UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 10.2 Free with a free account
Giving or Gaining: Social Exchange Theory, Empathy-Altruism, and Egoism
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 10: Altruism, Helping, and Prosocial BehaviorSection 10.2 · lesson 65 of 8510 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Who Helps and Why: Predictors, Definitions, and Mood as a Driver of Helping →← The Roots of Kindness: Where Altruism Comes From and How Society Shapes ItNext lesson: Who Helps and Why: Predictors, Definitions, and Mood as a Driver of Helping →
In this lesson
Two accounts of why people help, and the experiment designed to tell them apart.
- State the predictions of social exchange theory
- Distinguish empathic concern from personal distress
- Explain how the easy-escape paradigm discriminates the two
- Weigh the egoistic counter-explanations
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,347 words). Read along, or search it.
Altruism, Helping, and Prosocial Behavior
Giving or Gaining
Why do people help? Asked sharply, that question forces a choice between two pictures of human nature. In the first, every act of helping ultimately serves the helper. Relationships are exchanges, kindness is investment, selflessness is self-interest in disguise. In the second, people are capable of caring about someone else for its own sake. This section weighs both pictures against the evidence. You will meet social exchange theory, which treats helping as a transaction. Then Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis, which denies that it always is. And the experiment built specifically to tell the two apart. The design of that experiment is the most instructive thing here.
The Fork
Two Pictures of Human Nature
Take the two pictures seriously before choosing between them. On the first, helping always pays the helper something. Gratitude, or reputation, or simply the relief of no longer feeling bad. If that is right, altruism is a word we use for a well-disguised trade. On the second picture, at least some concern is genuinely about the other person. Not a means to anything. The endpoint itself. Now notice the methodological trap sitting between them. Both motives can produce exactly the same visible behavior. You cannot read a motive off an act. That is why the experiments in this section are so indirect.
Exchange Theory
Interaction as a Marketplace
Social exchange theory treats human interaction as a marketplace. Every encounter carries potential rewards and potential costs. Rewards might be gratitude, approval, reputation, or reciprocation. Also relief from your own distress, and the warm glow of having helped. Costs might be time, effort, risk, or plain embarrassment. Also the alternatives you gave up by stopping. The theory predicts helping when anticipated rewards outweigh anticipated costs. One qualification is important, and it is easy to miss. The calculation may be deliberate, or it may be rapid and intuitive. The theory does not require you to notice it happening. What it requires is that the logic be economic.
The Full Ledger
Not Helping Has a Column Too
Here is where people misapply the theory. They weigh only the costs of helping, and forget the other column. There are four cells, not two. Helping has rewards: gratitude, reciprocity, approval, self-esteem, mood repair, reputation. Helping has costs: time, effort, danger, lost opportunity, embarrassment. But not helping has rewards too. You avoid every one of those costs simply by walking on. And not helping has costs of its own. Guilt. Public censure. A damaged image of yourself. That last column is where most real variation in helping actually comes from.
Three Predictions
What the Theory Commits To
A theory earns its keep by being falsifiable, so look at the commitments. Three implications follow directly, and each one is testable. First, lower the cost of helping and helping should rise. Papers dropped in a quiet hallway, versus papers dropped on a busy highway. Same need, very different price, and very different rates of assistance. Second, raise the cost of not helping and helping should also rise. When guilt, shame, or social censure would be severe, inaction stops being free. Third, helping should be more frequent when the helper expects a return. We are markedly more generous toward people we will see again. Less so toward strangers we will never meet. Notice what every one of those predictions changes. It changes a price, never a person.
Batson
The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
Daniel Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis makes a sharply different claim. Under specific conditions, helping is not motivated by self-interest at all. It is motivated by genuine concern for the other person's welfare. The condition that triggers it is called empathic concern. And the whole argument depends on separating empathic concern from something that looks identical. Empathic concern is other-oriented. It is compassion for the person in need. Personal distress is self-oriented. It is your own discomfort at witnessing someone else suffer. Both feel unpleasant, and both arise from the same scene. But one is about them, and the other is about you. They behave completely differently the moment an exit appears.
Ultimate Goals
Two Motives, Two Endpoints
The distinction Batson needs is not about which feeling is stronger. It is about the ultimate goal, the thing the motive is finally aiming at. Under egoistic motivation, the ultimate goal is the helper's own welfare. The recipient's relief is instrumental, a means rather than the end. So if the helper's own state can be fixed some other way, help becomes optional. Under altruistic motivation, the ultimate goal is the recipient's welfare. The helper's mood is incidental. Only the other person's relief will actually do. Both descriptions can sit behind the very same act of helping. Which is precisely why disentangling them experimentally is so subtle.
The Critical Test
The Easy-Escape Paradigm
Batson's classic test turns on one place where the two motives disagree. They diverge when escape from the situation is easy. Suppose your motive is personal distress. Leaving makes the distress disappear, and leaving is the simplest solution. So the prediction is clear: no help when escape is easy. Now suppose your motive is empathic concern. Leaving does nothing whatsoever about the other person's need. So you should help whether escape is easy or difficult. Across many replications, the results broadly support the altruistic prediction. That holds for participants in whom empathy has been induced. Read the claim narrowly, though. It does not say all helping is altruistic. It says one route exists.
The Rebuttals
Two Ways to Save Pure Egoism
Defenders of pure egoism have not conceded, and their rebuttals are worth knowing. Each one reinterprets empathy-driven helping while keeping self-benefit as the goal. The first is Cialdini's negative-state relief model. Witnessing suffering puts the observer into a temporary negative mood. Helping is one well-learned route to repairing that mood. On this view the helper aims at their own relief, not the other's. The model makes a prediction, which is what makes it science. Dispel the negative mood another way first, and helping should decline. Empirical support for that prediction is mixed. The second rebuttal is empathic joy. Here the helper pursues the pleasure of seeing the recipient relieved. That predicts less motivation when you cannot learn whether your help worked. Those findings are mixed too, and the empathy-altruism hypothesis keeps surviving.
Reconciling
When Each Route Applies
Few contemporary researchers treat this as a winner-takes-all contest. The more useful question is when each account applies. Exchange reasoning fits routine, low-empathy situations very well. Workplace favors, small courtesies, exchanges among acquaintances. The empathy route shows up under different conditions. When the helper recognizes something of themselves in the person in need. When the suffering is salient and particular rather than abstract. And when no easy alibi for inaction is available. The two routes also differ in what happens afterward. Cost-benefit helping is more selective, and more calibrated to expected return. It is also far more sensitive to who is watching. Empathy-driven helping is less discriminating on all of that. But it is much more sensitive to the recipient's face, story, and identifiability.
A Decisive Case
One Named Child Beats a Statistic
One finding puts real pressure on the pure exchange account. It is called the identifiable-victim effect. One named, vivid individual elicits more aid than statistics describing thousands. Think about why that is awkward for an exchange theory. The statistical need is larger, so relieving it should be worth more. Yet the aid goes the other way. On an empathy account, the result is exactly what you expect. Empathy keys on vividness and particularity, not on magnitude. Helping tracks what can be pictured, not what can be counted. There is a practical consequence worth flagging. An appeal that scales up its numbers to sound more urgent may be weakening itself. Aggregation removes precisely the feature that empathy responds to.
Consolidate
The Two Accounts, Side by Side
Line the two accounts up against each other and the differences are sharp. The ultimate goal is the helper's welfare on one side, the recipient's on the other. One is triggered by cost-benefit calculation, the other by empathic concern. Make escape easy, and exchange-driven helping declines sharply. Empathy-driven helping persists. Add an audience, and the exchange account predicts a strong effect. Reputation is a reward, so being watched matters. The empathy route is much less sensitive to that. And the identifiable-victim effect is predicted by one and awkward for the other. So carry two diagnostic questions with you. What would happen here if escape were easy? And what would happen if nobody were watching?
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Giving or Gaining: Social Exchange Theory, Empathy-Altruism, and Egoism
How does social exchange theory explain helping?
What is Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis?
How did Batson test whether helping is truly altruistic?
What is the identifiable victim effect?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →