ALTRUISM

1
ALTRUISM

• NEGIN HANNAH
• Wednesday 25th of January

2
TOPICS

• Why and when people behave altruistically
• Evolutionary roots of altruism
• Integration of Evolutionary and Social
  psychological perspectives
• Examples of altruism and possible explanations

3
Definition of altruismEngaging in behaviour
that benefits others at a cost to oneself

• Social psychological approach focuses on WHEN
  altruistic behaviour occurs
• Evolutionary perspective focuses on WHY
  altruistic behaviour occurs

4

• Evolutionary explanations
• Kin selection theory
• Social Exchange theory
• Social psychological explanations
• Emotions
• Rewards
• Social norms
• Number of bystanders

5

• EVOLUTIONARY
• Kin selection
• Family
• Similar others
• Social exchange
• Reputation building
• Reciprocity

6

• SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
• Emotions
• Empathy
• Guilt
• Rewards
• Reputation
• Reciprocity
• Social norms
• Rules of situations
• Conventions and cultural rules
• Number of bystanders
• Diffusion of responsibility
• Similarity of smaller group members

7
EXAMPLES

• Big Issue vs. Street Beggars
• Easier to help those who help themselves
• Voluntary work
• Reputation building
• Emotionality of volunteers
• Every day situations
• Cry for help e-mails
• Lending change
• Giving lifts

8
References

• Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Misook, K.,
  Rubchinsky, K., Dawson, K.
• (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to
  self-other merging? Journal of Personality and
  Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.
• Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of
  human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791
• McAndrew, F. (2002). New evolutionary
  perspectives on altruism Multi-level
• selection and costly-signalling theories.
  Current Directions in Psychological Science,11,
  79-82.
• Van Vugt, M., Van Lange, P. (in press).
  Psychological adaptations for prosocial
  behaviour The altruism puzzle. In M. Schaller,
  D. Kenrick, J. Simpson, Evolution and Social
  Psychology. Psychology Press. (available on-line
  from my personal website http//www.kent.ac.uk/ps
  ychology/department/people/van-vugtm/

9
The End
10
Reputations matter Who do we want in our group
(and who do we want to avoid)?

• Anuar Oviedo and Calli Simon

11
Introduction

• Reputation is the general opinion of the public
  toward a person, a group of people, or an
  organization.
• Reputation is known to be a constant, spontaneous
  and highly efficient mechanism of social control
  in natural societies.

12

• Reputation acts on different levels of agency,
  individual and supra-individual.
• Supra-individual level concerns groups,
  communities, collectives and abstract social
  entities
• Individual level concerns one person.

13
Evolutionary Analysis

• Kin Selection theory
• Reciprocal Altruism examples (kin or non kin)
• Competitive Altruism (non kin)
• Evolution of Language (gossip)

14
Kin Selection Theory

• Kin Selection is the key to altruism
• rbgt c
• Relationship/ similarity x recipient gt cost (for
  the altruist)
• Ultimate causal factor is the will for your genes
  to survive.

15
Reciprocal Altruism

• A form of altruism in which one organism provides
  a benefit to another in the expectation of future
  reciprocation.
• The need to gain a good reputation is most often
  formed through the process of reciprocal altruism.

16
Examples

• Dolphins support sick or injured animals,
  swimming under them for hours at a time and
  pushing them to the surface so they can breathe,
• Wolves bring meat back to members of the pack not
  present at the kill,
• Male baboons threaten predators and cover the
  rear as the troop retreats,
• Chimpanzees with food will, in response to a
  gesture, share their food with others of the
  group.
• Bonobos have been observed aiding other injured
  or handicapped bonobos.
• In numerous bird species, a breeding pair
  receives help in raising its young from other
  "helper" birds, who protect the nest from
  predators and help to feed them.
• Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a
  habit of not harming pack members below certain
  age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position
  (in case of some animals, the behaviour exists
  within entire species rather than one pack)
• Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow
  monkeys of the presence of predators, even though
  in doing so they attract attention to themselves,
  increasing their personal chance of being attacked

17
Evolution of Language

• Signals and gestures became insufficient thus a
  need for a further means of communication arose.
• Reciprocal altruism is predominantly observed
  amongst humans as they have developed a more
  complex means of communication- Language.
• Talking about one another (GOSSIP) aids the
  development of reputations.

18
Competitive Altruism

• Individuals compete with one another, as they
  each wish to gain the best reputation
• This will allow them to consequently win over the
  most moral and co-operative partner
• Its aids the development of co-operation within
  groups.
• E.g. Peacock

19
Social Psychological Factors

• What makes groups altruistic?
• The need to gain or maintain a good reputation
  because of social norms that have been set.
• Through showing altruistic behaviour, resulting
  in a good reputation, Individuals can seek to
  achieve high status and control within their
  group or society.
• Alliances and friendships are formed.

20
Punishment as an Altruistic Act?

• The threat of punishments to non-cooperative
  individuals may be seen as altruism in its self.
• Other group members benefit from the deterrence
  of further non altruistic behaviour
• Subjects which have been exposed to punishment
  show an increase on altruistic behaviour
  thereafter.

21
Application

• The 100th British Soldier to be killed in Iraq
• Lance Corporal Allan Douglas, 22.
• Allan was against the war. He couldnt see the
  point of it - but he thought it was his duty to
  be there and he had no choice.

22
Conclusion

• Reputations play a predominant role in
  determining when and why individuals act in
  altruistic ways.
• The benefits of being altruistic Reputation
• The cost of being altruistic Reputation

23
References

• www.wikipedia.org
• Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal
  altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology. 46
  35-57
• Ridley, M. (1997). The origins of virtue. Penguin
  Classics
• Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., Hardy, C. (in
  press). Competitive altruism. In R. Dunbar L.
  Barrett, Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology.
• http//www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/peop
  le/van-vugtm/
• The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod,
  Basic Books

24
Status, Conformity and Obedience
Presentation by Catherine Medina Davis, Emily
Lawson, Liz Rawcliffe and Claire Scott
25
Questions

• What is status?
• Why do most groups have status hierarchies?
• What is the link between physical attractiveness
  and status?
• What are the consequences for high- and
  low-status group members?
• What happens when a high status member is
  disloyal to the group?

26
Status Definitions

• Status a reasonably well-defined standing in
  the social order of a group or a society (Reber
  and Reber, 2001).
• Status can be gained by
• Prestige status achieved through an
  ability to help (Henrich Gil-White, 2001).
• Dominance status achieved through an
  ability to threaten and punish.

27
Introduction

• One of the most important goals and outcomes of
  social life is to attain status in the groups to
  which we belong. Such face-to-face status is
  defined by the amount of respect, influence and
  prominence each member enjoys in the eyes of the
  others (Anderson et al., 2001).
• Adler (1930) was one of the first to emphasize
  that humans are inherently social creatures,
  motivated by what he called the striving for
  superiority.

28
Why Do Most Groups Have Status Hierarchies?

• Hogan (1983) emphasised the importance of
  getting ahead.
• Hierarchies are said to exist in all social
  groups (e.g. Bernstein, 1981).
• Ultimately it is the most beneficial way for a
  group to exist and operate.

29
Why Do Status Differences Exist Between
Individuals in Groups?

• If everyone went out to do the hunting, the group
  would be very conspicuous and more likely to be
  hunted themselves.
• No-one would get food, group would cease to
  exist.
• Groups then who had hierarchies (which we think
  is to do with personality differences) were most
  successful, therefore the same hierarchical
  structure has evolved.

30
How to Achieve High Status (Anderson et al., 2001)

• Status attainment is a function of both the
  individuals personality and the groups values
  and perceptions (Anderson et al., 2001).
• Groups develop an implicit consensus as to which
  individual characteristics are valued.
• Group allocates high and low status positions
  according to whether the individual possesses
  relatively more positively or negatively valued
  characteristics.
• This is individual to each group.

31
How to Achieve High Status (2)

• So what factors increase likelihood of being in a
  position of high status?
• Personality
• The Big Five personality characteristics
• Physical Attractiveness
• Are those who are perceived as being more
  physically attractive more likely to be held in
  higher regard?

32
Status and Physical Attractiveness

• Previous theorists have suggested that physically
  attractive people are looked at more, and are
  therefore more likely to gain a higher status.
• But physical attractiveness and its link with
  status has not been empirically tested.
• So Anderson et al. (2001)
• Physical attractiveness found to predict status
  in men but not women WHY?

33
Consequences of Status

• Status attainment leads to a host of vital
  consequences for the individual
• Personal well-being
• Social cognition
• Emotional experience
• E.g. Adler, Epel, Castellazzo Ickovics (2000)
• Study showed that high subjective status is
  strongly linked to psychological factors that
  predispose individuals to better health
  trajectories.

34
Consequences of Status

• Social exchange low status individuals gain
  resources from the high status individuals.
• High status individuals are let off participating
  in more mundane tasks.
• Social learning low status learners are spared
  the task of individual learning but gain the
  knowledge through imitation etc.
• High status individuals therefore maintain their
  status, and improve their reputation. This can
  lead to greater reproductive success.

35
Consequences of Status

• Additionally, status can be viewed in two ways
• a hierarchy of displays...
• ...or, a hierarchy of rewards, where those with
  higher status have greater access to desirable
  things, and all individuals with lower status do
  not resist this access.
• (Henrich and Gil-White, 2001)
• So those with higher status have better
  reputations, greater likelihood of reproductive
  success, they are excused from certain
  obligations and obtain privileges.
• But what happens when high status members are
  disloyal to the group.

36
Loyalty vs. Disloyalty in High-Status Members
(Van Vugt Chang, 2006)

• Different reactions to loyal and disloyal members
  of a group depending on their status
• Loyal high status members liked more than loyal
  low status members.
• Disloyal high status members disliked more than
  disloyal low status members.
• Why?

37
Loyalty vs. Disloyalty...

• High status members have more skills/knowledge
  that will benefit the group, therefore their
  departure will result in possible failure to
  complete tasks.
• Also, low status members lose opportunity to
  imitate the high status member. High status
  members act as a source of social influence which
  is copied by low status members.
• Departure of a high-status member means affecting
  cohesion and welfare of the group - decrease
  moral in other group members.

38
Examples from Real Life

• Political leaders such as Tony Blair, President
  Bush.
• Religious leaders.
• The Monarchy.

39
Examples from Real Life

• Heads of multi-national companies
• Successful Musicians

40
References

• Adler, N., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G., Ickovics,
  J. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
  objective social status with psychological and
  physiological functioning. Health Psychology, 19,
  586-592.
• Anderson, C., John, O., Keltner, D., Kring, A.
  (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of
  personality and physical attractiveness in social
  groups. Journal of Personality and Social
  Psychology, 81, 116-132.
• Henrich, J., Gil-White, F. (2001). The
  evolution of prestige Freely conferred deference
  as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of
  cultural transmission. Evolution and Human
  Behaviour, 22, 165-196.
• Van Vugt, M., Chang, K. (2006). Group reactions
  to loyal and disloyal high status members.

41
Dominance or Leadership?Managing the human group

• SP603, presentation wk 7
• Chris Gilpin, Olivia Sherlock, Colette Basso,
  Sarah Liisa Schweikert

42

• Defining leadership and separating it from
  dominance
• Functions and types of leadership in groups
• Understanding leadership ultimate and
  proximate causes

43
What is leadership and how does it differ from
dominance?

• Van Vugt De Cremer (2002) defined LEADERSHIP
  as
• a process of influence to attain important
  group, organisational, or societal goals (p.155)
• DOMINANCE (Jackson, 1967)
• A dominant person attempts to control his
  environment and to influence or direct other
  people expresses opinions forcefully, enjoys the
  role of leader and may assume it spontaneously
  (p.6)

44
What is leadership and how does it differ from
dominance?

• What do you mean if you say
• The group is clearly dominated by X
• The group is clearly led by X

45
What is leadership and how does it differ from
dominance?

• In groups, leadership is believed to fulfil two
  primary goals
• To complete group tasks and to fulfil group
  members needs (Cartwright Zander, 1953).
• In certain situations, to achieve a common goal
  (e.g. survival when there is immediate group
  threat), dominant individuals may emerge as
  leaders in favour of the group.

46
Different Types of Leadership

• Autocratic leaders take any action they deem
  necisary for the good of the group
• Democratic leaders allow the group members to all
  have a say in the running of the group, either
  through consultation or participation (e.g.
  Voting)
• Laissez-Faire leaders give little into the group
  and do not want any control. It is french for
  let do, let pass
• Cited in Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, De Cremer
  (2004)

47
What are the functions of leadership?

• Cohesive democratic-gt no need for dominance
• incohesive authoritarian -gt dominant person
  most likely to become leader.
• No real need for leader Laissez-faire -gt No
  need for dominance at all

48
Examples

• Autocratic? Democratic?
• Laissez-Faire?

49
Integrating the evolutionary and social
psychological perspectives on leadership

• Evolutionary perspective
• Social coordination theory leadership helps to
  solve coordination problems (time, place,
  duration of group activity).
• Advantage Safer to coordinate action in large
  groups, efficiency, group cohesion.
• Examples where and when to hunt, group movement
  to waterholes, threat from other groups.

50

• 2. Dominance Theory Leadership is a by-product
  of dominance
• Dominance hierarchies can be established as a
  result of fights for scarce resources, mates etc.
  The outcome defines the the pecking order.
• Higher rank individuals decide what and when to
  act and lower rank individuals seek safety and
  resources so they must comply with the
  individuals demands.

51
Integrating the social psychological perspectives
on leadership

• Social psychology view
• Personality traits most correlated are
  talkativeness and intelligence (Stogdill, 1974)
• Situational perspectives Simonton (1980),
  Winston Churchill, Sherif et. al.(1961)
• The behaviour of the leader Lippitt and White
  (1943) autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire
• Contingency theory Bales (1950) distinguished
  between task orientated and socio-emotional
  leadership style.Following up Fiedler (1965)
  created the Least preferred co-worker (LPC)

52
Question Time!

• Would a country be able to survive without a
  leader?
• What other traits can leaders use to gain their
  position other than dominance?
• Are leaders who gain their role through dominance
  always successful?

53
References

• Bales, R.F. (1950). Iteraction process analysis
  a method for the study of small gruops. Reading,
  MA Addison-Wesley.
• Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook
  of leadership Theory, research and management
  applications (3rd ed.). New York Free Press.
• Boehm, C. (1993). Egalitarian behaviour and
  reverse dominance hierarchy. Current
  Anthropology, 34, 227-240 (also read
  commentaries).
• Fiedler, F.E. (1965). A contigency model of
  readership effectiveness. Advances in
  experimental social psychology,.1, 149-190.
• Jackson. D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form
  Manual. New York Research Psychologists Press.
• Judge et al. (2002). Personality and leadership
  A quantitative and qualitative review. Journal of
  Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
• Lippitt, R., White, R. (1943). The social
  climate of childrens groups. In R. G. Barker,
  J. Kounin, H,. Wright (Editors), Child Behavior
  and development. New York McGraw-Hill, 485-508.
• Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.
  And Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup conflict and
  cooperation the robbers cave experiment.
  Norman, university of Oklahoma.
• Simonton, D.K. (1980). Land battle, generals and
  armies individual and situational determinats of
  victory and casualities. Journal of Personality
  and Social Psychology, 38, 110-119.
• Stogdill, R. (1974) Handbook of leadership. New
  York Free Press
• Van Vugt, M. (in press). The evolutionary origins
  of leadership and followership. Personality and
  Social psychology Review.
• Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S., Hart, C., De Cremer,
  D. (2004) Autocratic leadership in social
  dilemmas A threat to group stability. Journal
  of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 1-13.
• Vroom, V. H., Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership
  and decision-making. Pittsburgh University of
  Pittsburgh Press.

54
Staying alive and staying together The nature of
group cohesion

• Session 6, Wed 1st Mar
• Charlie Foley, Rachel Harris Alex Barron

55
Contents

• What is group cohesion?
• Is there an evolutionary basis for group
  cohesion?
• Which are the social-psychological processes
  underlying group cohesion?
• What is the relation between group loyalty and
  cohesion?

56
Defining Group Cohesion

• Widely disputed by psychologists numerous
  definitions arise
• A force binding the group together?
• A feeling of group belongingness?
• Unity or teamwork?

57
Evolutionary Theory of Group Cohesion

• Benefits of living in a cohesive group evolved
  functions
• Safety in Numbers Hamiltons selfish herd
  theory. By forming a group, each individual
  within that group becomes safer from attack, and
  opens up possibilities for food and information
  sharing.
• Hunting in groups. By working as a group, hunting
  for food becomes easier. E.g. lionesses hunt in
  groups, sharing the kill after.

58
Cont

• As a defence. e.g. Zebra, shoals of fish. By
  forming a group, individuals are safer from
  attack as a whole from predators. Any attack that
  does come if focused on the group as a whole,
  making defence easier and the chance of an
  individual being singled out harder selfish herd
  (Hamilton, 1971).
• Information sharing. By being in a cohesive
  group, the individual becomes part of a helping
  system. Should one member fall ill, the others
  help knowing they would receive the same
  treatment should they become ill. E.g. dolphins
  aiding injured group members to the surface.
  Important resources and information are also
  shared in groups )
• Social groups enabled our ancestors togather
  and share resources as well as information,
  necessary to survive in a hostile environment
  (Van Vugt Hart, 2004)

59
Benefits of living in a cohesive group evolved
functions (contd.)

• Such benefits of a group only occur should a
  group stick together. Those leaving a group would
  lose such advantages and thereby find it harder
  to survive. Hence, evolution favours those who
  stick with their group, thus creating cohesive
  groups.

60
Another possibility

• Is it possible that throughout our evolution, we
  have formed groups as part of our innate make-up,
  to aid learning?
• Predisposition towards social conformism
  supporting our own group would aid promotion of
  cultural group selection

61
In summary

• Group cohesion has benefits for both individual
  and group
• Problems arise in maintaining cohesion when group
  members try to cheat, e.g. take benefits of a
  group, then leave before repaying the benefits.
  Leads to distrust of that individual, and a
  possible breakdown of overall group cohesion.

62
Social Psychological perspective on cohesion in
groups

• Confusion over definitions and measurements
• the total field of forces causing members to
  remain in the group Festinger et al. (1950)
• the resistance of the group to disruptive
  forces Gross Martin (1952)
• a dynamic process which is reflected in the
  tendency for a group to stick together and remain
  united in the pursuit of its goals and
  objectives Carron (1982)
• Need for consistent definition and measurement

63
Cohesion as multidimensional construct

• Carron, Widmeyer, Brawleys (1985)
  multidimensional model- 2 groups-
• 1)group integration 2)individual attraction to
  group
• Both bind members to group, focus on task or
  social aspect of group
• Lead to development of Group Environment
  Questionnaire (GEQ) sport specific
• Recent attempts to adapt GEQ to work teams

64
Factors for effective group performance

• Davis (1969) 3 classes of variable-
• 1)Person abilities, personality traits, motives
• 2)Environmental immediate location larger
  organisation, community, social context
• 3)Task factors associated with task or goals
• Group size (Fukuyama, 1999) optimum- 50-100
• Duration (Peters, 1997) task groups-limited time

65
Cohesion outcomes the good stuff

• Members more satisfied
• Remain in group longer when choice available
• Provide a buffer against stress so good for ind.
  mental health
• Less often report loneliness or isolation
• Identity with group stronger

66
Cohesion outcomes the bad stuff

• More cruel to deviants scapegoating, hostility
  aggression
• Individual identity stifled
• Discrepancy between group and ind. goals less
  productive
• Group goals may be damaging, even deadly to ind.
  Members Groupthink (Janis, 1972)

67
Cohesion-Performance relationship

• How measure group performance?
• Task scores
• Decision quality
• Number of wins
• Problem-solving scores
• Hackman (1990)- 3 dimensional model of group
  performance productivity, system viability
  professional growth

68
Research on relationship

• Direction of effect Mullen Copper (1994) meta
  analysis although cohesiveness may indeed lead
  the group to perform better, the tendency for the
  group to experience greater cohesiveness after
  successful performance may be even stronger
• Inconsistent findings, overall small positive
  relationship between cohesion and performance.
  However, evidence of relationship moderated by
  task interdependency, goal acceptance and group
  norm

69
Group Loyalty

• The welfare and existence of groups depends on
  the willingness of group members to make regular
  investments and sacrifices for the group.
• One important psychological and behavioural force
  in contributing to group stability and integrity
  is a members group loyalty.
• It is not always beneficial to leave your group,
  staying to help the group when members could
  receive better outcomes for themselves by
  leaving, can be seen as an act of group loyalty.
• Loyalty is a complex, multifaceted construct,
  consisting of emotive, cognitive and behavioural
  elements.

70
Loyalty explained

• Loyalty may be manifested through the experience
  of strong, positive emotions (e.g. happiness)
  associated with group membership.
• In Cognitive terms, loyalty may be manifested via
  depersonalized trust in other group members and
  optimism about the groups future.
• In Behavioural terms, loyalty may be evident in
  the sacrifices that group members make for their
  groups, including staying within the group, when
  it is personally costly for them to do so.

71
Loyalty explained (contd)

• A key determinant of an individuals group
  loyalty, is their strength and identification as
  a group member within a group.
• This identity is consistent with the theories of
  Social Identity (Tajfel and Turner) and Self
  Categorization (Turner). This is because a
  persons identity is shaped by the groups in which
  they belong.
• Research on group identification has found that
  group identification increases the commitment of
  members to their group, but there is little
  evidence that staying would personally be a
  sacrifice. It has not yet been seen that social
  identity elicits feelings of group loyalty, when
  individuals are greeted with an attractive exit
  option.

72
Experiments

• Two experiments have provided strong support for
  the link between group identification and
  loyalty.
• 1) Barreto and Ellemers (2000) measured members
  identification with their group and then assigned
  them to a low status group. In the second task
  members were given the choice to work on their
  own or for the group, in eight trials. The
  results showed high identifiers chose to work for
  the group more often than low identifiers,
  regardless of whether their choice was made
  anonymously.
• 2) Zdaniuk and Levine (2001) found that group
  identification promoted group loyalty in tasks
  that involved some degree of personal sacrifice.
  However, in this study, group identification was
  classed as either staying in the group when doing
  so benefits the group rather than oneself, or
  leaving the group when it benefits the group
  rather than oneself.

73
Implications and Future Research

• The Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner
  1986) argued that in the presence of a more
  appealing rival group there would be a stronger
  manifestation of group loyalty because people are
  more motivated to secure a positive in group
  out group differentiation.
• The easier solution to promoting group loyalty is
  to find ways to enhance members identification
  (e.g. incentives and rewards in return for group
  loyalty) so that the group members stay
  voluntarily and help their group when it is under
  threat.

74
Questions

• How cohesive can a group be if its members dont
  share the same beliefs?
• What factors control the creation of a group and
  do these change over time?
• Why did millions of Germans think it was ok to
  kill off their Jewish neighbours simply because
  they were told that this was necessary?

75
References

• Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sports
  groups Interpretations and considerations.
  Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
• Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social
  communication. Psychological Review, 57,
  271-282.
• Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink.
  Boston Houghton Mifflin.
• Mullen, B. Copper, C. (1994). The relation
  between group cohesiveness and performance an
  integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
  210-227.
• Van Vugt, M. Hart, C. (2004). Social identity
  as social glue The origins of group loyalty.
  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
  585-598.