By: amanda cosgrifft started off with eye-contact and back and forth staring, which made me feel extremely uncomfortable. It wasn’t until I reached a level of annoyance that he coincidentally decided to come talk to me. Through our conversation I found some similarities, but remained reluctant, despite sharing my number. The frequency of contact thereafter annoyed me, and I tried avoiding hanging out with him at all costs. My friend told me to stop texting him because he seemed like a” stage-5” clinger. However, I continued to talk to him despite my friend’s suggestion, then stopped. Conversation picked-up again after avoiding him, and I decided to give him a chance once he named dropped a friend he knew who approved. We hung out more, discovered more similarities, and the rest is history. The story described above, perfectly describes some of the characteristics that moved from attraction to a relationship. Although attraction is needed to initiate a relationship, social psychologists have yet to pinpoint what exactly the ingredients are to the attraction of an individual. For example, research has suggested attraction is biological, situational, and up to the individual. Is there a multiple choice test specifically pinpointing the physical, emotional and social characteristics I seek in a mate? Is attraction to an individual purely situational, or is it solely up to the individual? I confidently say the characteristics I perceived as important in a mate do not 100% match up to the characteristics of the guy from the story. As we will see, there are many variables that play into our attraction to another person, some of these variables will be discussed here. Attraction Attraction, by definition, is the desire for a voluntary relationship that is sustained due to the enjoyment shared between the two individuals (Fiske, 2014). Attraction serves as the core social motive of belonging, and plays an important role behind initiating potential relationships. Fiske (2014) describes five fundamental ingredients for attraction: reciprocity, proximity, familiarity, similarity, and attraction. One ingredient involves the initial exposure to an individual and the effect it has on someone. Fiske (2014) indicates individuals who form an initial negative impression are typically avoided by the other person resulting experiencing low exposure to that person. In the opening story, a negative first impression was made therefore initiating my avoidance. The mere exposure effect suggests that repeated exposure to an individual enhances neutral or positive feelings of that individual, which is what occurred when my initial impression was found incorrect. Hot or Not? Physical attractiveness has been stigmatized in the media as the drive behind attractiveness. Although not fully grounded in research, the creators of OKCupid conducted a series of three experiments to see how much a picture or suggestion influenced a user’s likelihood to engage in a conversation with the other person. In one experiment, OKCupid removed user’s pictures and discovered users were more likely to respond to conversation and have deeper conversation, and exchange contact information more quickly. However, when the user’s pictures were restored there was a significant decrease in conversation exchange between users. This suggests that physical attraction does play a role in attraction, however, this initial attraction is short lived and other characteristics are needed to sustain this attraction. What Do We Want? Research has suggested we are not good at predicting the characteristics we desire in a mate. In fact, my predictions of desired characteristics in a mate were wrong. Previous research suggests we are not good at identifying what truly attracts us to a potential partner (e.g., Eastwick & Finkle, 2008). know what they want in a potential partner. Participants in this study participated in a speed-dating activity where they filled out questionnaires before participating in speed dating. Based on the information participants filled out, males placed an emphasis on women’s physical attractiveness and women placed an emphasis on men’s status and resources. However, it was discovered participant’s perceived attracted characteristics did not align with the individuals they chose at the end of speed dating. Although males and females indicated a difference in desired characteristics, previous studies (e.g., Carmalt, Cawley, Joyner, & Sobal, 2008) suggests there are no significant gender differences. These results provide supporting evidence that individual’s perceived characteristics in a mate are not always correct. Opinion of Others Other research has suggested that the opinion of others is very resourceful, especially during the initiation of a relationship (Wright & Sinclair, 2012). This study showed that friend’s opinions are considered more valuable than parent’s opinions of a possible relationship. However, friend’s opinions are the strongest when individuals do not rely on their parents for resources (e.g., money, support). Results of this study found that individuals who relied heavily on their friend’s opinion and were given approval were more likely to extend a positive reaction to an interested individual. However, if a friend does not approve, the individual is likely to see the other as neutral, which is what occurred in the story above. In conclusion, there are many variables that affect our attraction towards another person. For example, some variables such as fear (e.g., Meston & Frohlich, 2003), smell (e.g., Herz & Inzlicht, 2002), exposure, reciprocity, opinions of others and looks help make up whether or not we find someone attractive. Previous research (e.g., Stewart-Williams, 2013) has also suggested that attraction is biologically programmed. For example, we are capable of detecting individuals who could be related to us, or have good genes (Grammer, Fink & Neave 2005; Herz & Inzlicht, 2002). While all these variables are important in initiating attraction and liking of an individual, it boils down to individual choices. I believe all the variables discussed, and more are required to spark the initial attraction, however, whether or not one acts on it is up to the individual. References
by: adam weselohBiology of Attractiveness
According to Stewart-William and Thomas (2013), there are evolutionary reasons why there are gender differences between males and females. They note females physiologically have more of a time investment in reproduction than males do. There is a discrepancy between the biological time commitment females experience (at least 9 months) and males have a time commitment of maybe just a few minutes. The evolutionary perspective guides gender differences in what characteristics the genders view as desirable characteristics. Women tend to prefer men who have resources (Fiske, 2014). These resources could be financial. From an evolutionary psychology prospective, a woman would want a man who has the ability to support a family. Men value attractiveness in woman more so than vice versa. (Fiske, 2014). From an evolutionary prospective, attractiveness is a sign of fertility. From the same prospective, the more attractive you are the more likely you will have many children because attractiveness can be seen as a sign of physical health. Attractive characteristics in men are often seen during the mate selection process. Human females choose those males whose good genes shine through in their competitive prowess (Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). Status is valued more in men than in woman as is a sense of humor (Fiske, 2014; Morse, Gruzen, & Reis, 1976). From an evolutionary prospective, men prefer woman who have a longer reproductive life span ahead of them and men who have resources gathered from age (Fiske, 2014). Situational Factors Excitation transfer theory states that residual excitement from a previous arousing stimulus or situation can serve to intensify emotional states after experiencing an arousing state (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). The researchers used a roller coaster to induce a level of excitation in participants. Dopamine levels in the brain are higher after experiencing this excitation. As excitation and Dopamine levels increased the subjects view of physical attractiveness rating of others increased (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). In this study participants rated a photographed individual’s level of attractiveness when entering a roller coasters and also when they got off the roller coaster. In the study, the individual’s level of attractiveness was found to be higher when participants were getting off of the roller coaster as compared to getting on. The research demonstrated how situational factors can have an impact on an individual’s level of attractiveness. It is also important to acknowledge the physiological factors that contributed to this as well. The nervous system also becomes aroused while on the roller coaster. This could be seen as a combination of situational/social factors and physiological factors. Situational factors were also seen in the so called “cheerleader effect”. One study found, people tended to selectively attend to the most attractive members of a group and their attractiveness has a greater influence on other members of the group (Osch, Blanken, Meijs, & Wolferen, 2015). The perceived physical attractiveness of other members of the group are increased in the “cheerleader effect” and even if the other cheerleaders may not be as physically attractive. Individual Choice A speed dating paradigm is often used to determine how individual preferences have on the choice of date (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008 Li et. al., 2013). In Eastwick and Finkel (2008) researchers attempted to determine if the factors participants said attracted them were indicative of who they actually chose during speed dating. Pre-stated preferences were not found to be predictive who they ended up choosing. When the stated preferences failed to predict the outcome with something as important as romantic-partner preferences, it maybe people may lack an awareness of what influences their judgments and behaviors (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Conclusion: How much is it Biology, Situational Factors, or Individual Choice? It would appear all three factors play at least some role in determining how we feel about an individual’s level of attractiveness. Biology and specifically evolutionary psychology provide us with the best explanation for why we become attracted to a certain person. Evolutionary psychologists have shown gender difference in mate selection play a role in our prefers for what type of mate we desire. This is not to discount the role of situational and social factors. Situational factors such as the “cheerleader effect” were shown to have an influence on our judgement as well. Individual choice or preferences was shown to not have a big of impact on romantic-partner preferences. It was shown we are not always aware of what influences our judgement and behaviors. Therefore, we are likely being influenced by something other than individual preferences such as our physiology or situational factors. Word Cited
by: matthew timminsOverview: As a species that often pair-bonds—has long-term sexual relationships—and requires an extended amount of parental care, human sexual partner selection is an intricate and critical process. However, sexual attraction on its own may be largely driven by biological and situational factors rather than individual choice. Research suggests that the perception of symmetry and smell (“Science of Sex Appeal,” 2012), color of clothing and/or background (Elliot et al., 2010; Elliot & Niesta, 2008), and general physical arousal (Meston & Frohlich, 2003) are just a handful of factors that influence who we find attractive. It should be noted that the research reviewed in this post reflects heterosexual attraction; therefor, this writer urges caution in generalizing the information to non-heterosexual attraction. Background: Research suggests that sexual attraction “at first sight” may be a real phenomenon (“Science of Sex Appeal,” 2012). In a variety of studies reviewed in the Discovery Channel’s© series “Science of Sex Appeal,” one study altered pictures of men and women so that their faces were more or less symmetrical. Participants were told the pictures were of twins and were asked to determine which twin was more attractive. Approximately 80% of participants found the more symmetrical face as more attractive. The researchers suggest that this may be due to a relationship between genetic defects and less symmetry, resulting in humans developing a strong preference for symmetry. Further, visual attraction is not limited to symmetry. In a series of studies on men’s attraction to women in red (Elliot & Niesta, 2008), men rated women in pictures with a red background as more attractive than in pictures with white or grey backgrounds. Similar results occurred when the women were wearing a red shirt. However, the color red did not affect men’s perception of the women on a number of other variables such as likability; it did not affect women’s ratings of the women in the pictures; nor were men aware of the impact of red. Nearly the exact same results were found in a series of similar studies with women rating men, but in this case, women associated red with higher status for men (Elliot et al., 2010). Similar to visual attractiveness, there is evidence that sexual attraction may also be “at first smell”. In two series of experiments described in the “Science of Sex Appeal,” both men and women were affected by the scents of the opposite sex. Men who were exposed to copulance, a female pheromone, experienced a rise in testosterone and were unable to differentiate attractive from unattractive pictures of women. In comparison, women were asked to rate the attractiveness of the smell of t-shirts men had been wearing for multiple days. Rather than generalizing to a heightened attraction, women had a significant aversion to the smell of close relatives (i.e., their father or biological brother). These results suggest that smell may play just as large of a role in attraction as symmetry, but the roles differ between the sexes—natural body odors may increase men’s attraction to women and decrease women’s attraction to men. Like specific senses such as sight and smell, general physical arousal—like the excitement from riding a rollercoaster— may also influence initial sexual attraction. One study examined participants’ subjective heart rate and the attractiveness of a picture of a stranger before or after going on a rollercoaster (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). The researchers found that those in line for the ride reported slower heart rates and found the pictures as less attractive than those exiting the ride. Those who were exiting the ride rated the pictures as more attractive, especially those who reported higher heart rate. In addition, researchers asked those who were exiting the ride to rate the attractiveness of the opposite-sex individual sitting next to them on the ride. Interestingly, participants reported increased attraction to strangers sitting next to them after the ride but did not report any change if they were in a romantic relationship with the person sitting next to them. Overall, these ratings suggest that feeling more aroused in general may increase our sexual attraction towards strangers but not towards people we are familiar with. Conclusions: Based on the studies mentioned above, it appears that there are factors affecting our sexual attraction to one another that are outside our awareness, such as perceived symmetry, the color of their clothing, and smells. This should not be taken as stating that we have no control over sexual partner selection, merely that the initial attraction to the opposite sex may be driven more by biology rather than personal choice. For example, general physical arousal may increase initial sexual attraction towards strangers but may not affect the attraction within a current relationship. Further, the biological influences of initial sexual attraction are only the first portion of the first step in human sexual partner selection; biological influences that may be outside our control do not determine who we ultimately select as a sexual partner. Keywords: sexual attraction, physical arousal, human sexual partner selection References
By: Ashley colemanAttraction
Whether attraction is determined by choice, situation, or biological influences has long been debated. Especially for humans, attraction seems to be best understood as a combination of these factors. For example, biological predisposition may influence the choice an individual makes when presented with a particular situation. In this blog, I review evidence related to physiological arousal, physical appearance, and familiarity to answer the question of what attraction is and what influences it. Defining Attraction Attraction is an attitude of positive evaluation of another, which often overlaps with cognitions and behaviors (Fiske, 2014). In other words, attraction to another person involves a response pattern that demonstrates liking and may lead to intimacy and mate selection (Fiske, 2014). The attractiveness of another can involve physical traits (such as facial symmetry or muscle definition), personality characteristics (such as intelligence, gentleness, or strength), and interpersonal attributes (such as social skills or positive interactions). Indicators of Attraction One indicator of attraction is nervous system arousal. For example, Meston and Frohlick (2003) found that people were more likely to rate a photo of another person as attractive if they had just finished riding a roller coaster than if they had not ridden a roller coaster. This finding indicates that excitement, or physiological arousal, can transfer to attraction, another type of physiological arousal. Another indicator of attraction is mate selection. A current theory explaining human mate selection, mutual mate choice (MMC; Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013) contends that both sexes choose long-term mates based on mutual agreement. This theory opposes previous theories which argue that males compete for mates, whereas women choose mates. The MMC theory suggests that, in humans, attraction is important for both men and women. However, Little, DeBruine, and Jones (2014) found that visual familiarity may be more important to women’s level of attraction than men’s level of attraction, given that men on average prefer visual novelty when viewing potential partners. Thus, Little et al. (2014) suggested that men may seek more partners than women due to a preference for (or attraction to) novelty. This finding supports the idea that there may be sex differences in attraction between men and women. Factors Related to Attraction Although there are individual differences to what people find attractive (or at least which mates people select), research has demonstrated that on average, people are more attractive to another if they share commonalities, are positive, and have a sense of humor (Fiske, 2014). In addition, men on average more highly value physical attraction in women; whereas women on average more highly value kindness and status in men (Fiske, 2014). In a study conducted by the online dating site OkCupid (2014), the website’s users as a whole were more likely to rate looks and personality based on another user’s profile picture rather than the text information on their profile. Therefore, there seem to be overarching values related to attraction, specifically those related to physical appearance. Familiarity with another person, defined by time spent interacting with another person, also predicts attraction, and responsiveness, comfort, satisfaction during the interaction, and perceived knowledge are important factors in the relationship between familiarity and attraction (Reis et al., 2011). These findings indicate that familiarity combined with other positive attributes of the individual or interaction predict attraction to another person. Basis for Attraction Although research suggests that physical appearance is a key component in attraction, the reasoning behind why is less clear. For example, physical appearance may be driven by biological influences, such as physiological arousal or mate selection. However, attraction related to physical appearance may also be driven by social influences, such that people choose more attractive partners because they too are attractive and therefore are exposed to and approached by more attractive people (perceived similarity). In addition, people may choose partners based on attractiveness factors other than physical appearance, such as familiarity and positive interactions. Therefore, attraction may not correlate perfectly with physical appearance. Instead, attraction may be determined by several factors, including biological influences, situation, and personal choice. References
by: Hailey rippleWhen it comes to determining who we are attracted to, it can be quite a tangled web in terms of all of the variables that can come into play. Attraction can be defined simply as the desire for a voluntary relationship that is maintained by mutual liking (Fiske, 2014). Fiske (2014) states that the core motives behind attraction are self-enhancement and understanding. In other words, liking people who make us feel good and those we are familiar with or can get to know easily. It has long been known that evolutionary factors play a role in who we are attracted to, but there are also other factors at work. Examples may include certain behaviors, opinions from liked or respected others, and even simply being in the right place at the right time. The presence of all of these potential factors leads us to ask, how much weight does each of these variables carry when it actually comes to attraction? What Evolution Says Evolutionary factors appear to be at the base of what attracts us to another person and results in what may be considered more primal instincts. It has been hypothesized that women are more likely to be choosy when it comes to selecting a partner than men (Fiske, 2014). Specifically, women look for a man who can provide resources for them and for offspring, while men are more focused on physical attractiveness. An example would be a man who is more interested in a younger woman (more time for reproductive opportunities) and a woman who is interested in an older man (likely to have accumulated more resources). In this case, age is the evolutionary cue for selecting a partner. Other examples of evolutionary variables that may have effects on attraction include menstrual cycles, hormones (testosterone, estrogen), and body shape – something about each of these things sends signals that we may not even be aware of (Discovery Channel, 2009). Behaviorally Speaking Another more subtle sign of attraction may include certain behaviors a person engages in to let you know they’re interested. In terms of behavior, things such as walking, tone of voice, eye contact, talking distance, and posture (Fiske, 2014) can all play a role in attraction. Behavioral factors provide us with visual cues and clues as to who may be interested in us as a potential partner. For example, one study found that when unknown individuals are assigned to look make eye contact for a certain period of time, they report higher feelings of affection and respect than in control conditions. Further, how close you get to someone when speaking or the positioning of your body (facing the person or leaning in) can indicate attraction. Right Time, Right Place Like evolution, some variables related to attraction may be out of our control. Research has indicated that although individuals are able to identify characteristics that they would value in a potential partner when asked, these characteristics often end up playing a rather small role in interest in potential partners in real life situations (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Lehmiller, 2015). Researchers suggest that while we are often able to relay what we believe we would want in a potential partner, often, real life situations can influence our judgement and result in different choices than we expected to make. To further influence the “right time, right place” theory of attraction, Fiske (2014) discusses how frequency of exposure to a person and physical proximity to a person can increase attraction to an individual. Another situational factor that typically increases how attractive we find another person to be is adrenaline or engaging in an exciting or fear-inducing activity (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). This research indicates that there are certain environmental and situational factors that can influence our attraction to others. Friends Over Family Another potential variable includes the opinions of those you like or respect, such as friends and parents. In fact, friends and family can play a large role in relationship initiation through a variety of routes including introductions, offering opinions, and assisting in communication between potential partners. Further, having your social network support your choice in a relationship or partner is positively related to relationship satisfaction and stability, commitment in varying levels of relationships (dating/married), and feelings of love (Wright & Sinclair, 2012). Results from one study conducted by Wright and Sinclair (2012) indicated that approval rather than disapproval mattered more when deciding how much someone liked a potential partner. Also, opinions of friends were held in higher regard than those of parents, but only if that person did not count on their parent for some kind of support. Therefore, not only are your own preferences determining who your attracted to, but opinions of others have the opportunity to sway our opinion as well. Conclusion Based on the research, I feel that real life situations play a larger role and ultimately carry more weight than evolutionary factors. Research has indicated that although we may be able to talk about what we want in a potential partner, when it comes down to actually acting on the initiation of a relationship, the unique variables of specific situations can quickly overshadow perceived desired characteristics in a potential partner (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Lehmiller, 2015). Depending on the context in which we meet an individual, we may not even be aware they possess those desired characteristics. For example, someone who may posess all the qualities of my “dream man”, but if the only time I meet or interact with him is when he is being an obnoxious drunk person at the bar, I may never have the opportunity to discover that. Overall, many variables can determine whether we are attracted to someone or not. However, the variables I consider to carry the most weight are those environmental or contextual variables, such as where and when. References
by: shengtian wuOverview Helping behaviors, such as donation, are very desirable social skills and associated with overall well-being and longevity (Martela & Ryan, 2016). But what motivates helping behaviors, given that helping others might bear some costs (e.g., spending time, material goods, or energy on others) for the self? Do we help for benefiting others or ourselves? Would there be certain situations where people more likely help others? This blog explains the reasons of helping behaviors and factors that impact our helping behaviors. Reasons of Prosocial Behaviors When others in distress, empathy, as an experience of what others are feeling, facilitate helping behaviors for reducing others’ distress (Davidov, Vaish, Knafo-Noam, & Hastings 2016). If the main reason of helping is benefiting others, then the motivation is altruism (Fiske, 2014, p. 336). Davidov and her colleagues reported that human beings also experience a tension when they see others have difficulty achieving their goals. The tension decreases if others achieved the goals. Thus, the helping behaviors genuinely aim at finishing others’ unattained goals, which, in turn, reduce individuals’ internal tense. If the intention of helping is to benefit ourselves, then it is called egoism. Other than altruism and egoism, people help others for belonging to certain groups (Fiske, 2014). Then, helping behaviors of those people should be considered as playing their roles, conforming group norms, and facilitating the development of groups, instead of benefiting themselves or others. Furthermore, helping behaviors could be motivated by upholding moral standard. Even though helping others appear to be not benefiting them, others, or certain groups where the helpers belong, they would still help others because their moral standard urged them to do so. Furthermore, Davidov and her colleagues (2016) indicated, evolutionally, promoting others’ welfare eventually benefited early human beings’ own survival. For example, a dependence on others was needed and promoted early ancestor’s survival when achieving a tough goal, such as hunting for a large animal. Another example would be teaching hunting skills for younger generations for the evolutionary purposes. While those motivations facilitate helping behaviors, what factors would increase or decrease likelihood of helping behaviors? Factors That Influence Prosocial Behaviors Features of the Recipient. In addition to the distressed condition of the recipients of prosocial behaviors, Martin and Olson (2015) described other features of the recipients. Adults exhibit prosocial behaviors toward others depending on how the recipients treated the actors and the third parties. That is, individuals tend to provide more help to those who have helped the actors or the third parties. Furthermore, Martin and Olson mentioned that adults tended to be prosocial toward not only people with whom they were familiar (e.g., friends or friends) or similar (e.g., have similar personality), but with whom they shared group membership (e.g., same racial identity). Features of the Situations. Several situations also impact prosocial behaviors. Rewards seem to undermine a pure desire of prosocial behaviors, as actors’ prior intention might be replaced by receiving rewards. In contrast to the impact of rewards, the presence of others, either recipients or third parties, would motivate prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, individuals tend to provide more helps when there is a lower cost of help. For example, people more likely help others finish tasks, instead of giving something that costs money to solve problems, since the latter option would decrease the source of actors. Similarly, prosocial behaviors were observed more frequently when the actors perceived that they have relatively more resources than the recipients. Furthermore, Vollhardt (2009) proposed that experiences of adverse or traumatic events also promoted prosocial behaviors toward others. The first motivation of helping was to cope with distress from actor’s prior traumatic events because helping others could distract them from stressful thoughts, increase the perception of confidence and competence, and make the actors happier. Second, because the recipients of help appear to be experiencing similar adverse events as the helpers, the helpers tend to consider the recipients as in-group members, which in turn lead to helping behaviors. Third, the helpers’ awareness of social norms and the needs of suffering individuals result in prosocial behaviors. Features of the Actor. Actors themselves also have certain characteristics that impact their prosocial behaviors. Martin and Olson mentioned that positive mood of the actors would predict prosocial behaviors. They also suggested that acting prosocially might help maintain positive mood and mitigate negative mood. Moreover, exposing to others’ affiliative priming (i.e., behaviors that attract others to be their confederates) would more likely engage in prosocial behaviors. For instance, people would give higher tips to the server who showed a confederate smile to the actor. Furthermore, Schlosser and Levy (2016) found that individuals who tend to do downward comparisons (i.e., a comparison of oneself to those whose attributes, outcomes, or emotional states are worse than one’s own) more likely help others. Conclusion Overall, altruistic, egoistic, collective, and principled motivations of helping behaviors were identified. It appears that people could be altruistic when they feel empathy, but many factors could either facilitate or thwart the helping behaviors. Broadly, three factors reportedly play an important role in determining whether we will help others or not: features of helpers, recipients, and situations impact individuals’ helping behaviors. References
by: matthew timminsOverview: Prosocial behavior, or behavior that helps others, is an everyday occurrence for humans (Baston, 2010). Prosocial behaviors may have several motivations, including ultimately gaining something for the self (egoism) and ultimately gaining something for others (altruism). However, scientists debate whether or not human altruism truly occurs; that is, do we ever help others without any self-serving motivations? Opponents of true altruism cite the indirect benefits of helping others, including reducing our own distress at seeing another distressed (empathic concern), while proponents of altruism cite the impact of helping others without expectation of reciprocation (e.g., Davidov, Vaish, Knafo‐Noam, & Hastings, 2016; Martela & Ryan, 2016). The implications of egoism and altruism within Evolutionary Game Theory (The RSA, 2011) and how egoism and altruism are discussed below. Ultimately, it appears that altruism does occur in specific conditions, such as helping in an emergency without contemplating the risks and benefits. Background: For social animals, such as humans, prosocial behaviors such as cooperation and child-rearing act as an evolutionary advantage (Davidov, Vaish, Knafo‐Noam, & Hastings, 2016). For example, human infants require caretakers to survive. If humans did not have an innate tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors, we would not be able to reproduce thriving offspring. Further, better cooperation within a group increases the chances of surviving threats from other groups and harsh conditions. Although a parent must give up time and energy to take care of a child and a farmer must share some of their crops, the group received benefits. Within the context of Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT), if no one cooperates, then no one suffers any costs (The RSA, 2011). Comparatively, if everyone cooperates, everyone suffers a cost but may receive a net benefit. EGT suggests that prosocial behavior is motivated by egoism—we will only engage in prosocial behaviors when there is some potential benefit for the self. Such benefits may come directly from the helped individual—immediately or delayed—or the benefits may come from others who have knowledge of the helping behavior. It may also be that we help certain individuals who improve our mood while we avoid those who decrease our mood. In a series of studies, Hauser, Preston, and Stansfield (2014) observed how the perceived mood a confederate was feeling (happy, neutral, or sad) and need for help influenced whether or not individuals held the door for the confederate—potentially being motivated by empathic concern. In the first study, confederates pretended to end a happy, neutral, or sad phone call before entering a student union building. They observed that more people held the door for happy confederates than for neutral, and more people held the door for neutral than sad confederates. This same pattern emerged when the building was changed to the student health center. It wasn’t until the third study, in which the sad confederates acted openly as if they needed help, that more people held the door for sad confederates than neutral. Still, confederates who appeared happy were the most likely to have the door held. The fourth study, in contrast, required participants to read a narrative about a happy or sad patient. After reading the narrative, participants rated how likely they were to engage in two prosocial behaviors: (1) pay a $20 co-pay and (2) spend 30 minutes speaking to the patient while waiting on the doctor. In this case, payment required little interaction with the patient while speaking with the patient involved prolonged interaction. Participants rated higher likelihood of conversation with the happy patient while being more likely to pay for the sad patient. The results from this series of studies suggest that we prefer to help individuals when we perceive a more enjoyable experience with that person. However, some research has examined prosocial behaviors in which the helper does not directly receive any benefit (e.g., Materla & Ryan, 2016). In one study, participants completed a competitive game ostensibly against another participant (Materla & Ryan, 2016). Some participants were informed of the potential to anonymously aid another player (helping condition), while the control group was not aware of the ability to help. Researchers found that participants in the helping condition reported increased feelings of well-being after helping. Further, participants in the helping condition also performed better on a subsequent Stroop task compared to the control group. In contrast to EGT, no one was aware of participants’ helping behavior, and thus, the participants did not directly benefit from prosocial behaviors. One critique may be that participants had previous experience of increased well-being after anonymous prosocial behaviors, which made them more likely to help in this particular study. However, participants were likely unaware of any benefits on the Stroop task performance. Overall, it is reasonable to argue that the benefits of the prosocial behavior did not directly follow EGT because the prosocial behaviors were anonymous and participants may or may not have been aware of the potential benefits from helping. As the participants may have been unaware of any potential self-benefits, these participants may have been motivated by altruism rather than egoism. Conclusions: Evolutionarily, prosocial behaviors may have developed due to the direct and indirect benefits from helping others, which is consistent with egoistic motivations and EGT. Research supports the notion that we help when we anticipate a positive interaction with the helped individual (e.g., Hauser, Preston, & Stansfield, 2014). However, other research does support the possibility of altruistic helping in which the prosocial behavior appears to only benefit others. Aside from anecdotal evidence from extreme situations (e.g., a soldier falling on a grenade to save his comrades), simple behaviors such as those in Materla and Ryan (2016) suggest that altruism may exist and that not all prosocial behaviors are motivated by egoism. Keywords: altruism, Evolutionary Game Theory, egoism
References
By: patricia cartwrightOverview In my blog, I will argue that altruism does exist. Altruism can be motivated by empathy-induced concern, collectivism, principalism, and genetic influences. Furthermore, I argue that altruism and empathy do possess an evolutionary benefit and that helping others does not always have to be motivated by self rewards. Altruism DefinedWith egoism, the ultimate motive is to increase one’s own welfare. Although egoism can motivate helping behavior, it does not, however, produce altruism. Helping behavior are varying actions intended to benefit individuals other than oneself. In contrast to egoism, altruism is the ultimate motive to increase another person’s welfare rather than one’s own. I, like, Dr. Daniel Batson believe that when one’s own welfare increases as an unintended consequence, their behavior can still be considered altruistic. For instance, empathy-induced altruism, feeling for another person and having the need to reduce the distress of another person can motivate helping. However, whether empathy, alone, is enough to motivate helping behavior is another question I seek to answer below. Motivating Helping Behavior People find motivation for helping behavior due to varying social motives. These motives can include collectivism, the idea that the group’s welfare comes before one’s own and one feels a need to maintain one’s belonging to a group (Fiske, 2014). Secondly, one can be motivated to help based on principalism, one’s need to uphold what they consider to be right and wrong, mixed in with a desire to control the outcome of situations (Fiske, 2014). Additionally, one can be motivated to help because of the belief that people are responsible for others and deserve to be helped. However, in most cases, prerequisites for helping must occur such as individuals noticing an event, deeming the event an emergency, feeling personally responsible for action, considering what help is needed, and then implementing action. Another important factor is the perception of a victim’s assigned responsibility. If the victim is perceived as responsible for their distress, people will be less likely to help. Lastly, research has also shown that other important situational factors such as affiliative motives can encourage helping behaviors. Affiliative Motives vs. Empathic Motives Research has found that humans help others when opportunities to affiliate with desirable partners are present (Phillips, Ferguson, & Rijsdijk, 2010). Situational factors such as a victim’s attractiveness, similarity to the potential helper, and the victim’s clear and severe need can help predict one’s likelihood of engaging in helping behavior (Fiske, 2014). Thus, it seems that affiliative and self-serving motives rather than purely empathic motives, often times, drive our helping behaviors. Similarly, research by Hauser, Preston, & Stansfield (2014) demonstrated that people prefer to help a happy over a sad victim when helping involves direct social interaction. Their results suggest social affiliation motives are impactful because they offer the opportunity to develop cooperative relationships that benefit survival and success in group life. Nevertheless, I believe that helping behavior can still be purely driven by altruism. In the section below, I will describe why some situations result in individuals placing others before themselves. Others Before the Self While some social psychologists believe that all acts of altruism are motivated by ulterior motives that are self-oriented, others argue that people do act selflessly to increase the welfare of others due to an inherent quality of feeling concern for others’ needs and goodness. Collectivism, another motivator of helping behavior, concerns the motivation to increase the welfare of one’s group as a whole and is differentiated from individual-level empathy (Fiske, 2014). Consistent with the idea that people act on collectivistic core social motives that results in helping others, people are also more likely to help when they can identify similarities between themselves and the victim, particularly when their group identity is relevant. In other words, when a victim is perceived as an ingroup member, people are more likely to help. Research by Mathur et al. (2010), actually suggests that greater inclusion of one’s group members in one’s self concept can lead to extraordinary empathy and altruistic behavior for members of one's own group. Importantly, their research also demonstrates that one’s self-concept is not activated when outgroup members are helped suggesting that, perhaps, altruism is real and evolutionarily adaptive. The Evolution of Altruism Humans are social animals that have lived in groups for thousands of years, resulting in a tendency for people to depend on one another. To increase our survival odds, we have learned to feel empathy and cooperate with each other. Altruism and empathy are evolutionarily adaptive because they can increase one’s odds of survival because they help people compete for resources, even when there are associated costs. Altruists believe people deserve help and expect people to be responsible for one another and thus responsible for helping maintain human survival. According to Phillips et al. (2010), it is also possible that more altruistic individuals seek out environments that offer opportunities to express their altruism. Altruistic actions depict interpersonal warmth which is a desirable trait, especially in women. Thus, having an opportunity to express altruism may, in turn, help attract mates that leads to more frequent sexual reproduction, offspring that have inherited gene coding for altruism, a stronger mate preference, and a cooperative society. Conclusion Although I believe altruism, in its purest sense, does exist, I also believe that empathic altruism cannot always motivate helping. When others have a tendency toward empathy they typically have a tendency to trust others, suggesting that in the absence of trust, perhaps empathy will not motivate helping behavior. The research reviewed here demonstrates that helping behavior motivated by self-rewards widely prevails but that true altruism may still exist, although rare. I agree that altruistic actions are often driven by self-rewards, but it also perfectly possible for people to commit altruistic acts and unintentionally receive rewards. Lastly, as Mathur et al. (2010) have found, one’s self concept is not involved in helping outgroup members which suggests true altruism is a phenomenon if people are not always thinking of themselves. References:
|
AuthorsThis site is a collaborative effort of the Spring 2017 Advanced Social Psychology graduate seminar at Mississippi State University.. Archives
April 2017
Categories
All
|