Parents sacrifice themselves for their children. Gift giving and sharing are universal. People help others in distress, give blood and may even donate a bodily organ to a stranger while still alive. In the Second World War some hid Jews from the Nazis at the risk of their own lives, and in 1981 IRA hunger strikers died voluntarily for their cause.
Theories of the origin of such altruistic acts, intended to benefit others at a cost to oneself, have come from both evolutionary and cultural sources. While Darwinian evolution is commonly equated with a competitive struggle for existence, theories developed since the 1960s have shown that altruism towards kin (Grafen 1991; Hamilton 1964), and reciprocal altruism (co-operation) between unrelated individuals (Axelrod 1984) are both favoured by natural selection under certain conditions. Kin-directed altruism is favoured because relatives have a high chance of carrying the genes predisposing the altruist to selfless behaviour. This means that if the altruist’s loss of fitness is outweighed by the relative’s gain (devalued by the chance that the genes in question are carried by the relative), genes predisposing individuals to altruism will be favoured overall and spread through the population. The ubiquitous favouring of close kin is probably the result of such evolutionary forces.
The problem for the evolution of altruism between unrelated individuals is cheating, since those who receive without giving do best of all. When cheating can be punished, however, a game theory analysis shows that tit-for-tat reciprocation, that rewards altruism with altruism and punishes selfishness with selfishness, results in greater rewards than egoism (Axelrod 1984). When all individuals behave reciprocally in this way selfishness never arises.
This analysis fails to explain altruism between strangers, however, since it predicts reciprocation only when the same individuals interact frequently. Of more generality is a model in which self-sacrifice is culturally transmitted and benefits the social group. Here children adopt the commonest adult trait as their role model, such conformism itself being favoured by natural selection (Boyd and Richerson, in Hinde and Groebel 1991). This model fits well with the demonstrated tendency to favour individuals in one’s own social group, and with ethnocentrism and xenophobia.
These models leave open the psychological issue of what motivates an individual to behave altruistically. This question has been central to the study of human nature since classical times, philosophers disagreeing over whether egoistic or altruistic impulses are at the root of human action, and consequently over the possibilities for ethical and political obligation. Under the hedonistic view all behaviour is motivated by the desire to avoid pain and secure pleasure, so that altruism is ultimately selfish. However, if all that is being claimed is that the achievement of goals is pleasurable, then hedonism indeed explains altruism but misses the interesting points that the goal in this case is to help another individual, and that some cost is suffered even though goal achievement might be enjoyed. There remains the difficult question of whether altruistic acts are performed to ameliorate the suffering of others or the saddened mood that normally accompanies empathy for a victim. Social psychologists who have disentangled these associated motivations have found conflicting results (Fultz and Cialdini, in Hinde and Groebel 1991), although empathic individuals do tend to show more helping behaviour. In addition, people may help even when they believe they would remain anonymous if they declined to do so, demonstrating that the good opinion of others is not a necessary motive for altruism.
In western societies altruistic tendencies are enhanced by the development in childhood of empathy, moral reasoning and the ability to take the perspective of others. These traits develop most readily in children whose parents are caring and supportive, set clear standards, enforce them without punishment, encourage responsibility and are themselves altruistic. These mechanisms may not be universal however; in the Utkuhikhalingmiut, an Eskimo group, for example, kindness is taught as a response to fear, reflecting its adult use as a means of defusing potential antagonism by feared individuals.
Norms of altruistic behaviour vary between cultures—western individualism contrasts with the collectivism of China and Japan, for example—and have their developmental roots in the way children are taught. Within small-scale egalitarian societies altruism may be valued more highly where there is little competition for resources or where a harsh environment favours co-operation.
John Lazarus
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
References
Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation, New York.
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (1991) ‘Culture and Cooperation’, in Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (1991).
Fultz, J. and Cialdini, R.B. (1991) ‘Situational and Personality Determinants of the Quantity and Quality of Helping’, in Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (1991).
Grafen, A. (1991) ‘Modelling in behavioural ecology’, in J.R.Krebs and N.B.Davies (eds) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 3rd edn, Oxford.
Hamilton, W.D. (1964) ‘The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I and II’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 7.
Piliavin, J. and Hong-Wen Charng (1990) ‘Altruism: A review of recent theory and research’ Am. Rev. of Soc. 16:27–65.
Further reading
Hinde, R.A. and Groebel, J. (eds) (1991) Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour, Cambridge, UK.
