Altruism and Cooperation

April 21st & 26th, 2016

Outline
1. Personal Motives and Altruism
1. Egoistic vs. altruistic motives
2. Empathy hypothesis
2. Situational Factors and Altruism
1. Kitty Genovese and the Bystander
effect
2. Pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of
responsibility
3. Other Factors and Altruism /
Helping
1. Personality
2. Gender
3. Culture / Setting
Outline
4. Evolution and Altruism
1. Kin selection, reciprocal altruism
5. Evolution and Cooperation
1. Social dilemmas
2. Prisoners dilemma
3. Tit-for-tat
 Altruism

Altruism: unselfish behavior that helps

others without regard to consequences
for the self
 Motives for Helping
Social rewards motive: motive to help for the
social benefits (e.g., praise, honors, gratitude) it
will yield egoistic

Personal distress motive: motive to help in

order to reduce own distress egoistic

Empathic concern motive: motive to help

because one identifies with a sufferer, feels
compassion, and longs to reduce the suffering
altruistic
 Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

Empathy-altruism hypothesis empathy

(feeling another persons distress) motivates
true altruism (helping without consideration of
personal gain)
 Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade (1987)
Helping can be motivated by either altruistic or
egoistic (self-serving) motivations it depends on the
level of empathy felt for the victim/sufferer

Emotion Motivation Behavior

Personal Helping if it
distress Egoistic benefits you
Victims
distress
Helping
Empathic whether it
Altruistic
concern benefits you
 Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
How do you know which motive is at play? Give
would-be helpers an opportunity to escape and
observe what they do

Ps watch a confederate (Elaine) receive painful electric

shocks, and have an opportunity to switch places with
her

Ps believe they either share many attitudes with Elaine

(high empathy) or few attitudes with Elaine (low
empathy)
Ps then learn they can leave (escape) or have to stay
and watch (no escape)
 Batson, et al. (1981)
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
DV = Decision to switch places with Elaine
 Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
How do you know which motive is at play?
Manipulate both the amount of empathy people
feel and the public-ness of their helping

Ps learned that another student (Janet) was very lonely

and wanted to spend time with them
Ps were asked to either imagine how Janet felt (high
empathy) or remain objective (low empathy)

Ps think the experimenter can (public) or cannot

(private) see how many hours they volunteer
 Batson, et al.
Empathy-Altruism (1981)
Hypothesis
DV = Decision to switch places with Elaine
 Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
How do you know which motive is at play?
Measure physiological responding

Empathy/compassion HR deceleration ()

Personal distress HR acceleration ()

 Kitty Genovese

March 13, 1964, Queens, NY, 3:20am: Winston

Moseley stabbed and raped Kitty over a period of
35 minutes, ultimately killing her
 Kitty Genovese

An estimated 38 people witnessed or heard

portions of the attack, but did not make effective
efforts to help
 Kitty Genovese

A March 27, 1964, New York Times article

portrayed the witnesses as uncaring, apathetic
city dwellers who just did not want to get
involved
 Bystander Effect
Darley and Latane (1968)

The Kew Gardens bystanders were NOT

apathetic, but were caught in a state of
indecision and conflict, as bystanders to
an emergency often are
 Bystander Effect
Darley and Latane (1968)

Presence of other people actually inhibits

helping in an emergency

Bystander effect: the greater the

number of witnesses to an emergency,
the less likely it is that any one person
will help
Model of Bystander Intervention
Five Barriers to Pass

Step 1: Notice that something is

happening Distraction

Step 2 : Interpret event as anPluralistic

emergencyIgnorance

Step 3 : Take responsibility for providing

Diffusion of
help Responsibility

Lack of
Step 4 : Decide how toCompetence
help

Audience Inhibition
Step 5 : Provide help
 Pluralistic Ignorance
Tendency, in uncertain situations, for each
person to assume (wrongly) that all others
hold the same unanimous belief
(Everyone else is acting like nothing is
wrong)
Smoke-Filled Room Study (1968)
Time to Alone In a Group In a Group
Seek 1 participant 3 participants 1 participant, 2
Help confederates

Within 6 75% 38% 10%

minutes
 Pluralistic Ignorance

Pluralistic ignorance becomes more

likely the more ambiguous a situation is
Kew GardensMiddle of the night, dark,
low visibility, each person saw only part of
the attack, screams were quiet, near a
bar where drunken fights were common
 Pluralistic Ignorance
[W]e must distinguish between the facts of the murder as
finally known and reported in the press, and the events of
the evening as they were experienced by the Kew Gardens
residents....What [the residents] had, instead, were
fragments of an ambiguous, confusing and doubtless
frightening episode....

The incongruity, the sheer improbability of the event

predisposed many to reject the most extreme interpretation:
that a young woman was in fact being murdered outside the
window. How much more probablewas the interpretation
that a drunken party was sounding off, that two lovers were
quarreling or that youths were playing a nasty prank.

Milgram and Hollander

 Diffusion of Responsibility

As number of people increases, each

person's sense of personal obligation
decreases
Epileptic Seizure Study (1968)
Supposed % helping Seconds until
Group Size within 1 min they helped
1 85% 52
2 62% 93
5 31% 166
Another Barrier to Taking Responsibility?
Time pressure /
Other obligations
remember the Good
Samaritan study?
 Altruistic Personality?
Altruistic tendencies are:
stable across time
genetically heritable

More helpful people tend to be higher in:

empathy tendency to take others
perspective and feel compassion when they
suffer
prosocial moral reasoning tendency to
focus on others needs when making moral
decisions
 Gender and Altruism / Helping
Men more likely to help in chivalrous,
heroic situations
91% of the 7000 recipients of Carnegie Hero
Fund Commission medals have been men
Fund awards the Medal to individuals in the
U.S. and Canada who risk their lives to an
extraordinary degree saving or attempting to
save the lives of others
Women more likely to help in long-term
situations involving nurturance, social
support
Girls more likely than boys to do volunteer
work in their communities in all countries
 Culture and Altruism / Helping
Percentage of Indian Hindus and
Americans saying people have an
obligation to help others
Hindus Americans
Level of Paren Frien Strang Paren Frien Strang
Need t d er t d er
Extrem
99 99 100 100 98 96
e
Moderat
98 100 99 95 78 55
e
Minor 96 97 88 61 59 41

(Miller, Bersoff, & Harwood, 1990)

Culture and Altruism / Helping
 Evolution and Altruism

Predat
or! Kin selection altruism
toward genetic relatives is
heritable; human and non-human human
animals are more likely to help a
genetic relative than a non-relative in
an emergency Run!
 Evolution and Altruism
Reciprocal altruism helping others increases
the likelihood of being helped in return (norm of
reciprocity)
 Evolution and Cooperation?

Social dilemma: situation in which the

short-term interests of the individual
compete against the interests of the
group (to which individual belongs)
the most beneficial short-term action for
the individual will have harmful effects for
the group
The Prisoners Dilemma
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The
police have insufficient evidence for a conviction
and, having separated the prisoners, visit each
of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies
(defects) for the prosecution against the other
and the other remains silent (cooperates), the
defector goes free and the cooperator receives
the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent,
both prisoners are sentenced to only six months
in jail. If each defects, both receive a five-year
sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray
the other or to remain silent. How should the
prisoners act?
The Prisoners Dilemma
YOU DONT YOU
CONFESS CONFESS
You get You get
FRIEND
DOESNT 6 months 0 years
Friend Friend
CONFESS Gets 6 months Gets 10 years
You get You get
FRIEND 10 years 5 years
CONFESSES Friend Friend
Gets 0 years Gets 5 years
Generic Version
You
You Defect
Cooperate
You get You get
Other $3 $6
Cooperates Other Other
gets $3 loses $6
You lose You lose

Other Defects $6 $1
Other Other
gets $6 gets $1
Reward for solo defection > Reward for mutual cooperation >
Punishment for mutual defection > Punishment for solo
cooperation
Is Cooperation an Evolved
Strategy?

Is it possible / likely that humans

evolved cooperation?
Can you evolve a behavior that benefits the
group over the individual?
TIT FOR TAT (cooperation based on
reciprocity) is a viable candidate for
an evolved tendency (Axelrod & Dion,
1988)
 Increasing Cooperation

Tit-for-tat strategy

. Start by cooperating
. Then, respond however partner behaves
(cooperatively or competitively)
. Conveys that you are willing to cooperate,
but unwilling to be exploited
Features of Tit-for-Tat

1. Nice: Do not be first to defect

2. Provokeable: Respond to others
defection with defection
3. Forgiving: Even after defection,
cooperate when other cooperates
4. Clear: Easy to understand
Features of Tit-for-Tat
Works best in groups where chance
of future interaction is high
Ostracism of defectors tends to
encourage cooperation
Works even in large groups
(provided individual behaviors can
be detected)
Is Cooperation an Evolved
Strategy?

Once cooperation based

upon reciprocity is
established, no player can do
any better than to cooperate
as well, provided the chance
for future interaction is high
enough
-Axelrod and Dion, 1988, p. 1386