Register to read the introduction…
1981). Batson, Early and Salvarini, (1997, cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005) developed on this idea with their study that showed imagining how another feels produces empathy (leading to altruistic motivation), while actively imagining how you would feel produces both empathy and self-orientated distress (leading to mixture of altruistic and egotistic motivations). For example, if we help a drunk on the street because we understand how they feel, the behaviour is altruistic, but if we also imagine how we might feel, the behaviour is not ‘really’ altruistic. It therefore depends on the perspective of the person offering help, as to whether or not the behaviour is ‘really’ altruistic. The first of the egoistic theories that challenges the altruism notion is Cialdini's negative-state relief model (Cialdini, Baumann, & Kenrick, 1981; Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973, cited in Batson et al., 1989). It suggests that individuals who experience empathy when witnessing another person's suffering are in a negative affective state (one of temporary sadness or sorrow) and that these individuals help in order to relieve this negative state. Cialdini argued that his experiments in 1987 supported this egoistic (negative-state relief model) interpretation over a selfless (empathy-altruism model) interpretation of helping behaviour (cited in Batson, 1989). As a counter to this, Batson et al. (1981) argue that if personal gain (e.g. feelings of personal satisfaction or relief) is an unintended by-product and not the goal of the behaviour, then the behaviour is ‘really’ altruistic. Another egoistic theory is one aspect of the social learning theory; from early childhood we are exposed to helping models and are taught social norms.
…show more content…
Two social norms particularly relevant to the motivation of helping behaviours are reciprocity and social responsibility (Berkowitz, 1972; Miller et al., 1990, cited in Passer & Smith 2001). As an example, a helping behaviour may be motivated by a desire for favourable treatment from another in the future (reciprocity), or they may feel a social obligation to help because they have learnt to help others in distress (social responsibility). As with the negative-state relief model, this theory suggests that helping behaviour is not motivated purely by the desire to benefit others, and as such is not ‘really’ altruistic. Reciprocity as a social norm should not be confused with ‘reciprocal altruism’ theory, which ultimately involves a reciprocal element even though the initial altruistic act was to one’s expense (Trivers, 1971, cited in Ashton, et al. 1997). Last of the egoistic theories covered in this essay, is Piliavin’s bystander-calculus model (Piliavin et al. 1981, cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005). It suggests that a series of calculations are made prior to any act of helping behaviour by a bystander; culminating in an evaluation of the cost of helping versus the cost of not helping. By inference, if there is a cost associated with not helping, no bystander behaviour can be called ‘really’ altruistic in view of this model. This model has a strong flavour of Social Exchange Theory (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005), which argues that we assess costs and benefits before deciding to help. For example, even if you act to help at cost to yourself, your action was a selfish one because you weighed up the cost before acting. It could be argued that both these theories can be applied to any situation if one were to analyse it enough, in effect these theories are self-fulfilling. However, more recently Piliavin & Charng (1990) commented that theory and data now being advanced are more compatible with the view that …show more content…
(1997). Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and the big five personality factors. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 19, 243-255.
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.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 922-933.
Dovidio. J. F., Allen, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). Specificity of empathy-induced helping: evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 249-260.
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2001). Psychology: Frontiers and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2007). Psychology: The Science of mind and behaviour. New York:
Two social norms particularly relevant to the motivation of helping behaviours are reciprocity and social responsibility (Berkowitz, 1972; Miller et al., 1990, cited in Passer & Smith 2001). As an example, a helping behaviour may be motivated by a desire for favourable treatment from another in the future (reciprocity), or they may feel a social obligation to help because they have learnt to help others in distress (social responsibility). As with the negative-state relief model, this theory suggests that helping behaviour is not motivated purely by the desire to benefit others, and as such is not ‘really’ altruistic. Reciprocity as a social norm should not be confused with ‘reciprocal altruism’ theory, which ultimately involves a reciprocal element even though the initial altruistic act was to one’s expense (Trivers, 1971, cited in Ashton, et al. 1997). Last of the egoistic theories covered in this essay, is Piliavin’s bystander-calculus model (Piliavin et al. 1981, cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005). It suggests that a series of calculations are made prior to any act of helping behaviour by a bystander; culminating in an evaluation of the cost of helping versus the cost of not helping. By inference, if there is a cost associated with not helping, no bystander behaviour can be called ‘really’ altruistic in view of this model. This model has a strong flavour of Social Exchange Theory (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005), which argues that we assess costs and benefits before deciding to help. For example, even if you act to help at cost to yourself, your action was a selfish one because you weighed up the cost before acting. It could be argued that both these theories can be applied to any situation if one were to analyse it enough, in effect these theories are self-fulfilling. However, more recently Piliavin & Charng (1990) commented that theory and data now being advanced are more compatible with the view that …show more content…
(1997). Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and the big five personality factors. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 19, 243-255.
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.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 922-933.
Dovidio. J. F., Allen, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). Specificity of empathy-induced helping: evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 249-260.
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2001). Psychology: Frontiers and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2007). Psychology: The Science of mind and behaviour. New York: