Blog Draft

What is the difference between prosocial behaviour and altruism? Does genuine altruism exist? Discuss in relation to social psychological aspects of evolutionary theory and related research.

Prosocial behaviour is any behaviour that is for the good of others or society as a whole (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The purpose of this behaviour is to build positive relationships in society, by conforming to society’s norms. Baumeister & Bushman (2008) state that norms are the type of behaviours that are expected by society. Prosocial behaviour works on the basis of these norms as well as the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity is the moral obligation to return in kind what another has done (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In fact, according to Buss as cited in Baumeister & Bushman (2008), an individual’s ability to reproduce is dependent on his or her position within the group. The position within a group is usually determined by the amount or the extent of prosocial behaviours performed toward the group. Therefore, prosocial behaviour can be just as beneficial for the helper as it is for another or for the rest of society.
Altruism (add link) or altruistic behaviour is different from prosocial behaviour in the way that it is non-beneficial or disadvantageous to the individual who performs such a behaviour for the benefit of others. The 19th century philosopher Auguste Comte (1875) described two forms of helping behaviours that have been used in many studies since (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Egoistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase his or her welfare by expecting something in return for their help. In contrast to egoistic helping, altruistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase another’s welfare. Therefore, the altruistic helper should expect nothing in return for their help. It has been shown and will be discussed later, that empathy plays an important role in altruistic behaviour. Peterson & Seligman (2004) have defined empathy as the ability to either experience the emotional state of another or to display a pitiful emotion associated with the downfall of another.
The debate that surrounds whether or not genuine or “true” altruism exists will be the basis of the rest of this draft. The following are examples of acts of altruism that were cited in Peterson & Seligman (2004):
- Angela Salawa of Krakow, Poland who looked after WW1 soldiers of all nationalities.
- Oskar Schindler of Nazi Germany who rescued some 1200 Jews during the holocaust.
- Katherine Drexel of Philadelphia who founded a number of mission centres and schools for Native Americans
- Numbers of individuals and organisations (e.g., Red Cross) who fly to terror attacks (e.g., 9/11) and natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) to help others in need.
One example that Peterson & Seligman (2004) did not mention was the heroics of Chiune Sugihara from Japan, who was the Deputy Consul General to Lithuania. Chiune Sughiara saved somewhere between 5,000-10,000 Jews by illegally giving out visas to stranded Jewish refugees who were seeking to escape from Nazi persecution (The Chiune Sugihara Centennial Celebration Committee, 2000). There is no doubt that the costs and risks associated with all of these behaviours far outweighed the benefits if there were any benefits at all.
As mentioned above, empathy plays an important role in altruistic behaviour. Warneken & Tomasello as cited in Baumeister & Bushman (2008) used 18 month-old toddlers in a study where an adult confederate would either drop something or simply throw something down. If the adult dropped the object and made it look like an accident (as shown by a facial expression), the toddlers were more likely to help pick-up the object for the adult, than if the adult simply threw the object on the ground and didn’t seem to care. This is some solid evidence concerning the existence of the role of empathy in altruistic behaviour.
The study just mentioned agrees with the empathy-altruism hypothesis. This hypothesis states that empathy acts as a strong motivator in the performance of altruistic acts, in order to reduce another’s distress (Batson, Batson, Slingsby, Harrell, Peekna, & Todd, 1991). It is the empathy that motivates the toddler to help pick up the object for the adult. In contrast to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, the negative state relief theory states that individuals help others only to relieve their own distress (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, as cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
To test these two theories, Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch (1981) conducted a study where a female confederate received shocks, and participants were given the chance to help by taking the remaining shocks for her. To manipulate the level of empathy that the participants had for the confederate, half of the participants were told that the confederate had similar interests to themselves (high empathy group), while the other half were told that the confederate had different interests (low empathy group). To test for the negative state relief theory, the experimenters manipulated the difficulty of escaping the room where the shocks were taking place. Half of the participants were allowed to leave after witnessing two shocks (easy escape condition), while the other half had to stay and watch the confederate receive 10 shocks. The results agree with the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative state relief theory as the high empathy participants were highly likely to help in both of the escape conditions, whereas the low empathy participant were only likely to give help in the difficult escape condition in order to relieve their own distress. Therefore, the negative state relief theory is illustrated by egoistic helping.
Kin selection (Darwin as cited in Baumeister & Bushman) is the theory that people are more likely to help people who share their own genes than others, in order to enable their genes to be passed down to further generations. Kin selection can be shown in microorganisms as well as humans. Mehdiabadi, Jack, Farnham, Platt, Kella, Shaulsky et al. (2006) have shown that kin discrimination is evident in 12 out 14 cases for the microorganism D. purpureum. Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr (2006) has illustrated the kin selection theory by conducting punishment studies, which allow ‘third party’ observers to punish sharing norms between individuals in the same group or in different groups. Violations of these norms were more likely to be punished if the individuals came from the same group. However, even if no sharing occurred between two individuals of different groups, punishments would still be administered about half of the time. This illustrates the existence of genuine altruism outside of one’s kin.

References

Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290-302.

Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(24), 912-915.

Mehdiabadi, N. J., Jack, C. N., Farnham, T. T., Platt, T. G., Kella, S. E., Shaulsky, G et al. (2006). Kin preference in a social microbe. Nature, 442(24), 881-882.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. NY: Oxford.

The Chiune Sugihara Centennial Celebration Committee. (2000). Visas for life. 1900-2000: Centennial celebration in Japan to Honor Chiune Sugihara. Retrieved 24 October, 2007, from http://www.chiunesugihara100.com/eng/e-top.htm