefits before making the
decision to help.
Empathy-altruism model

The empathy-altruism hypothesis has been
tested empirically many times, in order to
distinguish it from egoist hypotheses (e.g.
Schaller and Cialdini’s ‘negative-state relief ’
model).

It is, however, very difficult to determine from
observed behaviour, whether someone is acting
out of empathy or to relieve distress.
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Students were asked to listen to recording of a student
called Carol, talking about an accident where she broke
both of her legs, the struggles she was having and how she
was having difficulty keeping up with her school work.
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Students asked to listen to recording of a student called
Carol, talking about an accident where she broke both of
her legs, the struggles she was having and how she was
having difficulty keeping up with her school work.
The students were divided into two
groups: low empathy and high
empathy.
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Students asked to listen to recording of a student called
Carol, talking about an accident where she broke both of
her legs, the struggles she was having and how she was
having difficulty keeping up with her school work.
The students were divided into two
groups: low empathy and high
empathy.
The students were then given a letter,
asking them to meet up with Carol
and share their lecture notes with her.
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Some participants were told that Carol would be finishing her studies
from home.

Another group were told that she would be in their class when she
returned to school.
With another student, sketch a quick
table / diagram of the different conditions
that the participants were in
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)
High
empathy
in Carol’s
class
Low
empathy
in Carol’s
class
High
empathy
– Carol’s
at home
Low
empathy
– Carol’s
at home
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)
 Which
group do you think would be more
likely to share their notes with Carol?
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Findings:

Participants from the high empathy group were almost equally likely to
help Carol, whether she would be in their class or not.

Participants from the low empathy group were more likely to help if
they thought Carol would be in their class.

What does this suggest?
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

The results of this experiment confirm the empathyaltruism model.

When participants had listened to the recording of Carol
with empathy, they were (almost) just as likely to want to
help her, whether it was in their best interest (i.e. she would
be in their class) or not.
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Strengths:

Batson et al’s study has been consistently replicated, with the same
results.

Can you think of some more strengths?
Empathy-altruism model:
Batson et al (1981)

Limitationss:

Batson et al’s study only looked at short-term altruism.

Interpretation of the results did not take personality factors into
account.

It is difficult to measure a person’s level of empathy.

Batson’s model does not explain why some people show more empathy
than others.
Theoretical Explanations for Prosocial Behavior:
Explanation:
Empathy-Altruism
Hypothesis
Observe
Emergency
Motivation:
Reason for helping:
Empathy is
aroused
Victim needs help
Feels good to help
Negative- State
Relief Model
Observe
Emergency
Negative Affect is
aroused
To reduce own
negative affect
Genetic
Determinism
Model
Observe
Emergency
Unconscious
desire to help if
victim genetically
similar
To maximize
survival of similar
genes
Body Language Mimicry

How does the mimicking of another
person’s body language or facial expressions
influence helping behaviour?
Empathy-altruism model

Reread pages 261-262 of the Course
Companion, pages 253-254 of Pearson.

Also read pages 32-33 of Pro-social and
Anti-Social Behaviour (Routledge)

Make detailed notes on the Psychological
Explanations of Altruism.