LECTURE 12: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BEING NICE (PROSOCIAL) - Pure economic analyses – built around assumption that people

- Pure economic analyses – built around assumption that people are self-interested – would
predict that people would mostly give $0. But on average, dictators give about 28% of
ALT RUIS M their pie
A voluntary helpfulness that is motivated by concern about the welfare of other people, rather than
by the possibility of personal reward

- We are often motivated to behave kindly for self-centred reasons:

o We want to avoid the personal pain of seeing someone suffer, or the guilt of
not helping people in distress
o We want to feel good about thinking how we’ve improved other people’s lives
- But, if people feel empathy for someone else, they often demonstrate altruism even when
these selfish opinions have denied them

The distribution of mean contributions from dictators to recipients --- this is the frequency of means
EVOL UT IONARY APP ROACHE S TO “ BE IN G NICE ”
across 616 studies
On the surface, helping others in a way that is costly to the self seems to be an evolutionary paradox.
- People give away about 1/3
But theorists make the case that altruism makes sense from an evolutionary perspective … that it is a
form of “enlightened self-interest”

- Helping your kin helps fulfil your evolutionary mission of furthering your DNA
- Protecting your ingroup helps your survival chances
- Humans are bound by norms of reciprocity … so we help others on the understanding that
we will receive help in return
- Helping others may be a signal that you have psychological and material resources, which
increases your partner potential

But still …

- Humans are capable of extreme acts of altruism that defy traditional cost-benefit Based on individual data …
analyses:
o Risking your life to save the lives of strangers – during Holocaust, rescued - More than 1/3 people keep everything!
Jewish people from Nazis
o Depression and burnout among healthcare professionals – give until have
negative effect “costly giving”
- Other animals also engage in altruism, although in these cases actions can be fairly easily
explained in terms of kin protection
o Humans are outliers in terms of our capacity to help each other (nicer than
other animals)
- Our capacity to help may be one of human’s big survival advantages as a species
- Ironically, it may even help at the individual level – a big predictor of longevity in old age is
the extent to which people provide others with support
o Healthy  can help others
… and people still give (although less so) even when they’re anonymous
In the “dictator game”, participants are given a sum of money, and told that they can give as much of
the money as they want to a partner
 - With identification, dominance response = give ½ - Crime drops because we become more aware
- Without identification, dominance response gives nothing - Notion of right being extended into certain group  civil rights & women’s right

OUR M OR AL CIRCLES ARE EXPANDIN G …

- In the last 200 years, moral boundaries have extended to places (beyond kin and in-group)
that would have once been considered stranger
- We now presume that moral rights extend to every (innocent) person, and increasingly to
animals as well

THE MORAL E XP AN SIVENESS S CALE

- Participants located 30 entities within one of 4 moral circles:

o Inner circle:
Sharing seems particularly common in non-first world populations  These entities deserve the highest level of moral concern and
standing
- More in Non-Western culture  You have a moral obligation to ensure their welfare and feel a sense
of personal responsibility for their moral treatment”
o To…. Outside the moral boundary
 These entities deserve no moral concern or standing
 Feeling concern or personal responsibility for their moral treatment
is extreme and nonsensical
- Aggregate score calculated: inner circle =3, outer circle = 2, fringes = 1, outside = 0

And look at old people

- Give more when older

- Inner circle = family & friends

- Outer = nation, people that is high status in society, gay people, refugees
- Fringe = animals, forest, etc
- Outside = villains
Scores on this measure uniquely predict ….

- Willingness to donate a kidney to various recipients

- Willingness to donate to various animals and environmental causes
- Willingness to sacrifice one’s life in order to save a range of human and non-human
entities in a hypothetical “psychopathic dictator” scenario …
o How many people in your home is going to die for you to sacrifice yourself?”

- Proportion of income = steady

Giving as a share of disposable income has stayed relatively steady at around 2%

- Women is more helpful than men & Rich people give more
- Political affiliation = give different things

Fund charities:

- Greenpeace = 100%
- RSPA = 63%

INDIVIDUAL DIF FE RE NCES IN G IVIN G

- How amount of giving over time

- People giving more money over time  people are richer
 - Different preferences

- Women > men (equally likely to donate blood) = if get pay  less likely to donate blood
o More likely to give blood when no pay or with charity option

- Number of people helping strangers THE POW ER OF IM AGES

- Countries (Myanmar & Thailand) = culture – monks survive with what people gave
- Visual images are exceptionally powerful in terms of capturing attention to a
humanitarian crisis and getting people to feel empathy
MOTIVATION AL CR OW DING
- It has been argued that “single victim” images are more powerful in this sense that multi-
victim images.
Titmuss (1970)
o The evidence is reasonably consistent that … and charity groups routinely use
single-victim images or single-victim narratives (particularly of children) to
- Argued that it might be counter-productive to offer financial incentives to give, because it
increase donations
takes away from the “warm glow” people feel about giving (“motivational crowding”)
- Subsequent research suggests he might have been right
- Mellstrom and Johannesson (2008) offered participants the opportunity to become blood TOO MUCH EMPATHY?
donors either:
- But some have argued that overstimulating empathy can cause people to withdraw
o With no compensation
(“burnout”)
o In return for money
o In return for money, but participants had the chance to donate the money to a
Eckel et al (2007)
charity
- Primed participants with emotionally moving stimuli about victims of Hurricane Katrina in
New Orleans
- Participants in Minnesota (geographically distant from New Orleans) gave more in this
condition than in a control condition … but participants from Texas (geographically close
and host to 135 000 displaced people) gave less

Others have argued that empathy produces “emotional giving” which privileges heart-warming
stories over more urgent needs

- This has led to an “effective altruism” movement, which argues that people should make
rational cost-benefit decisions about the causes they should support, and the way in
which they support those causes
 o Maximise trained guide dog for blind people - “free” gifts can greatly increase donation

T HE P OWER OF COM MITM ENT FACT OR S AF FE CT IN G AL TRUISM

Sherman (1980)
- Had experimenters ring people randomly and asked them if they were willing to donate 3
hours of their time to collect donations for American Cancer Society
- Half participants had (a few days earlier) been contacted by a different experimenter, who
said they were interested in people’s predictions of their behaviour
o One of the questions they were asked was: “Would you be willing to volunteer
time for Cancer Society?”
- The greatest predictor of whether somebody will be altruistic is the extent to which they
feel compassion
o Families who teach their children to think how their actions will affect others
are more likely to be altruistic later in life
- You are more likely to be altruistic when you’ve seen another person be altruistic
(modelling)
- Altruistic is more likely when people are not in rush

- Control condition = didn’t get the survey <10% - Do speech  and told that you’re late
- Experimental condition who volunteer = > half - Actor pretending need help
- Predicted they’d volunteer = much higher rates! o When got plenty of time  stop and help
- If you say previously  consistent with previous = higher commitment o If in rush  didn’t stop

Once people state a commitment to an act (either to themselves or to others) they feel an internal FORG IVEN ES S
moral pressure to act consistently with that commitment … even if it is costly
Forgiveness is powerfully correlated with both mental and physical well-being – makes you happier
- “pledging” and “contract signing” are increasingly common ways that influence agents and healthier
(including charities) encourage people to live up to the moral standards that they hold
for themselves Forgiveness is hard to define (but we tend to know it when we feel it). There is, however, consensus
about what forgiveness is NOT:
T HE P OWER OF R ECIP ROCATION
- It is not about forgetting
The norm of reciprocation is one of the most powerful psychological contracts we have … and one - It is not about swallowing feelings in order to “make peace”
that is frequently exploited by charities. - It is not a victim’s moral responsibility
- It is not appropriate in every circumstance
o Faith  not necessarily to ask for forgiveness

Mistrust of motives is very high … scores on perceived remorse typically quite low. There’s trust issue
…

- Wild scepticism whether politician truly sorry

- Forgive more in women, but small
- Religion more likely to forgive COLL ECTIVE APOLOGIES
- Agreeable people  forgive more
- Neurotic people  forgive less

What works … What doesn’t …

Grassroots apologies (from the broader Making the apology more emotional
population)
Apologies that acknowledge the suffering of Paying compensation instead of apologising
the victims (compared to self-focused
apologies)
“closed door” apologies between leaders – Using qualified apologies
meet & issue remorse interpersonally
Commemoration Delayed apologies

- Satisfied with relationship  if they did something, more likely to forgive them
- Apology  symbolic of remorse, more likely to forgive