Nice Guys Finish First: The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis Charlie L. Hardy Mark Van Vugt University of Kent at Canterbury Three experimental studies examined the relationship between is one of the major puzzles in the behavioral sciences altruistic behavior and the emergence of status hierarchies today. Across many decades of research, social psychol- within groups. In each study, group members were confronted ogists studying altruism and cooperation have identi- with a social dilemma in which they could either benefit them- fied numerous important factors that affect helping selves or their group. Study 1 revealed that in a reputation behavior, such as empathy (Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, environment when contributions were public, people were more Buckley, & Birch, 1981), closeness (Neyer & Lang, altruistic. In both Studies 1 and 2, the most altruistic members 2003), mood (Isen, 1970), values (Omoto & Snyder, gained the highest status in their group and were most fre- 1995; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997), quently preferred as cooperative interaction partners. Study 3 and rewards for helping and costs for not helping showed that as the costs of altruism increase, the status rewards (Penner, Dovidio, Schroeder, & Piliavin, 2005; Van also increase. These results support the premise at the heart of Vugt, 1998). Yet, social psychological models of altruism competitive altruism: Individuals may behave altruistically for often do not address where these basic motivations reputation reasons because selective benefits (associated with come from or how they came to be so important in status) accrue to the generous. human evolutionary history (cf. McAndrew, 2002). For evolutionary theorists, altruism has always been some- thing of an enigma. How could any organism engage in actions that seem to benefit others but not themselves? Keywords: altruism; status; reputation; public goods; costly signals Throughout the past decades, two main evolutionary models of altruism have emerged: kin selection theory Humans are social animals. This phrase is often (Hamilton, 1964) and reciprocal altruism theory stated in the social and evolutionary psychology litera- (Trivers, 1971). These models are well-founded in tures (Aronson, 1999; Buss, 2004; Van Vugt & Van Lange, mathematical theory and they have received over- in press), but what does it actually mean? The answer whelming empirical support (Axelrod, 1984; Burnstein, centers on issues of selfishness and altruism. Whereas Crandall, & Kitayama, 1997; Neyer & Lang, 2003; Van most other mammals help each other only within small Lange & Semin-Goosens, 1998). Yet, questions remain kinship groups, humans have the unique ability to form about the extent to which they can fully account for the and cooperate within large social groups, which include diversity and ubiquity of altruistic patterns in human many genetic strangers (McAndrew, 2002). For example, humans invest time and energy in helping other members Authors’ Note: This article is based on doctoral research of the first in their neighborhood and make frequent donations to author and was supported by an award from the Economic and Social charity (Van Vugt, Snyder, Tyler, & Biel, 2000), they come Research Council (ESRC). Both authors contributed equally to the to each other’s rescue in crises and disasters (Van Vugt & research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charlie Hardy, Department of Psychology, University of Samuelson, 1999), they respond to appeals to sacrifice Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, United Kingdom; for their country during a war (Stern, 1995), and they e-mail: [email protected]. Mark Van Vugt also may be reached via put their lives at risk by helping complete strangers in an e-mail at [email protected]. emergency (Becker & Eagly, 2004). PSPB, Vol. 32 No. 10, October 2006 1402-1413 Altruism, the intention to benefit others at a cost to DOI: 10.1177/0146167206291006 oneself (Batson, 1998; Van Vugt & Van Lange, in press), © 2006 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 1402 Hardy, Van Vugt / COMPETITIVE ALTRUISM 1403 society (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Van Vugt, Roberts, & altruism toward genetic strangers could evolve if the Hardy, in press). Perhaps as a consequence, social psy- altruistic behavior is reciprocated by the receiving party, chologists have found it difficult to relate their theories either directly or at some point in the future. Two neigh- and findings to the deeper-rooted evolutionary theories bors, for example, might decide to engage in reciprocal of kinship and reciprocity. It appears that something is exchange by looking after each other’s pets when the missing, but what? other is on holiday. Although there is some empirical In this article, we present a novel theory of altruism, support for this theory, among both humans (Axelrod, competitive altruism, which we believe can account for 1984) and other social species such as vampire bats a range of altruistic behaviors among humans in partic- (Wilkinson, 1984), the stability of reciprocal altruism is ular that theories of kinship and reciprocity cannot eas- problematic because altruists may be exploited by indi- ily explain. Competitive altruism is the process through viduals who fail to reciprocate, for example, one neigh- which individuals attempt to outcompete each other bor might move before fulfilling his or her obligation. It in terms of generosity. It emerges because altruism is therefore hard to see how this theory could account enhances the status and reputation of the giver. Status, for altruism in human society where one-off encounters in turn, yields benefits that would be otherwise unat- between strangers are relatively common (Batson, 1998; tainable. We present three experiments in which we test Snyder, Omoto, & Lindsay, 2004). various aspects of the competitive altruism hypothesis So, the mystery about the origins of altruism remains. in small groups involved in a public good dilemma, a Can altruism ever evolve in interactions between genetic task that pits altruistic and selfish motives against each strangers if these actions are not reciprocated? We believe other (Dawes, 1980; Komorita & Parks, 1994; Van Vugt it can if we are willing to consider the idea that altruistic & De Cremer, 1999).1 actions are in fact a signal about the altruist’s personal qualities. Altruism, if publicly displayed, increases the rep- Evolutionary Theories of Altruism: The Missing Link utation and status of the altruists, which makes them Since the inception of evolutionary theory (Darwin, more attractive interaction partners, providing them ben- 1859), theorists have struggled to find a satisfactory solu- efits that are not available to nonaltruists. Reputation tion to the altruism problem (Van Vugt & Van Lange, in effects could be the “selective incentive” (Olsen 1965) press). It was recognized that organisms would some- that motivates certain individuals to do good for society. times engage in self-sacrificial behaviors to benefit oth- But why should groups reward altruists with status? ers but it was not clear how altruism could have been The Competitive Altruism Hypothesis selected for in evolution. After all, natural selection favors traits and behaviors that benefit the reproductive One explanation comes from costly signaling theory success of their bearers, allowing these traits and behav- (Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997). Based on observations from iors to spread through a population at the expense of the animal world, Zahavi noted that organisms often less successful designs (Van Vugt, Roberts, et al., in engage in behaviors that are costly to themselves to sig- press). The first successful attempt to solve the altruism nal honest information about themselves. The classic puzzle was Hamilton’s (1964) inclusive fitness theory example is the peacock’s tail. The tail of a male peacock (kin selection theory). According to this theory, natural handicaps the owner because it is extremely difficult to selection would favor behaviors that benefit either the grow and limits his movement so that he becomes an organisms themselves or those who share their genes, easy catch for predators. This handicap can be selected that is, closely related kin. Thus, caring for a grandchild for, however, because it advertises the peacock’s quality could be seen as adaptive given the genetic related- as a mate or ally. Handicaps such as these benefit sig- ness between grandmother and grandchild. This theory nalers by increasing the likelihood that they may be has received overwhelming empirical support: People chosen as coalition partners or potential mates. behave more altruistically toward those to whom they This theory suggests that altruism might qualify as a are more closely related (see, e.g., Burnstein et al., 1997; handicap. By spending excessive amounts of energy, Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Neyer & time, and money on activities that are essentially Lang, 2003). Yet, it is unclear how kin selection theory unselfish, altruists advertise some desirable underlying could account for altruism toward nonrelated individu- quality that is costly to obtain and therefore hard to als—a common feature of human societies (Van Vugt fake, such as resource control, genetic endowment, et al., 2000)—unless it is assumed that individuals cannot health, or vigor (Smith & Bleige Bird, 2000). The altru- perfectly distinguish between kin and nonkin (the big ist benefits by increasing his or her social status