Altruism and Prosocial Behaviour PDF

07 March 2024 08:44 Main Ideas Notes Altruistic Behaviours An individual performs an act that benefits another individual rather than oneself, perhaps even at her own cost and where the actors’ motivation is to intervene towards the other individual’s goal, problem, need, or emotion (Melis & Warneke...

07 March 2024 08:44 Main Ideas Notes Altruistic Behaviours An individual performs an act that benefits another individual rather than oneself, perhaps even at her own cost and where the actors’ motivation is to intervene towards the other individual’s goal, problem, need, or emotion (Melis & Warneken, 2016) Notes Chimpanzees in the wild Alliances/Coalitionary support and consolation Cooperation in group territoriality ○ Boundary patrols ○ Coalitionary attacks on neighbours Group hunting/meat sharing ○ Co-production vs. collaboration Anecdotal helping Altruism in non-human apes? - mixed results Ingredients for altruism Cognitive skills: understanding of others' goal Altruistic motivation to act on behalf of the other Typology based on currency provided - Warneken & Tomasello (2009) Sharing (providing goods) Helping (providing a service) Comforting (providing emotional support) Informing (providing information) Low-cost Prosociality - (Silk et al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2006; Vonk et al., 2008; Yamamoto & Tanaka, 2010) Are chimpanzees willing to deliver food to conspecifics even though this entails no costs for them? Notes Instrumental helping: givi Communicative signal They do not only trans Results ✤ Prosociality in costly version but not in cost-free version (which is the primate version) ✤ Failure due to attentional demands Instrumental helping: helping a conspecific (Warneken et al., 2007) At 2 years of age with explicit communication…. - Brownell et al. (2009) 1-1 (mutualistic) vs 1-0 (selfish) 18-month-old children choose randomly 25-month-old children choose the mutualistic option but only when the recipient verbalized her desire for the food (“I like crackers.”) At 3-4 years of age in a verbal task… - Fehr et al. (2008) Experimental Condition: Recipient tries to open locked door that subject can open. Control Condition: Recipient tries to open locked door that subject can NOT open Social cognition: proactive he The Experimenter drops From 2 years of age, chi Instrumental helping: helping a human partner - Warneken & Tomasello (2006) Instrumental helping: reactive helping - Melis et al. (2011) Selfish Control (ideally before starting the test-phase) Results ○ Subjects pulled the accessible table in all conditions at similar high levels. ○ Conclusion: they are indifferent to other’s welfare (but negative result is uninterpretable) Children fail this task too…. - Burkart & Rueth (2013) 2-5 year-old children Summary Problems with the prosocial task (reviewed by Tan et al. 2015) Many of the studies do not have apparatus understanding controls (e.g. Silk et al. 2005; Vonk et al., 2008). Studies with apparatus understanding pretests actually find evidence for a preference for the 1/1 option. The problem is a carry-over effect to the control condition (e.g. Jensen et al. 2006; Yamamoto & Tanaka, 2010; Tan et al. 2015) High cognitive/attentional demands. Children between 2-5 struggle with the task and choose 0-1 over 0-0 but not 1-1 over 1-0 (Burkart & Rueth, 2013) If partners explicitly express their desire, at 2 years of age children choose prosocially (Brownell et al. 2009). Several studies showing instrumental helping in chimpanzees Helping humans and conspecifics obtain tools Helping conspecifics reaching out-of-reach items Helping conspecifics entering a room Flexible targeted helping based on an understanding of other’s goals. Overt signals of need may be necessary to elicit instrumental helping in chimpanzees: Reactive rather than proactive helping(different to children) Socio-cognitive limitations? Attentional limitations? Or motivational? Chimpanzees helping more friends than non-friends provides further evidence for the interpretation that their prosocial behaviour is altruistically motivated. Evidence suggests that chimpanzees have basic motivations and sociocognitive skills to help others altruistically. Deeper phylogenetic roots of human altruism. In chimpanzees altruistic behaviour between non-related individuals is possibly maintained via reciprocal altruism. Evidence for past-driven reciprocity. No evidence that chimpanzees anticipate the future benefits of helping Summary PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 1 Chimpanzees from the Leipzig Zoo participated in the same tasks. They only helped in the “out-of-reach tasks”, not in the other three. Too difficult to understand the other three tasks? Or trained by zoo keepers to bring objects back? Results - Warneken, Hare, Melis, Hanus & Tomasello (2007). ○ Human reaches (or not) for a “stolen tool” that has been thrown into the chimp room. ○ Will the chimp help the human giving him his tool back? YES ○ Rewarding not really necessary. ○ They helped a human stranger. Notes ng a tool to a conspecific - Yamamoto et al. (2009; 2012) ls from the recipient are needed to elicit helping. sfer a tool but they transfer the “correct tool” when they can assess the partner’s problem. Notes Helping friends more than neutral partners - Engelmann et al. (2019) Out of 25 chimps, 16 helped more their friend, 5 the non-friend, and 4 did not distinguish. Out of 24 children (3-year-olds), 19 helped more their friend, 5 the nonfriend Reciprocal altruism Reciprocal altruism: explanation for altruistic behaviour between unrelated individuals. Different proximate mechanisms: ○ Past-driven/attitudinal reciprocity: “You were nice to me, I like you, I am nice to you” ○ Future-oriented/strategic reciprocity: “I will be nice to you if (in the hope that) you are nice to me“ Past-driven/attitudinal reciprocity: Partner-specific memory Chimpanzees: evidence for long-term reciprocity from the wild (Mitani, 2005; Gomes et al. 2009): ○ Exchange of different favours in the same and different currencies (e.g. food sharing, grooming, coalitionary support) Past-driven reciprocity - Melis et al. (2008) Notes Subjects chose the prosocial/mutualistic option (Option C) sig. more often if partner had risked helping than if the partnerhad not acted (NOassistance control condition) Future-oriented Reciprocity - turn-taking - Melis et al. (2016) elping - (Warneken, 2013) s a can on the floor without even noticing the accident. ldren can infer from situational cues alone the need for helping. Past-driven reciprocity - Schmelz et al. (2017) 1- Partner rejects food (A) to make a choice available to the subject (B&C) 2- Subject can choose between mutualistic (C) or selfish option (B) PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 2 PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 3