and reach thousands of daily visitors
11 AUGUST 2010
NO 1613
Altruism
Altruism is empathy in action, helping others in need. Neuroscientist Shelley Taylor1 shows how the instinct to tend and befriend is more central to human nature than selfishness and aggression. Humans are unique in that both genders have the capacity for tending. We also have been caregivers throughout our existence. Ancient skeletal remains show that many people with severe crippling disorders lived long lives because someone was taking care of them.
The classic research on altruism is the Good Samaritan experiment.2 That study involved a group of seminary students who believed they were late for a scheduled lecture on the parable of the Good Samaritan. When encountering a person in need (actually an actor), they hurried by. This demonstrated that when we are distracted or distressed, we fail to display altruism. If we do not see people’s pain, empathy does not have a chance.
Many earlier researchers presumed that superior altruism was associated with lofty levels of cognitive moral development only possessed by a few moral giants. Now a remarkable series of studies show a very different picture. Altruistic behavior is strongly grounded in children from their earliest years. Even babies prefer Good Samaritans. Yale researchers found that six- to ten-month-old infants prefer helpful to unhelpful toys. In the experiment, infants watched a wooden toy struggle to try to climb an incline. Then a second toy would appear on the scene to help the climber up the hill. In another case, a trouble-making toy would try to push the climber back down the incline. When encouraged to play with the toys, most infants consistently chose the ones that acted nice.3 Their young brains are designed to seek out those who help and shun those who hinder or hurt.
The little hands of toddlers reach out to help as early as 18 months of age. Scientists at the Max Plank Institute in Germany found that they readily display altruistic behavior when an adult is in need. The experimenter arranged various opportunities for the children to help. For example, when he appeared to accidentally drop a clothespin, every toddler came to his aid, retrieving the object. Attempts to replicate this with mature chimpanzees were much less successful, apparently because they lacked the level of empathy shown by tiny children.4
Lewin found that by age eight, children were frequently "dominated by the ideology of generosity.5 Children were given four good and four not- so-good toys and encouraged to share. Most gave all four of the best ones to peers, keeping the tattered ones themselves. \/Vhen they were asked which toys they would really like to have, the eight year olds of course said they preferred the good toys. But in spite of these selfish wishes, their actions were dominated by their ideals.
Group belonging seems to automatically prime altruistic behavior. In 1920, social psychologist William McDougal wrote that loyalty towards members of one’s group was the principle moralizing force in society.6 Modern research confirms this view. When we feel we belong to a group, our in-group empathy programs kick in and activate pro-social behavior without any need for external rewards.
Growing up in cultures of disrespect impairs this natural ability of children to show empathy and altruism. Caring is not fashionable among many modern youth. Weakly bonded to family or school, youth form negative youth subcultures and become trapped in self-centered, exploitative lifestyles. The antidote to this cultural narcissism is straightforward: motivation for helping is rekindled by secure attachments to a group.
Cohesion in a group is the equivalent to trust between individuals.7 Research in Re-ED programs shows that strongly cohesive groups are powerful agents for positive support and change.8 Unfortunately, peer cliques and gangs often do a better job of building belonging than adult-operated youth programs.9
There is a widespread misperception that antisocial youth will not respond to treatment but need controlled environments with consistent rewards and punishments. Nothing in that custodial prescription addresses their most basic need to reciprocate love. Typical punitive sanctions for such young persons only serve to reinforce a cycle of recidivism and disengagement from pro-social roles.10 On the other hand, persons using touchy-feely approaches will be seen as weak and thus be equally ineffective.
Michigan peer influence studies show that the most effective adults are those who can combine strong accountability for pro-social behavior with strong encouragement and support.11 We call this "demanding greatness." Contributing to others activates deep empathy programs. Even very troubled individuals are likely to have some intact underlying moral competence which can be the basis for positive development.12
LARRY K. BRENDTRO, MARTIN L. MITCHELL AND HERMAN J. MCCALL
Brendtro, L. K.; Mitchell, M. L. and McCall, H. J. (2009).
Deep Brain Learning: Pathways to potential with challenging youth.
Albion, Michigan. Circle of Courage Institute and Starr Commonwealth. pp.
94-96.
NOTES
1. Taylor, 2002.
2. Darley and Batson, 1973.
3. Hamlyn, Wynn and Bloom, 2008.
4. Warneken and Thomasell0, 2006. While mature chimpanzees lacked the empathy shown by tiny children, apes and all kinds of other animals have been immensely helpful and have shown empathy when the need arose, i.e., when more important issues were at stake than a clothespin.
5. Lewin, 1943/1999, p. 335
6. McDougal, 1920.
7. Yalom, 1995.
8. Valore, 2007.
9. Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath and Nitzbert, 2005.
10. Toch and Adams, 2002.
11. Gold and Osgood, 1992.
12. Hauser, 2006, p. 241.
