My Essay

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.

Word Count: 1472
Prosocial and altruistic behaviours are both behaviours that serve for the good of others and society. However, research has shown that there are important differences between the two types of behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between prosocial behaviour and altruism, as well as discussing whether or not genuine altruism exists. Following this discussion, a brief conclusion will be made in relation to whether the research agrees or disagrees with the concept of altruism.

Prosocial behaviour is any behaviour that serves 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. This can be done by conforming to society’s norms. Baumeister & Bushman (2008) state that norms are types of behaviours that are expected by society. Wiessner (2005) studied 308 phone conversations between Ju/’hoansi Bushmen. He found that their group grew stronger by punishing people who violated group norms. Therefore, norms can be strengthened by either punishment or reward. Reciprocity is the moral obligation to return in kind what another has done (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008), and is a strong motivation to behave prosocially. 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 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 studied in depth (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Egoistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase his or her welfare. The helper expects 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.

The rest of this paper will discuss whether altruism truly exists, or if all helping is simply egoistic. 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. Chiune Sugihara was the Deputy Consul General to Lithuania. Chiune Sughiara saved 5,000-10,000 Jews. He did this 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 his behaviours far outweighed the benefits, that is, if there were any benefits at all.

Empathy is the ability to either experience the emotional state of another or to display a pitiful emotion associated with the downfall of another (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Empathic concern is a strong predictor of altruistic behaviour (Unger & Thumuluri, 1997). It also explains a significant variance of these behaviours (McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Bierhoff, Klein, & Kramp (1991) postulated the presence of empathy in individuals who help in emergencies. 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. If the adult simply threw the object on the ground and didn’t seem to care then toddlers were more likely not to care. There is certainly some solid evidence concerning the existence of the role of empathy in altruistic behaviour.

The empathy-altruism 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). 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. Participants were given the chance to help by taking the remaining shocks for her. The experimenter manipulated 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). The experimenters also manipulated the difficulty of escaping the room where the shocks took 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. The high empathy participants were highly likely to help in both of the escape conditions. The low empathy participants 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. Bierhoff & Rohmann (2004) performed a similar study where 56 female participants had the opportunity to help an individual in distress. These results also agreed with the empathy-altruism hypothesis. People with high empathy were more likely to help in the easy-escape condition, and people with low empathy (or had an egoistic motivation) were more likely to help in the difficult escape condition.

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 they are to help others, so that their genes can be passed down to further generations. Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr (2006) ran a third-party punishment study that involved a dictator (person A), a recipient (person B) and a third-party (person C). Person A was given some money and could choose whether or not he wished to give some money to person B. Person C could then choose whether or not he would punish person A for not giving an equal share of money to person B (but it would cost person C an amount of money to do this, hence altruistic punishment). This study was conducted using two tribes of people from PNG.

The findings illustrated that when all three people were from the same group there was (on average) more altruistic punishment, and hence more sharing than there was, when a trial of three people were made up of the two opposing groups. This study illustrates kin selection in the performance of altruistic behaviour (sharing and punishment). What was interesting was that the lowest rates of punishment given by the third party where not everyone was in the same group were still above 50%. This illustrates that altruism does indeed exist outside one’s kin selection. This goes against Rabbie, Schot & Visser (1989) who stated that favouritism (or sharing) relies on reciprocation (which is unlikely to be the case if people are doing good deeds for out-group members).

By now, we know that genuine altruism exists especially in situations of kin selection and when empathy is involved. But are there other situations where genuine altruism can exist? Spector & Klein (2006) posit that altruistic individuals in stable environments will naturally find themselves in proximity to other altruistic individuals. These individuals may be kin or may be similar in relatedness to one another. Hamilton’s rule (as cited in Spector & Klein, 2006) states that altruism can only evolve in an environment where the cost of an act, is less than the benefit multiplied by the relatedness (less than or equal to 1) with the other person. Therefore, costs and benefits have a significant role in whether or not altruistic behaviours are performed. Ohtsuki, Hauert, Lieberman, & Nowak (2006) believe that the fewer individuals in a group, the greater the amount of cooperation (which will lead to altruism). Ohtsuki et al. (2006), postulate that the benefit to cost ratio must be higher than the amount of connections in any particular group.

To summarise, the main difference between prosocial behaviour and altruism is that prosocial behaviour is beneficial to the self, whereas altruism is not beneficial to the self. There is strong evidence that altruism does exist. The heroic acts of Oskar Schindler, Chiune Sugihara and others show that altruism is real. There are some conditions that make the evolution of altruism possible. These are feelings of empathy, kin selection and relatedness, and the costs and benefits of helping someone. It has also been posited that individuals in smaller groups or communities are more likely to show acts of altruism toward one another. One limitation of this discussion is that only the helper truly knows whether the intentions behind the behaviour were altruistic.

References

Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 413-426.

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.

Bierhoff, H. W., Klein, R., & Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 263-280.

Bierhoff, H. W. & Rohmann, E. (2004). Altruistic personality in the context of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 18, 351-365.

McNeely, B. L. & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organisational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 836-844.

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.

Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(25), 502-505.

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

Rabbie, J. M., Schot, J. C., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 171-202.

Spector, L. & Klein, J. (2006). Genetic stability and territorial structure facilitate the evolution of tag-mediated altruism. Artificial Life, 12, 553-560.

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

Unger, L. S. & Thumuluri, L. K. (1997). Trait empathy and continuous helping: The case of voluntarism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 785-800.

Wiessner, P. (2005). Norm enforcement among the Ju/’hoansi bushman: A case of strong reciprocity? Human Nature, 16(2), 115-145.

Self Assessment

Theory:
I have been reading about prosocial behaviour and altruism for the past three weeks and I think I have covered it in a fairly broad sense. I know that there is more that I could have covered (e.g., voluntarism) but the word limit that was given meant that I had to prioritise and I thought that I did this to the best of my ability. I tried my best to incorporate theories such as the empathy-altruism hypothesis into my research as best as I could.

Research:
Some of the research I used was very recent and it was fairly easy to incorporate this into the theoretical background of my blog. I tried to use examples from my research that are fairly realistic and replicable. A weakness of some of my research that I found was that the sample sizes were not optimal and some measures were self report measures. I read more papers than the ones in my reference list but I didn't cite these, hence they are not in the reference list.

Written Expression:
The reliablity analysis of my draft showed a reading level of 14.5. I re-wrote my essay and edited it and came up with a readability level of 13.8. I went through one more time and got it down to 13 exactly. I thought this is as low a I could have gone. I used APA style to the best of my ability at this moment. I'm not going to say that there will be no mistakes, but each time I have written an essay, my APA style has gradually improved as I have picked up on new things each time I have received my feedback. I have also tried to explain what I have wrote about in my blog before doing so. I have also made an attempt to use my paragraph to my advantage by making an effort to not make them too long, but also at the same time segregate different ideas to different paragraphs.

Online Engagement:
Although I admit that I am not the most technical person, nor that I am really motivated to blog to people on over a computer when I can talk to them face to face or on the phone, I think I have made a conceited effort to improve on my original effort. I have made insightful comments on other people's blogs as well as posting polls, and publishing blogs of my own. I also went to the effort of posting a draft so that people could see my progress. If there was another blog, I am sure that I would be able to improve substantially as I had only just found out how to to some things that I didn't know how to do before.