1. Altruism By Mr Daniel Hansson

2. Learning outcomes Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behavior Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans

3. Questions for discussion 1.Try out how egoistic/altruistic you are by taking this test: http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idR egTest=692 2.To what extent are people egoistic? 3.What do you think are the reasons for people acting altruistically? 4.In the movie Pay it forward, a boy comes up with an idea that everyone has an obligation to do three good deeds in repayment for every good deed that one receives. Such good deeds should be things that the other person cannot accomplish on their own. This type of helping is expected to spread exponentially through society, creating a social movement. Do you think the idea can work in reality? Why or why not?

4. Important Definitions Prosocial behavior: Every behavior that benefits others or society. E.g. controlling aggression and other antisocial behaviors, emphasizing Altruism (psychological): Prosocial behaviors without expectation of benefit to oneself. Sharing, helping and cooperation are altruistic behaviors. Altruism (evolution): A behavior that reduces the fitness (chance of survival) of the helper but increases the fitness of the victim

5. Oscar Schindler. Saved 1,200 people during World War II

6. Raoul Wallenberg. Saved 100,000 people during World War II

7. Harald Edelstam. Saved 1,300 Chileans during Pinochet’s military coup in 1973 Harald

8. Two theories on altruism Kin altruism hypothesis/Inclusive fitness The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

9. Batson’s (1991) Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis There are two main motivators for helping: 1. Egoistic, cost-benefit analysis 2. Feeling empathy for the victim, non egoistic

11. Supporting research: Toi & Batson (1982) Participants were asked to help a girl named Carol who couldn’t attend lectures. She had lost her legs. She needed help with lecture notes. Participants listened to an audio recording of Carol. Independent variable A: Empathy level Condition 1: Participants were asked to imagine how Carol is feeling (High empathy condition) Condition 2: Participants were asked to be objective and not concerned with how Carol felt (Low empathy condition) Independent variable B: High or low cost conditions Condition 1: High cost. Carol would be in the class. It would be embarrassing to deny her the lecture notes Condition 2: Low cost. Carol would not be in the class. It would not be as embarrassing to deny her the lecture notes.

12. Independent Variables of Toi & Batson (1982) High empathy independent variables Low empathy Independent variables Empathized; Carol would be in the class Did not empathize; Carol would be in the class Empathized; Carol would not be in the class Did not empathize; Carol would not be in the class

13. Findings of Toi & Batson (1982) The high empathy group were equally likely to help in either condition The low empathy group was more likely to help Carol in the high cost condition

14. Classroom activity The class will be divided into two groups One of the groups should now leave the classroom

15. Scenario 1 Your sister has been unexpectedly admitted to the hospital for a relatively serious surgical procedure. Once she is back at home, she is bedridden for a solid week. She states that she understands that you have stuff to do, but would greatly appreciate if you could do two errands for her as well as some minor grocery shopping. She makes it clear that she has lots of other people helping out, and that she has spread the favors around, so she really only needs you to do these specified errands. Unfortunately, you have an extremely busy week and you cannot see that you have got time to help her. What is the likelihood between 1-5 that you will help her? (1=Very unlikely, 5=Very likely)

16. Scenario 1 Your distant cousin has been unexpectedly admitted to the hospital for a relatively serious surgical procedure. Once she is back at home, she is bedridden for a solid week. She states that she understands that you have stuff to do, but would greatly appreciate if you could do two errands for her as well as some minor grocery shopping. She makes it clear that she has lots of other people helping out, and that she has spread the favors around, so she really only needs you to do these specified errands. Unfortunately, you have an extremely busy week and you cannot see that you have got time to help her. What is the likelihood between 1-5 that you will help her? (1=Very unlikely, 5=Very likely)

17. Scenario 2 You are on a canoe trip with your son and his friend in Kanchanaburi. Unfortunately the canoe capsizes in a streamy river. You manage to grab hold of a rock. During a split second you have a chance to save either your son or his friend before they disappear under the water. You can only try to save one. Who will you go after?

18. Kin selection hypothesis/inclusive fitness Hamilton (1964) Some behaviors have evolved to increase the fitness of an organism’s close relatives We are more likely to help close relatives than distant relatives because we have the same copies of the same allele An individual can sacrifice himself if the total copies of the allele is increased (I would sacrifice myself for 2 brothers or 8 half-cousins)

19. Supporting research Animal studies: Vampire bats are more likely to share blood with close relatives. (Wilkinson) Squirrels are more likely to warn relatives than non relatives for predators (Sherman) Human studies: In helping scenarios, humans are more likely to help close kin in emergency situations (Burnstein, Crandall and Kitayama, 1997)

20. Contrasting the theories Explanation: Kin selection biological focus, more reductionist (only focus on one factor). Empathy-Altruism model focus on cognitive and situational factors (thinking – feeling empathy, cost benefit) Focus on two factors (interactionistic) Generalizability: Kin selection theory based on animal research has more supporting research but difficult to generalize to humans (although there is research on humans). However, kin selection theory has been tested across cultures with similar results (e.g Madsen et al. 2007) Empathy-altruism focuses on humans but has less supporting research. Toi and Batson (1982) was conducted on female American psychology students Applicability: Kin selection theory fails to explain altruism when helping non related strangers. Empathy-altruism can explain altruism when helping non-related strangers Egoism-altruism: Kin selection hypothesis - more “egoistic” helping. Empathy-Altruism hypothesis – Helping can be less “selfish” under some circumstances.

21. Conclusion The hypotheses may complement each other More research may be needed (e.g. to test the generalizability of the Empathy- Altruism-Hypothesis) The theories may contribute to our understanding of helping behavior and can have applications in areas such as economics