One of the most baffling questions in evolutionary biology is why humans are altruistic, that is, engaging in behavior that has benefit to others but not to oneself.  Altruism can even put oneself at a disadvantage at times. This is the reason why altruism is so puzzling.  It does not operate cleanly within evolutionary theory at first glance.  Evolutionary theory works on the principles of natural selection, that those traits that help an organism survive long enough to pass on its genes will prevail.  Under this law, it makes sense for an organism, in this case a human, to act selfishly because it will ensure the legacy of their genetic material.  On the surface, altruism appears disadvantageous and unrealistic.  However, it certainly exists.  So what is going on?

Although altruism may seem to damage evolutionary theory, a closer look reveals that it actually fits in quite nicely.  The current theory is called inclusive fitness, which is an organism’s ability to produce offspring, and therefore pass on their genes, taking into account not only their own genes, but those of its close relatives.  In other words, your family’s survival is important to you because you share some of the same genetic material; therefore helping them is helping yourself (Marshall, 2011).

Kin altruism was demonstrated in action during a study done by Curry, Roberts, and Dunbar (2013), in which higher rates of altruism were found among relatives than non-relatives on social media.  Another study by Osiński (2009), demonstrated that participants a higher rate of social discounting in groups of unrelated individuals than with groups of relatives.  Social discounting is when a reward is perceived as less valuable because it must be shared with more people.  Kin altruism was further supported by the claim that generosity is given social, and reproductive, favor (Boehm, 2008).  It was then clarified with Hamilton’s Rule, an algorithm that shows that altruism is genetically selected among populations during the evolutionary process (Waibel, Floreano, & Keller, 2011).

Still, there are others that argue that there is a strong indication that the origins or altruism stem from a propensity toward empathy, and therefore it is empathy’s evolutionary roots that cause an organism to choose altruism.  De Waal (2008), therefore, theorized that the mirroring effect, reflecting in oneself an observed emotion in another, which drives empathy, is an ideal candidate for explaining altruism.  It should be stressed that is not proposed as an opponent to the kin selection theory, but rather a supplemental theory.

Now that we understand altruism, here are some interesting things about it.

When it comes to helping others monetarily, older adults are more altruistic (Freund & Blanchard-Frields, 2013). They donate more money than younger adults.  This was not the only finding, however. They found that this behavior may be rooted in older adults’ greater concern for the public good.  Even when perspectives about how much time participants had left in their lives to make said money, younger adults did not increase donations.  Older adults also reported valuing contribution to the public good more highly than younger adults, whose strategies focused on optimizing personal financial gain.

Higher rates of compassion and altruism toward strangers are greatly linked to spirituality rather than religiousness (Saslow, et al., 2013).  Although spirituality is closely tied with religion, it is a separate experience that refers to the personal and emotional aspects of religion or something greater than oneself, whereas religious experience is rooted in the behaviors and beliefs grounded within a religious community/tradition.  The majority of religious people identify as also being spiritual (Marler & Hadaway, 2002), but there are those who identify as spiritual but not religious (Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006).  By controlling for the religiousness trait, it was found that spirituality, whether felt by a religious or non-religious person, was the true contributor of compassion.  It is interesting to consider that higher rates of altruism, particularly costly altruism, are not only found in the religious, but also in military and terrorist organizations (Qirko, 2013).

Why do you think about altruism? Is there anything you’ve noticed about it?

---

References

Boehm, C. (2008). Purposive social selection and the evolution of human altruism. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 42(4), 319-352. doi:10.1177/1069397108320422

Curry, O., Roberts, S. B., & Dunbar, R. M. (2013). Altruism in social networks: Evidence for a ‘kinship premium’. British Journal of Psychology, 104(2), 283-295. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02119.x

de Waal, F. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59279-300. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625

Freund, A. M., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2013). Age-Related Differences in Altruism Across Adulthood: Making Personal Financial Gain Versus Contributing to the Public Good. Developmental Psychology, doi:10.1037/a0034491

Marler, P. L., & Hadaway, C. K. (2002). “Being religious” or “Being spiritual” in America: A zero-sum proposition? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 289-300. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00117

Marshall, J. R. (2011). Ultimate causes and the evolution of altruism. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(3), 503-512. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1110-1

Osiński, J. (2009). Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and social discounting. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 374-378. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.011

Qirko, H. N. (2013). Induced altruism in religious, military, and terrorist organizations. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 47(2), 131-161. doi:10.1177/1069397112471804

Saucier, G., & Skrzypinska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not religious? Evidence for two independent dispositions. Journal of Personality, 74, 1257-1292. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00409.x

Saslow, L. R., John, O. P., Piff, P. K., Willer, R., Wong, E., Impett, E. A., & … Saturn, S. R. (2013). The social significance of spirituality: New perspectives on the compassion–altruism relationship. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 201-218. doi:10.1037/a0031870

Waibel, M., Floreano, D., & Keller, L. (2011). A quantitative test of Hamilton’s rule for the evolution of altruism. Plos Biology, 9(5), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000615