Chapter 14 PSYC 201: Introduction to Social Psychology

PSYC 201: Introduction to Social Psychology

Altruism and Cooperation

Altruism and the Motivation to Help

  • Possible Reasons for Helping:

    • Social Perception: People may feel that helping will lead to positive evaluations from others.

    • Emotional Relief: Helping can reduce negative feelings within oneself.

    • Empathy: Genuine concern for another's well-being can motivate helping behavior.

    • Non-helping: There are instances where an individual might choose not to help.

Prosocial Behavior

  • Definition:

    • Prosocial Behavior: Any action that helps another person, regardless of the underlying motives.

  • Motives:

    • Can be selfish (self-serving) or altruistic (selfless).

    • Altruism: Defined as unselfish, selfless behavior that benefits others without regard to personal consequences.

  • Inhibiting Factors:

    • Self-preservation: Fear of jeopardizing oneself.

    • Social embarrassment: Concerns about how one is perceived by others.

    • Personal distress: Emotional discomfort experienced when witnessing others suffer.

    • Selfish social rewards: The rewards that one might gain from social recognition.

    • Altruistic empathetic concern: Genuine empathy for those in distress can motivate prosocial actions.

Selfish Motives for Prosocial Behavior

  • Social Rewards:

    • Social rewards include praise, honors, and gratitude, which can lead individuals to engage in prosocial acts.

    • Positive attention activates reward circuits in the brain (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005).

  • Personal Distress:

    • Witnessing others suffer invokes an emotional reaction, leading some to act prosocially to alleviate their own distress.

    • Empirical Evidence: Newborns show a tendency to cry more in response to other newborns than to recordings of themselves (Martin & Clark, 1982).

Altruistic Motives: Empathic Concern

  • Definition:

    • Empathic Concern: The ability to identify with another person, understanding their suffering, and a genuine desire to help.

    • This motivation is not rooted in self-benefit but is focused on helping others.

    • Neuroscience Evidence: The same brain circuits activated during personal pain are also activated when witnessing others in pain (Singer et al., 2004).

Distinguishing Between Motives

  • Complexity of Motives:

    • The relationship between the desire to help others and personal benefits (e.g., feeling good) is intricate.

    • Motivation often requires introspection regarding true intentions:

    • Are intentions based on personal rewards or genuine concern?

Research on Empathy vs. Distress

  • Batson et al. (1983): Experiment where participants observed a student receiving electric shocks.

    • Participants indicated their levels of personal distress and empathic feelings.

    • Likelihood of participants taking the student’s place to receive shocks was measured:

    • Findings:

      • Higher reported distress was associated with lower likelihood of taking the shocks.

      • Higher reported empathy correlated with a greater likelihood to help.

  • Limitations: Reliance on self-reported empathic concern could bias results, and presence of the experimenter might invoke social rewards.

Anonymous Altruism Experiment

  • Fultz et al. (1986): Study where participants received confessions of loneliness from a confederate.

    • Experimental Conditions:

    • Participants either focused on the facts (low empathy) or imagined the communicator’s feelings (high empathy).

    • Notes were either sealed or open, testing levels of social evaluation.

  • Outcome:

    • Those motivated by empathy were more likely to spend time with the distressed individual regardless of social rewards.

Examples of Prosocial Behavior

  • Sebastian and Anders: Anders lets Sebastian copy his notes, exemplifying social reward and personal distress reduction.

  • Michelle: Takes on a demanding team project, illustrating empathic concern.

  • Nick: Assists a fellow student on crutches, representing both prosocial behavior and social reward motives.

Evolutionary and Developmental Evidence

  • Evolutionary Role of Altruism:

    • Altruism seen in nature; primate species demonstrate care for their injured or disabled peers (de Waal, 1996).

    • Research indicates that even children as young as 18 months show altruistic behaviors toward adults (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006).

Situational Determinants & Construal Processes

Situational Factors Influencing Altruism

  • Key Situational Determinants:

    • Being busy

    • Presence of others

    • Ambiguous situations

    • Victim characteristics

1. Being Busy

  • Study by Darley & Batson (1973):

    • Demonstrated that participants who were busy were less likely to assist someone in need.

2. Presence of Others

  • Concepts:

    • Bystander Intervention: Individuals observing an emergency situation are less likely to intervene when others are present (Latane & Nida, 1981).

    • Bystander Effect: Reduction in likelihood of helping behavior when in a group.

    • Reasons:

    • Diffusion of Responsibility: Individuals feel less personal responsibility when others are present.

    • Pluralistic Ignorance: If others remain calm during an emergency, individuals may misinterpret the situation as non-threatening.

3. Diffusion of Responsibility

  • Study by Darley & Latane (1968):

    • Participants were placed in groups of varying sizes and witnessed a confederate feigning a seizure while communicating through intercom.

    • Results:

      • One person: 85% helped.

      • Two people: 62% helped.

      • Five people: 31% helped.

    • Conclusion: As the number of witnesses increased, the likelihood of any one person helping diminished.

4. Pluralistic Ignorance

  • Experiment by Latane & Darley (1968):

    • Participants filled out questionnaires, either alone, with real participants, or with confederates who remained calm when smoke began filling the room.

    • Results:

      • Alone: 75% reported the smoke.

      • Real participants: 38% reported smoke.

      • Calm confederates: 10% reported smoke.

    • Conclusion: Calm behavior from others can lead to misinterpretation of emergency situations.

5. Ambiguous Situations

  • Impact of Clarity: Bystanders are less likely to help when the situation is ambiguous.

    • Example 1 (Clark & Word, 1972):

    • Victims who scream are helped 75-100% of the time, while silent victims receive help only 25-40% of the time.

    • Example 2 (Piliavin et al., 1976):

    • Participants witnessed a confederate faint; those who saw the faint were more likely to help (89% vs. 13%).

6. Victim Characteristics

  • Similarity: Bystanders are more likely to help victims who share similar traits like race, age, or religion (Dovidio, 1984).

  • Animal Behavior: Some primates sacrifice resources to help those of their species (Preston & de Waal, 2002).

Cultural Influences on Altruism

Community Type

  • Rural vs. Urban Areas:

    • Rural residents exhibit higher empathic concern and a greater likelihood of helping strangers compared to urban counterparts (Steblay, 1987).

  • Contextual Factors:

    • Characteristics of communities influence levels of helping behavior.

    • Mechanisms:

    • Stimulus Overload: Urban life can overwhelm attention.

    • Diversity: People are less likely to help those who are dissimilar.

    • Diffusion of Responsibility: Increased numbers may reduce personal responsibility to act.

Social Class Influences

  • Definition: Social class includes wealth, education, and job prestige.

  • Philanthropic Trends:

    • Wealthy individuals may pledge to donate substantial portions of their wealth (e.g., Buffet pledging 99%).

    • Lower-income individuals contribute a higher percentage of their income to charity (4.2% vs. 2.7%).

    • Reasons for Social Behavioral Differences:

    • Stronger networks among lower-class individuals due to fewer resources.

Religion and Altruism

  • Role of Religion: Most religions emphasize helping behaviors and seek to enhance empathy towards others.

  • Experimental Findings:

    • Priming with religious or kind concepts led to increased willingness to donate to strangers (Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008).

Evolutionary Perspectives on Prosocial Behavior

Kin Selection

  • Definition: Kin selection refers to the evolutionary tendency to favor behaviors that enhance the survival of genetic relatives (Hamilton, 1964).

  • Behavioral Manifestations:

    • People are predisposed to help close relatives more than distant relatives or non-relatives.

    • Evidence in Animals:

    • Mockingbirds preferentially feed kin nestlings (Curry, 1998).

    • Ground squirrels raise alarms to protect relatives (Sherman, 1985).

  • Evidence in Humans:

    • Preference for receiving help from close kin and higher rates of kidney donations from family members (Borgida et al., 1992).

Reciprocal Altruism

  • Definition: Reciprocal altruism is the behavior of helping others with the expectation of receiving help in the future (Trivers, 1971).

  • Benefits:

    • Strengthens social bonds and alliances, thus enhancing survival and reproduction.

  • Animal Studies:

    • Vampire bats share food based on previous mutual assistance (Wilkinson, 1990).

  • Evidence in Humans:

    • Cooperation in hunter-gatherer societies (Flannery & Marcus, 2012).

    • The Christmas Card study showed that social gestures led to reciprocal behaviors from strangers (Kunz & Woolcott, 1976).

Cooperation

Importance of Cooperation

  • Societal Framework: Cooperation is crucial for the functioning of society.

  • Decision Making under Uncertainty: Individuals often face dilemmas regarding cooperation with others.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

  • Scenario: Two arrested individuals must decide between cooperation (remaining silent) or betrayal (confessing).

    • Outcomes:

    • Both silent = 1 year each.

    • One confesses = 0 years for the confessor, 20 years for the other.

    • Both confess = 5 years each.

Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma

  • Significance: Longer games highlight the importance of future interactions over immediate gains.

    • Defecting is tempting in the short term but unsustainable in the long run.

  • Real-World Applications: Relevant to various social scenarios, including international relations and resource management.

Situational Determinants of Cooperation

  • Future Interactions: Knowing that they will interact again increases cooperation (Rand & Nowak, 2013).

  • Reputation: Social perceptions significantly influence cooperative behaviors through gossip and collective memory (Feinberg et al., 2012; 2014).

    • Studies demonstrate heightened cooperation based on past behaviors and reputations.

Construal Processes in Cooperation

  • Role of Context: The framing of scenarios influences cooperation levels in various settings (e.g., personal relationships, sports, work).

    • Experiment by Liberman et al. (2002): Name manipulation affected cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma:

    • Labeled as “Community Game” led to more cooperative outcomes.

    • Labeled as “Wall Street Game” resulted in selfish behaviors.

The Ultimatum Game

  • Gameplay Dynamics: One participant decides how to split stakes with another participant, who can accept or reject the offer, affecting both players' outcomes.

  • Cultural Variability: Research across 15 cultures demonstrated substantial deviations from purely rational behavior, showing that most individuals offer a significant portion of stakes.

  • Generosity Correlation: Cultures that necessitate regular cooperation demonstrate increased generosity in offers.

Evolution and Cooperation

  • The Work of Robert Axelrod (1984): A competition for the best strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma highlighted the effectiveness of the “tit-for-tat” strategy:

    • Success Attributes:

    1. Cooperative at first.

    2. Non-envious to not undermine peers.

    3. Non-exploitative approach; retaliation after defecting.

    4. Willingness to forgive past defects.

    5. Easy for others to understand the strategy.

  • Conclusion: Clarity and a cooperative attitude yield positive outcomes in social exchanges.