1) The document discusses whether true altruism exists or if human helping behavior is ultimately motivated by self-interest. It explores different theories on altruism including empathy-altruism theory and socio biological theory. 2) Empirical evidence is presented showing that people with high empathy will help others even at a cost to themselves, supporting the existence of true altruism, while those with low empathy only help to reduce their own distress. 3) Neuroscientific research found increased activity in brain regions associated with perspective taking in highly altruistic individuals, providing a potential biological basis for altruistic motivation.

1. IS ALTRUISM A MYTH?
GERD R. NAYDOCK, MSS, LSW
PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OF
OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE
“Altruism is not … an agreeable ornament to social
life, but it will forever be its fundamental basis. How
can we really dispense with it?” E. Durkheim, 1933

2. WHAT DEFINES ALTRUISM?
 Altruism is a motivational state with
the ultimate goal of increasing
another‟s welfare without regard to
self-interest concerns.

3. OTHER USES OF THE TERM “ALTRUISM”
1. As helping behavior, not motivational state. This
simply equates altruism with helping behavior.
(i.e. evolutionary altruism)
2. As acting morally. Self-interest is often equated
with selfishness, which is in turn often
considered the epitome of immorality.
3. As helping in order to gain internal rather than
external rewards.

4. WHY IS MOTIVATION IMPORTANT?
 Knowing more generally when and where help can
be expected, and how effective it is likely to be.
 The creation of more caring society.
 Think about some examples in your own life why
this is important.

5. ALTRUISM IS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO
EXPLAINING MOTIVATIONS TO HELP
I. Social Exchange Theory
 Relationships are designed to minimize
costs and maximize rewards.
 Internal rewards
 External rewards

6. SOCIOBIOLOGICAL THEORY
 Genes wish to maximize their likelihood of being
passed on.
 We are more likely to help our kin and those who
are more “like us” .
 Reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal systems increase
likelihood of survival. (Especially small systems)

7. EVIDENCE OF ALTRUISM IN NATURE
 Vampire bats will regurgitate blood to feed
unrelated or distantly related members of their
species to prevent starvation. By doing this, the bat
places itself in extreme physical jeopardy since it
cannot survive without blood for more than two
days.

8. ARE HUMANS CAPABLE OF ALTRUISTIC
MOTIVES? BATSON THINKS SO!

9. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN INFANTS AND
TODDLERS
 Infants and children are very capable of responding
empathically and do so quite spontaneously.
Fabes, Eisenberg et al., (1991)

10. EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM
 The empathy-altruism hypothesis posits that
when empathy is triggered, people are motivated to
help out of genuine concern for the welfare of
others regardless of cost or benefits.
 Conversely, egoism is a motivational state which is
centered on the goal of increasing one‟s own
welfare.

11. EMPATHY ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS

12. EMPATHY VS. EGOISM
 Advocates of egoism do not believe that pure
altruism is a motivator for the ultimate goal of
helping others. Rather they cite that humans help
others to:
 1) Minimize their own distress (Aversive-arousal
reduction)
 2) Avoid punishment (social and self)
 3) Seek Rewards

13. DOES THE BYSTANDER EFFECT ALWAYS HOLD
TRUE?
 Suppose you are walking down the street
on an extremely hot day and hear the sound
of a baby‟s crying only to discover a baby
laying in a car with the windows rolled up?
What are your predictions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OdKow7I
Auw&feature=related

14. EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR ALTRUISM
 Batson and Shaw (1991)
 Witness a person (confederate) receiving electric
shock
 Told they could fill in for the person taking shocks if
they like
 Half were allowed to stop watching situation
 Authors manipulated whether experimenter and
target knew of participant choice (WHY?)

15. RESULTS…..
 High empathy participants: helped regardless of
ease of escape (interested in others‟ welfare)
 Low empathy participants: tended to help only if
they had to continue watching (to relieve personal
distress)

16. ENDOCENTRIC VS. EXOCENTRIC ALTRUISM
KARYLOWSKI (1982)
 Altruistic helping can be based on one of the
following motivations:
 A need to live up to one‟s perceived moral
standards or imperatives (endocentric)
OR
 A desire to improve another‟s condition
(exocentric)

17. BATSON ET AL. (1987)
 IV(1) - High and Low Empathy Conditions
 IV(2) - Opportunity to help or not to help
 IV (3) - Half told that, by chance, the person was no
longer going to receive shocks. The other half was
not told this
 DV - Mood

18. RESULTS….
 High empathy participants were happy (and
relieved) to learn that the person was not going to
receive shocks (even if it did not result from their
helping) and sad if they thought the person was
going to receive shocks.
 Low empathy participants were somewhat happy
and fairly indifferent about the person receiving
shocks.

19. ATTRIBUTES OF PERSONS PERFORMING ACTS
OF HEROISM
 Based on 450 acts of heroism conducted during the
period of January 1989 – July 1, 1993 and
recognized by the Carnegie Hero Fund
Commission
Sex of Related Know, not Didn’t know
rescuer related
Male 31 (7.54%) 97 (23.6%) 283 (68.9%)
Female 6 (15.4%) 13 (33.3%) 20 (51.3%)
Johnson, (2002)

20. JOHNSON (2002) CONTINUED
 Seventy-three of the 411 male rescuers and 39
female rescues died in their rescue attempts. (1:5
ratio)
 Males are more likely to be altruistic to strangers
and females to persons with whom they are close.
(Eagly and Crowley,1986)
 Urban Overload Hypothesis (Milgram, 1970)
Altruism more likely in rural versus urban area.

21. SELF-SACRIFICING BEHAVIORS
 How does one account for helping behaviors
directed towards strangers which are life-
threatening and appear to have no personal
benefits?
 Washington, D.C., January 13, 1982

22. JUMPED ON HAND GRENADE AND LIVED TO
TELL ABOUT IT
 Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher
British Royal Marines
Awarded the George Cross, 2008

23. A NEUROSCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR ALTRUISM?
TANKERSLEY, STOWE & HUETTEL (2007)
 The right posterior superior temporal cortex

24. NEUROSCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR ALTRUISM?
 Hypothesis: If the perception of agency (i.e.
empathy and perspective taking) is a precursor to
altruism, then activity in the pSTC should predict
subject‟s propensity for altruistic behavior.
 N = 45
 IV – Subjects simply watched computer play
reaction time game. (Watching condition)
 IV – Subjects played game to win money for
themselves or selected charity
 IV – “high” altruism vs. “low altruism subjects

25. RESULTS: NO ACTIVATION IN BRAIN REWARD
CENTERS
 Significant relationship between altruism and right pSTC
activation.
 Increased pSTC activation on “watching” trials with
“high” altruistic subjects.
 Decreased pSTC activation on “playing” trials with
“high” altruistic subjects.
 (R= 0.57, P=<0.01)
 Atruistic behavior may originate from how people view
the world rather than how they act in it.

26. WHAT WOULD THE WORLD BE LIKE WITHOUT
EMPATHY?
 Consider what it would feel like to live in a
world where all people were motivated only by
self-interest.
 What would that look like?

27. SOCIOPATHY
 “lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what
they want and do as they please, violating social
norms and expectations without guilt or remorse.”
Hare, (1995)
 Sociopathic individuals do not possess the skills
necessary to construct a concept of reciprocity in
human relationships which is fundamental for the
maintenance of social harmony.

28. SOCIOPATHY

29. REFERENCES:
Batson, C.D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly
altruistic? Advanced Experimental Social Psychology,
20, 65-122.
Batson, C.D., Dyck, J.L., Brandt, J.R., Batson, J.G., Powell, A.L.,
McMaster, R. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies
testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-
altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 52-77.
Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human
capacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45, 336-
346.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labor in Society. New
York: Macmillan

30. REFERENCES:
Eagly, A.H., & Crowley, M. (1986) Gender and helping behavior:
A meta-analysis review of the social psychological
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283-308
Fabes, R., Eisenberg, N., Nyman, M., & Michelieu, Q. (1991).
Children's appraisals of others„ spontaneous emotional
reactions. Developmental Psychology, 27, 858-866.
Harding, T. (2008, July 23) George Cross Marine would jump on
hand grenade again. The Telegraph.
Hare, R. D. (1995) Psychopaths: New trends in research.
Harvard Mental Health Letter, 12(3), 4-5
Johnson, R. C. (2002). Attributes of persons performing acts of
heroism and of the recipients of these acts. IPT
Journal,12, 2002

31. REFERENCES:
Karylowski, J. (1982) Two types of altruistic
behavior: Doing good to feel good or to
make the other feel good. In V. J.
Deriega, & J. Grzelak (Eds.). Cooperation
and helping behavior: Theories and
research (pp 397-413). New York:
Academic Press.
Milgram, S. (1970) The experience of living in
cities. Science,167, 1461-1468.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1990) Food Sharing in Vampire
Bats. Scientific American, February 1990,
76- 82