190 likes | 312 Views
“Biological” explanations for Altruism. Ms. Carmelitano. Bell Ringer. Define Altruism: When one person helps another for no reward, and even at some cost to themselves. Types of Altruism. Biological Humans may be “hard-wired” for self-preservation Based on evolutionary psychology
E N D
“Biological” explanations for Altruism Ms. Carmelitano
Bell Ringer • Define Altruism: • When one person helps another for no reward, and even at some cost to themselves
Types of Altruism • Biological • Humans may be “hard-wired” for self-preservation • Based on evolutionary psychology • Psychological • Human beings help others to avoid “hurting” themselves • Based on cognitive psychology
Today we will discuss… • Biological Altruism
Evolutionary Psychology • Recap: • What is evolutionary psychology? • Darwin: believed that species have evolved over time in response to the changing environment • Evolution: A trait that is favorable for survival will be passed down to the later generation • Animals not born with this trait will die out before reproducing
Evolutionary Altruism • In order for a species to “survive” what is necessary? • Evolutionary Altruism argues that people act altruistically in order to preserve the genes of a species • This is advantageous to the entire group rather than to the individual
Kin Selection Theory • The degree of altruism is directly related to the number of genes shared by individuals • The closer the relationship between the helper and those being helped, the greater the chance for the altruistic behavior • Animal Study Evidence: • Elephants helping a baby out of a mud-pit
Dawkins (1976) • “Selfish Gene Theory” • Humans have an innate drive for the survival and proliferation of their own genes • Since animals living in social groups typically share genes, altruistic behavior is seen as a way to guarantee one’s own genes will be passed on to future generations • Conclusions drawn from naturalistic observation
Madsen et al (2007) • Gathered college students from the United Kingdom and two South Africa Zulu villages. • 1. Before the study participants were asked to give a list of biological relatives who did not live with them • 2. Participants were then asked to do “painful” exercises • IE: Standing against a wall in a seated position • 3. Participants were told that one relative would be chosen at random and: • British - The longer they could remain seated against the wall, the more money the family member would be given • 40 pounds/ 20 seconds • South African – The longer they could remain seated against the wall, the more food the family member would be given
Findings • UK participants spent more time against the wall as the relative became closer in relation • South African Participants, also stayed against the wall longer when the relative was genetically close • However: There was less delineation between parents, siblings, cousins, or uncles/aunts • Most likely due to the differences in collective vs individual cultures.
Sime (1983) • Analyzed accounts of how people fled from a burring building • Found that when individuals were with unrelated group members, they were more likely to became separated • When they were related, they were more likely to stay together, even if that meant slowing down • Why? • Simpson and Kendrick – in-group bias • Attitudes, opinions, and behaviors accompany an instinctive desire to help those who share the same genes
Burnstein et al (1994) • Asked participants to report how likely they were to help people of varying degrees of relatedness in situations ranging from rescuing them from a burning house to basic favors like picking up a dropped book. • Example: grandmother, first cousin, unrelated acquaintance • Findings: The participants were more likely to help closer relatives, and this effect became more extreme as the possible cost to the participant increased.
Reciprocal Altruism Theory • Trivers (1971) • Attempts to explain altruism between people who are not related • It may benefit an animal to behave altruistically if there is an expectation that the favor will be returned in the future • “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” • Mutual cooperation where both will increase their chances of survival
Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) • “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” • Tested reciprocal altruism on humans • http://sometimesjustisenough.wordpress.com/tag/axelrod-and-hamilton/
The Prisoner’s Dilemma • Two suspects worked together to commit a crime • They are interviewed in different rooms • Two options • Stay quiet • Rat one another out
Results of options • Both stay quiet – both get 1 year in jail • Both confess – both get 20 years in jail • 1 Confesses: Confessor will get Parole, the other gets Life
Findings • When 1 prisoner thinks the other is staying quiet, they also will stay quiet • Reciprocal altruism! • However, when it is not in their best interest, and they think the other is about to “roll” on them, they will give their friend up • Conclusion: • Reciprocal altruism only occurs when it is in the best interest of the person committing the deed.