Are People Basically Selfish?

The question of whether people are basically selfish will be addressed in two ways. In one sense,
this question may be restated are whether people are selfish by nature. As such, it is closely
related to the broader nature versus nurture question. The nature side of this question asks
whether people have innate tendencies to act to further their own self-interest. Similarly, we
might also ask whether the trait of altruism is built into people-in other words, is there a
biological basic for people to act to benefit others without any interest in how much actions will
benefit themselves?
The nurture side of the question proposes that people develop the traits of selfishness or
altruism through learning, experience, or the influence of their culture. In this view, altruism is
not something basic to an individual that unfolds from built-in tendencies, but rather something
acquired through learning and experience.
The second way of addressing the question whether people are basically selfish asks
whether people, for the most part, behave or are motivated to behave to further their own self-
interest. The discussion that follows will address these two approaches to the question of
peoples selfishness by selectively reviewing the literature. We will begin by discussing the
biological basic for selfishness.
Charles Darwins evolutionary theory has been used to argue both for and against the idea
that people are by nature altruistic or unselfish (Rapoport, 1991). According to Darwins theory,
natural selection operates so that those organisms with a trait that helps them to survive and
reproduce will tend to pass that trait along to their offspring. According to one view, a trait like
altruism could be preserved in a species if it helped members of the group survive. Trivers
(1995) argued that altruism may be preserved in a species along kinship lines. For example, an
individual will sacrifice resources, even his or her life, for a close relative such as a brother or
offspring, because the relative shares 50% of the same genes. This could tend to preserve the
individuals own genes by helping these related individuals to survive long enough to breed and
pass along the shared genes.

Other biologists and some psychologists have pointed out that this idea of group selection
is a misunderstanding of natural selection and that natural selection actually only occurs at the
individual level (Dawkins, 1989). According to this other view, there is no selective advantage
for animals that sacrifice their own resources or passing along ones genes depends only on
individual survival, then it makes no sense for an individual to help others if it does not promote
the individuals own survival. Therefore, any individual with an altruistic gene that gives its food
to another or risks its life for another is at a selective disadvantage. It may not live long enough
to breed and as a result will not pass along its gene for altruism to its offspring. Helping others,
especially those outside of ones kinship group, is very costly and would likely be selected
against.
Yet, many documented cases suggest that people are altruistic and may be willing to help,
even risk their lives for other unrelated individuals, when they do not stand to gain from that
help. For example, when a jet airliner crashed into the icy Potomac River one winter several
years ago, a bystander named Lenny Skutnik imperiled his own life by repeatedly diving into the
frigid waters to save some of the passengers. Another revealing example of altruism, however-a
story told about Abraham Lincoln-casts some doubt on the selflessness behind altruism. Lincoln
is said to have ordered the train he was riding to stop so that some drowning pigs he saw out the
window could be saved. Lincoln reported that he had not done this out of an altruistic motive but
rather to avoid having a guilty conscience over the matter (Batson, Bolen, Cross, Neuringer-
Benefiel, 1986)
In addition, there are so many documented cases of people who have field to help those in
need. For exemples, in 1964 in New York City, a 28-year-old woman named Kitty Genovese
was assaulted three different times over a 30-minute period and then killed while 38 different
people in her neighborhood who were aware of her plight did nothing to intervene of help her-
they did not even call the police .
The tragedy inspired John Darley and Bib Latane to investigate what factors would lead a
pearson to help another person an an emergency. Darley and Latane (1968) staged a situation in
which collage students were randomly assigned to a group who heard over in intercome what
sounded like a person having an epileptic seizure. When a second group of randomly assigned
subject thought they alone had overheard the seizure, 85% of them tried to get help for the
victim, but when they thought that others had also overheard the seizure, only 30% sought help.
Darlet and Latane (1968) found that people were not simply apathetic about the plight of another,
but less likely to intervene when they knew that other people were also aware of the persons
plight. This effect has been called diffusion of responsibility.
Research like this raises the question whether altruistic persons actually may be helping
others for a selfish motive such as avoiding distress or guilt. Alternatively, do some people
engage in altruistic acts because they feel emphaty for a suffering person-sympathy, compassion,
or tendeness? To investigate that question, Coke, Batson, and McDavis (1978) conducted a study
in which people heard a radio broadcast that requested participants to help a gradute student
complete a study in responses to a questionnaire, thay found that feelings of personal distress in
subjects were only modestly related to willingness to participate while foodings of emphaty were
strongly related to willingness to participate. The study suggested that people may be altruistic
primarily for unselfish, empathic reasons. Eisenberg and fabes (1990) noted in a recent review
that empathy-the vicarious response involving concern for someone elses distress or need-can
result either in sympathy for the other person or in personal distress in response to the others
distress.
One psychologist, Hoffman (1981), argued that humans have a biologically basic empathy
mechanism thats automatically activated when a person in need is encountered. In a review of
literature, Hoffman found support for the idea that empathic responses may not be under
voluntary control. He also cited research by MacLean showing that the visual processing part of
the brain is connected to the emotional part of the brain. This connection may underlie peoples
ability to see with feeling. In addition, developmental research has shown that infants only 1 or
2 days old cry in response to other infants crying. This idea of an innate empathic mechanism is
also consistent with adults statements that they helped others in emergency situations
automatically, without thinking.
Other developmental research suggests that the reasons a young person helps may be
complex. For example, Kenrick (1989) found that by the age of about six, children will engage in
helping behavior to punish themselves in order to make up for a bad deep they have done.
Cialdini, Baumann, and Kenrick (1981) reported in a review of the literature that by the time
people are in their late teens they will help others when no one is watching of even though no
one will know they have helped.
While these research suggest that altruism develops by the late teens, the research on
socialization-that is, how people acquire characteristics and value through their social groups-
suggests that people do not start out as altruists but rather develop this trait after considerable
practice, rewards, observation of altruistic models, and the internalization of altruistic value
(Grusec, 1991). Based on other review of the research on the socialization of prosocial behavior ,
Kim and Stevens (1987) argued that parents exert considerable influence on the development of
the altruism and other prosocial characteristics when they communicate their expectations for
prosocial behavior, reward young children for showing it, and punishment for failures to show it,
and when they model prosocial behavior for their children to observe in various situations. The
authors also pointed out the parents who use inductive reasoning when their children to justify
the need for prosocial behavior will be more effective in helping their children to develop the
disposition to behave prosocially than parents who simply request such behavior.
Whereas Cialdiniet al. (1981) found that people in their late teens will help even when no
one else is aware of it, research by Batson et al. (1986) found that helping occurred more when
the failure to help was likely to be detected by someone else than when it was likely to be
undetected. The pattern of correlations with empathy scores in this study was also consistent
with the idea that people help others to avoid feeling guilt, rather than out of an unselfish,
emphatic concern for the person needing help.
Other studies have shown that empathy may lead to helping withour egoistic motives. A
study by Fultz, Batson, Fortenbach, McCarthy, and Varney (1986) found that subjects who felt
more empathy offered to help regardless of wheater they thought thet were going to be evaluated
on wheater they helped or not, suggesting that empathy does not result in helping for the egoistic
or selfish reason of avoiding social disapproval. In study consistent with this last finding, Sibiky,
Schroeder, and Dovidio (1995) randomly assigned their subject into groups that were induced to
be either high or low in empathy by having statement read to them suggesting that kind of mental
set. They found that emphatic subjects gave fewer hints to help other subjects when they were
told that the hints could hurt the subject later in the experiment. These results suggested that
empathy increases sensitivity to others needs.
Others research on empathy has produced negative results. Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan,
Arps, Fultz, and Beaman (1987) proposed that the reason empathic people help is to relieve their
sadness in observing a suffere in need. When they experimentally separated sadness and
empathy, they found that sadness predicted subjects levels of helping, but empathy did not. In a
second expereiment, they found that empathic subject did not help much when they were led to
believe that their moods would not be changed if they helped another person.
Another kind of research of personality difference in helping has shown that a persons
individual tendency to be altruistic may differ. Romer, Gruder, and Lizardo (1968) conducted an
experiment in which they had subjects complete personality tests and the classified the subject
as: (1) altruistic, subjects who indicated that typically they were helpful to others with no
expectation of something in return; (2) receptive-giving, subjects who would help others when
they got something in return; of (3) selfish, subjects who wanted help from others but were not
interested in giving any help. This initial testing suggested that not all people may be basically
selfish, but some may be selfish and others may be altruistic.
In a second phase of the experiment, subjects were asked whether they would be wiling to
help a different, a graduate student experimenter to complete her research project before the end
of the semester. The subjects were then either promised course credit for participation or were
not promised credit, consistent with the initial personality test classification, the selfish students
generally would not help regardless of whether or not they were promised a reward. The
receptive-giving subjects volunteered more when they were promised course credit. Finally, the
altruistic subjects volunteered more when they were not rewarded than when they were, resulting
in what is called a person-by-situation interaction. The interaction shows that whether or not
subjects volunteered depended on both their personality characteristic-whether they were
altruistic, selfish, or receptive-giving-and on details of the situation (whether or not they were
offered a reward). It may even be that the altruistic subjects tended to volunteer for selfish
reasons such as the intrinsic reward of feeling good because they were helping someone.
Consistent with the results of the previous study by Romer et al. (1986), other situational
and mood variables also seem to influence whether or not a person helps. For example, Isen and
Levin (1972) found that subjects who were given a cookie beforehand were more likely to
volunteer to help than those who did not receive a free cookie. In a second study they found that
subjects who found a dime in a phone booth were more likely to help someone pick up some
dropped papers than subjects who did not find a dime. Both experiments show that helping
depends on a situational determinant-receiving a gift-and perhaps on the positive mood induced
by the free gift. Consistent with the idea that mood influences helping, Batson (1990) reviewed a
number of studies showing that people in a positive mood are more likely to help.
Still other research has shown that another detail of the situation-whether or not one has
observed someone else helping-also affects a persons tendency to help. For example, Bryan and
Test (1967) found that subjects were more likely to help a motorist with a flat tire if they had just
observed someone else helping another motorist with a flat tire.
In conclusion, the question whether people are basically selfish at this point receives a
complicated and mixer answer from a summary of the relevant evidence. Much anecdotal
evidence, and statements of reputed authorities, support both sides of the question. Similarly,
evaluation of higher-quality evidence from experimental research, some of which were true
experiments, provides support for both the selfish and altruistic basic of behavior. While there is
a strong biological argument against the selection of genes for altruism, there is some evidence
for an innate mechanism for empathy that could promote helping. The research suggests that
people often engage in altruistic behaviors to reduce personal distress guilt, and other negative
emotions, but they also may sometimes help because of empathy for another person without
much concern for consequence to themselves. Also, although individuals appear to differ in
terms of how selfish or how altruistic they are, some research suggests that their tendency to help
another person depends on the situational details, especially whether or not they will be rewarded
for their helping. Moreover, besides the influence of rewards, people are more likely to help after
they have observed another person modeling helpful behavior. In addition to the evidence that
helping is learned, there is evidence that rather than appearing early in the developmental
sequence, altruism increases with socialization and development. Taken together, this evidence
suggests that people are not by nature altruistic and that they acquire this trait over time and to
different degrees.