sign in sign up
<<
Home , August (Fringe episode), Legal psychology, Leon Festinger, Reciprocal altruism, Reciprocity (Fringe), Strong reciprocity

Understanding Why Positive Reciprocity Works

PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:45:39 UTC Contents

Articles Reciprocity (social ) 1 Robert Cialdini 3 5 17 30 References Article Sources and Contributors 39 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 40 Article Licenses License 41 Reciprocity (social psychology) 1 Reciprocity (social psychology)

Reciprocity in social psychology refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kind actions. As a social construct, reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal.[]

Reciprocity as a behavior People categorize an action as kind by viewing its consequences and also by the person's fundamental intentions. Even if the consequences are the same, underlying intentions can cause an action to be reciprocated differently.[1] Reciprocity is considered as a strong determining factor of human behavior. Positive reciprocal actions differ from altruistic actions as the former only follow from other positive actions and they differ from social gift giving in that those are not actions taken with the hope or expectation of future positive responses. The focus of reciprocity is centered more on trading favors than making a negotiation or a contract with another person. With reciprocity, a small favor can produce a sense of obligation to a larger return favor. This feeling of obligation allows an action to be reciprocated with another action. Because there is a sense of future obligation with reciprocity it can help to develop and continue relationships with people. Reciprocity works because from a young age people are taught to return favors and to disregard this teaching will lead to the social stigma of being an ingrate. Reciprocity as a form of social obligation calling for future acts kindness can be seen in the Japanese word for thank you, "sumimasen," which means "this will not end"[2] It is also presented in the Bulgarian word for thank you "Благо-даря" (blago-dariya), which means "Good I'll Give".

Positive and negative reciprocity Cooperative reciprocal tendencies i.e. inclinations to give back in a cooperative manner, are called positive reciprocity. On the other hand, retaliatory aspects i.e. the aspects of trying to get back and cause harm, are known as negative reciprocity. Unlike "cooperative" or "retaliatory" behavior in repeated interactions, reciprocity is an in-kind response to beneficial or harmful acts with no material gains expected by the actor. Some examples of positive reciprocity include smiling waitresses getting tipped much more than less friendly ones (Tidd and Lochard, 1978), calls for contributions to charities being accompanied by small gifts, use of free samples of a certain product in a supermarkets (Cialdini, 1993).

Dennis Regan's experiment on returning a favor Reciprocal actions are important to social psychology as they can help explain the maintenance of social norms. Reciprocity is so strong that a person will feel obligated to return a favor regardless of whether they like the person who originally gave the favor and even if they did not want the favor, as was demonstrated in an experiment by Dennis Regan in 1971.[3] Regan had subjects believe they were in an “art appreciation” experiment with a partner, who was really Regan’s assistant. In the experiment the assistant would disappear for a two-minute break and bring back a soft drink for the subject. After the art experiment was through, the assistant asked the subject to buy raffle tickets from him. In the control group the assistant behaved in exactly the same manner, but did not buy the subject a drink. The subjects who had received the favor, a soft drink, bought more raffle tickets than those in the control group despite the fact that they hadn’t asked for the drink to begin with. Regan also had the subjects fill out surveys after they finished the experiment and found that whether they personally liked the assistant or not had no effect on how many tickets they bought. One problem of reciprocity, however, focuses on the unequal profit obtained from the concept of reciprocal concessions. The emotional burden to repay bothers some more than others, causing some to overcompensate with more than what was given originally. In the Regan study, subjects paid more money for the Reciprocity (social psychology) 2

tickets than the cost of the (un-requested) soft drink.

Public good experiments In public good experiments, behavioral economists have demonstrated that the potential for reciprocal actions by players increases the rate of contribution to the public good, providing evidence for the importance of reciprocity in social situations.[]

Concessions It may be a for returning favors from others. A form of reciprocity is "reciprocal concessions," in which the requester lowers his/her initial request, making the respondent more likely to agree to a second request. The respondent agrees because the requester has lowered his/her request, making a concession to the respondent. The respondent then experiences the social obligation to make a concession in kind back to the requester, and thus agrees to the second, lower request.[4] An example provided by Robert Cialdini in Influence: Science and Practice is a young boy asking Cialdini to purchase circus tickets (the initial request). When Cialdini declined, the boy lowered or "conceded" his request to merely buying some candy bars. Cialdini, seeing that the boy has made a concession, feels obligated to "return the favor" (reciprocate) and agrees to this second request.

References [2] Cialdini, R.B. Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson. Robert Cialdini 3 Robert Cialdini

Robert B. Cialdini

Dr. Robert B. Cialdini

Born April 27, 1945

Occupation , Author

Robert B. Cialdini is Regents’ Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. He is best known for his book on persuasion and marketing, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Influence has sold over 2 million copies and has been translated into twenty-six languages. It has been listed on the Times Business Best Seller List. Fortune Magazine lists Influence in their "75 Smartest Business Books." [1]

Influence Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (ISBN 0-688-12816-5) has also been published as a textbook under the title Influence: Science and Practice (ISBN 0-321-01147-3). In writing the book, he spent three years going "undercover" applying for jobs and training at used car dealerships, fund-raising organizations, and telemarketing firms to observe real-life situations of persuasion. The book also reviews many of the most important theories and experiments in social psychology. Harvard Business Review lists Dr. Cialdini's in "Breakthrough Ideas for Today's Business Agenda". Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion was included in 50 Psychology Classics (ISBN 978-1-85788-386-2) by Tom Butler-Bowdon, alongside works by Adler, Freud, Jung, Pavlov and Piaget.

6 key principles of influence by Robert Cialdini • Reciprocity - People tend to return a favor, thus the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing. In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The good cop/bad cop strategy is also based on this principle. • Commitment and Consistency - If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment because of establishing that idea or goal as being congruent with their self-image. Even if Robert Cialdini 4

the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. Cialdini notes Chinese brainwashing on American prisoners of war to rewrite their self-image and gain automatic unenforced . See . • Social Proof - People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments. • Authority - People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites incidents such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s and the My Lai massacre. • Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed. See physical attractiveness . • Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a "limited time only" encourages sales.

Selected publications • Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive. Authors: Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin and Robert B. Cialdini. Simon and Schuster, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4165-7096-7. • Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Authors: Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D.W., Butner, J. & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25, 1242-1253. • Cialdini, R. B., Sagarin, B. J., & Rice, W. E. (2001). Training in ethical influence. In J. Darley, D. Messick, and T. Tyler (Eds.). Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 137–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Cialdini, R. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 284, 76-81. • Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-60999-4. • Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002) Social Psychology: Unraveling the Mystery (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. • Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). On-line persuasion: An examination of differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. : Theory, Research and Practice, 6, 38-51. • Sagarin, B. J., Cialdini, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 526-541.

References

External links

• Official website (http:/ / www. influenceatwork. com/ )

• Cialdini's official web site in the United Kingdom (http:/ / www. influenceatwork. co. uk)

• Commentary on Cialdini's Influence from 50 Psychology Classics (http:/ / www. butler-bowdon. com/ Cialdini-Influence) Social psychology 5 Social psychology

Psychology

• Outline • History • Subfields Basic types • Abnormal • Biological • Cognitive • Comparative • Cultural • Differential • Developmental • Evolutionary • Experimental • Mathematical • Personality • Positive • Quantitative • Social • Applied behavior analysis • Clinical • Community • Consumer • Educational • Environmental • Forensic • Health • Industrial and organizational • Legal • Military • Occupational health • Political • Religion • School • Sport Lists • Disciplines • Organizations • • Social psychology 6

• Publications • Research methods • Theories • Timeline • Topics

Psychology portal

Within the context of psychology, social psychology is the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others.[1] By this definition, scientific refers to the empirical method of investigation. The terms thoughts, feelings, and behaviors include all psychological variables that are measurable in a human being. The statement that others' presence may be imagined or implied suggests that we are prone to social influence even when no other people are present, such as when watching television, or following internalized cultural norms. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental states and immediate social situations. In general, social psychologists have a preference for laboratory-based, empirical findings. Social psychology theories tend to be specific and focused, rather than global and general. Social psychologists therefore deal with the factors that lead us to behave in a given way in the presence of others, and look at the conditions under which certain behavior/actions and feelings occur. Social psychology is concerned with the way these feelings, thoughts, beliefs, intentions and goals are constructed and how such psychological factors, in turn, influence our interactions with others. Social psychology is an interdisciplinary domain that bridges the gap between psychology and sociology. During the years immediately following World War II, there was frequent collaboration between psychologists and sociologists.[2] However, the two disciplines have become increasingly specialized and isolated from each other in recent years, with sociologists focusing on "macro variables" (e.g., social structure) to a much greater extent. Nevertheless, sociological approaches to social psychology remain an important counterpart to in this area. In addition to the split between psychology and sociology, there has been a somewhat less pronounced difference in emphasis between American social psychologists and European social psychologists. As a broad generalization, American researchers traditionally have focused more on the individual, whereas Europeans have paid more attention to group level phenomena (see group dynamics).[3]Wikipedia:Citing sources

History The discipline of social psychology began in the United States at the dawn of the 20th century. The first published study in this area was an experiment in 1898 by Norman Triplett on the phenomenon of social facilitation.[4] During the 1930s, many Gestalt psychologists, most notably , fled to the United States from Nazi Germany. They were instrumental in developing the field as something separate from the behavioral and psychoanalytic schools that were dominant during that time, and social psychology has always maintained the legacy of their interests in and cognition. Attitudes and small group phenomena were the most commonly studied topics in this era.[citation needed] During World War II, social psychologists studied persuasion and propaganda for the U.S. military. After the war, researchers became interested in a variety of social problems, including gender issues and racial prejudice. Most notable, revealing, and contentious of them all were the Stanley Milgram shock experiments on obedience to authority.[citation needed] In the sixties, there was growing interest in new topics, such as cognitive dissonance, bystander intervention, and aggression. By the 1970s, however, social psychology in America had reached a crisis. There was heated debate over the ethics of laboratory experimentation, whether or not attitudes really predicted behavior, and how much science could be done in a cultural context.[5] This was also the time when a radical Social psychology 7

situationist approach challenged the relevance of self and personality in psychology.[citation needed] Social psychology reached a more mature level in both theories and methods during the 1980s and 1990s.[citation needed] Careful ethical standards now regulate research. Pluralistic and multicultural perspectives have emerged. Modern researchers are interested in many phenomena, but attribution, , and the self-concept are perhaps the greatest areas of growth in recent years. Social psychologists have also maintained their applied interests with contributions in health, environmental, and .[citation needed]

Intrapersonal phenomena

Attitudes In social psychology, attitudes are defined as learned, global evaluations of a person, object, place, or issue that influence thought and action.[]Wikipedia:Citing sources Put more simply, attitudes are basic expressions of approval or disapproval, favorability or unfavorability, or as Bem put it, likes and dislikes.[6] Examples would include liking chocolate ice cream, being against abortion, or endorsing the values of a particular political party. Social psychologists have studied formation, the structure of attitudes, attitude change, the function of attitudes, and the relationship between attitudes and behavior. Because people are influenced by the situation, general attitudes are not always good predictors of specific behavior. For a variety of reasons, a person may value the environment but not recycle a can on a particular day. Attitudes that are well remembered and central to our self-concept, however, are more likely to lead to behaviors, and measures of general attitudes do predict patterns of behavior over time.[citation needed] Much recent research on attitudes is on the distinction between traditional, self-reported attitude measures and "implicit" or unconscious attitudes. For example, experiments[citation needed] using the Implicit Association Test have found that people often demonstrate bias against other races, even when their responses reveal equal mindedness. One study found that explicit attitudes correlate with in interracial interactions, whereas implicit attitudes correlate with nonverbal behavior.[7] One hypothesis on how attitudes are formed, first advanced by Abraham Tesser in 1983, is that strong likes and dislikes are rooted in our genetic make-up. Tesser speculates that individuals are disposed to hold certain strong attitudes as a result of inborn physical, sensory, and cognitive skills, temperament, and personality traits. Whatever disposition nature elects to give us, our most treasured attitudes are often formed as a result of exposure to attitude objects; our history of rewards and ; the attitude that our parents, friends, and enemies express; the social and cultural context in which we live; and other types of experiences we have. Obviously, attitudes are formed through the basic process of learning. Numerous studies have shown that people can form strong positive and negative attitudes toward neutral objects that are in some way linked to emotionally charged stimuli.[]:185-186 Attitudes are also involved in several other areas of the discipline, such as conformity, interpersonal attraction, social perception, and prejudice.

Persuasion The topic of persuasion has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Persuasion is an active method of influence that attempts to guide people toward the adoption of an attitude, idea, or behavior by rational or emotive means. Persuasion relies on "appeals" rather than strong pressure or coercion. Numerous variables have been found to influence the persuasion process; these are normally presented in five major categories: who said what to whom and how.[citation needed] 1. The Communicator, including credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. 2. The Message, including varying degrees of reason, (such as fear), one-sided or two sided arguments, and other types of informational content. Social psychology 8

3. The Audience, including a variety of demographics, personality traits, and preferences. 4. The Channel or Medium, including the printed word, radio, television, the internet, or face-to-face interactions. 5. The Context, including the environment, group dynamics, and preamble to the message.Wikipedia:Please clarify Dual-process theories of persuasion (such as the elaboration likelihood model) maintain that the persuasive process is mediated by two separate routes; central and peripheral. The central route of persuasion is more fact-based and results in longer lasting change, but requires motivation to process. The peripheral route is more superficial and results in shorter lasting change, but does not require as much motivation to process. An example of a peripheral route of persuasion might be a politician using a flag lapel pin, smiling, and wearing a crisp, clean shirt. Notice that this does not require motivation to be persuasive, but should not last as long as persuasion based on the central route. If that politician were to outline exactly what they believed, and their previous voting record, this would be using the central route, and would result in longer lasting change, but would require a good deal of motivation to process. Persuasion attempts that rely on the mass media frequently result in failure; this is because people's attitudes and behaviors are often established habits that tend to be change-resistant. Communication campaigns are most likely to succeed when they use entertaining characters and messages, tailor the message to fit the audience, and repeat messages across relevant media channels.[citation needed] An example of a highly effective mass media campaign is the Got Milk campaign.[citation needed]

Social cognition Social cognition is a growing area of social psychology that studies how people perceive, think about, and remember information about others. Much research rests on the assertion that people think about (other) people differently from non-social targets.[8] This assertion is supported by the social cognitive deficits exhibited by people with Williams syndrome and autism.[9] Person perception is the study of how people form impressions of others. The study of how people form beliefs about each other while interacting is known as . A major research topic in social cognition is attribution.[10] Attributions are the explanations we make for people's behavior, either our own behavior or the behavior of others. We can ascribe the locus of a behavior to either internal or external factors. An internal, or dispositional, attribution assigns behavior to causes related to inner traits such as personality, disposition, character or . An external, or situational, attribution involves situational elements, such as the weather.[11]:111 A second element, attribution, ascribes the cause of behavior to either stable or unstable factors. Finally, we also attribute causes of behavior to either controllable or uncontrollable factors. Numerous biases in the attribution process have been discovered. For instance, the fundamental attribution error is the tendency to make dispositional attributions for behavior, overestimating the influence of personality and underestimating the influence of situations [12]:724. The actor-observer difference is a refinement of this bias, the tendency to make dispositional attributions for other people's behavior and situational attributions for our own.[11]:107 The self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute dispositional causes for successes, and situational causes for failure, particularly when self-esteem is threatened. This leads to assuming one's successes are from innate traits, and one's failures are due to situations, including other people.[11]:109 Other ways people protect their self-esteem are by believing in a just world, blaming victims for their suffering, and making defensive attributions, which explain our behavior in ways which defend us from feelings of vulnerability and mortality.[11]:111 Researchers have found that mildly depressed individuals often lack this bias and actually have more realistic of reality (as measured by the opinions of others).[] Heuristics are cognitive short cuts. Instead of weighing all the evidence when making a decision, people rely on heuristics to save time and energy. The availability heuristic occurs when people estimate the probability of an outcome based on how easy that outcome is to imagine. As such, vivid or highly memorable possibilities will be perceived as more likely than those that are harder to picture or are difficult to understand, resulting in a corresponding .Availability heuristic The representativeness heuristic is a shortcut people use to categorize something based on how similar it is to a prototype they know of.[11]:63 Numerous other biases have been Social psychology 9

found by social cognition researchers. The hindsight bias is a false memory of having predicted events, or an exaggeration of actual predictions, after becoming aware of the outcome. The is a type of bias leading to the tendency to search for, or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[citation needed]

Another key concept in social cognition is the assumption that reality is too to easily discern. As a result, we tend to see the world according to simplified schemas or images of reality. Schemas are generalized mental representations that organize knowledge and guide information processing. Schemas often operate automatically and unintentionally, and can lead to biases in perception and memory. Expectations from schemas may lead us to see something that is not there. One experiment found that people are more likely to misperceive a weapon in the hands of a black man than a white man.[13] This type of schema is actually a stereotype, a generalized of beliefs about a particular group of people (when incorrect, an ultimate attribution error). are often related to negative or preferential attitudes (prejudice) and behavior (discrimination). Schemas for behaviors (e.g., going to a restaurant, doing laundry) are known as scripts.[citation needed]

Self-concept Self-concept is a term referring to the whole sum of beliefs that people have about themselves. However, what specifically does self-concept consist of? According to Hazel Markus (1977), the self-concept is made up of cognitive molecules called self-schemas – beliefs that people have about themselves that guide the processing of self-reliant information. For example, an athlete at a university would have multiple selves that would process different information pertinent to each self: the student would be one "self," who would process information pertinent to a student (taking notes in class, completing a homework assignment, etc.); the athlete would be the "self" who processes information about things related to being an athlete (recognizing an incoming pass, aiming a shot, etc.). These "selves" are part of one's identity and the self-reliant information is the information that relies on the proper "self" to process and react on it. If a "self" is not part of one's identity, then it is much more difficult for one to react. For example, a civilian may not know how to hand a hostile threat as a trained Marine would. The Marine contains a "self" that would enable him/her to process the information about the hostile threat and react accordingly, whereas a civilian may not contain that self, disabling them from properly processing the information from the hostile threat and, furthermore, debilitating them from acting accordingly. Self-schemas are to an individual’s total self–concept as a hypothesis is to a theory, or a book is to a library. A good example is the body weight self-schema; people who regard themselves as over or underweight, or for those whom body image is a significant self-concept aspect, are considered schematics with respect to weight. For these people a range of otherwise mundane events – grocery shopping, new clothes, eating out, or going to the beach – can trigger thoughts about the self. In contrast, people who do not regard their weight as an important part of their lives are a-schematic on that attribute.[14] It is rather clear that the self is a special object of our attention. Whether one is mentally focused on a memory, a conversation, a foul smell, the song that is stuck in one's head, or this sentence, consciousness is like a spotlight. This spotlight can shine on only one object at a time, but it can switch rapidly from one object to another and process the information out of awareness.Wikipedia:Please clarify In this spotlight the self is front and center: things relating to the self have the spotlight more often.[citation needed] The self's ABCs are affect, behavior, and cognition. An affective (or emotional) question: How do people evaluate themselves, enhance their self-image, and maintain a secure sense of identity? A behavioral question: How do people regulate their own actions and present themselves to others according to interpersonal demands? A cognitive question: How do individuals become themselves, build a self-concept, and uphold a stable sense of identity?[]:53 Affective forecasting is the process of predicting how one would feel in response to future emotional events. Studies done by Timothy Wilson and Daniel Gilbert in 2003 have shown that people overestimate the strength of reaction to anticipated positive and negative life events that they actually feel when the event does occur.[15] Social psychology 10

There are many theories on the perception of our own behavior. 's (1972) self-perception theory claims that when internal cues are difficult to interpret, people gain self-insight by observing their own behavior.[16] 's 1954 is that people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others when they are uncertain of their own ability or opinions.[17] There is also the facial feedback hypothesis: that changes in facial expression can lead to corresponding changes in emotion.[]:56 The fields of social psychology and personality have merged over the years, and social psychologists have developed an interest in self-related phenomena. In contrast with traditional personality theory, however, social psychologists place a greater emphasis on cognitions than on traits. Much research focuses on the self-concept, which is a person's understanding of his or her self. The self-concept is often divided into a cognitive component, known as the self-schema, and an evaluative component, the self-esteem. The need to maintain a healthy self-esteem is recognized as a central human motivation in the field of social psychology.[citation needed] Self-efficacy beliefs are associated with the self-schema. These are expectations that performance on some task will be effective and successful. Social psychologists also study such self-related processes as self-control and self-presentation.[citation needed] People develop their self-concepts by varied means, including , feedback from others, self-perception, and social comparison. By comparison to relevant others, people gain information about themselves, and they make inferences that are relevant to self-esteem. Social comparisons can be either "upward" or "downward," that is, comparisons to people who are either higher in status or ability, or lower in status or ability. Downward comparisons are often made in order to elevate self-esteem.[citation needed] Self-perception is a specialized form of attribution that involves making inferences about oneself after observing one's own behavior. Psychologists have found that too many extrinsic rewards (e.g. money) tend to reduce intrinsic motivation through the self-perception process, a phenomenon known as overjustification. People's attention is directed to the reward and they lose interest in the task when the reward is no longer offered.[18] This is an important exception to reinforcement theory.

Interpersonal phenomena

Social influence Social influence is an overarching term given to describe the persuasive effects people have on each other. It is seen as a fundamental value in social psychology and overlaps considerably with research on attitudes and persuasion. The three main areas of social influence include: conformity, compliance, and obedience. Social influence is also closely related to the study of group dynamics, as most principles of influence are strongest when they take place in social groups. The first major area of social influence is conformity. Conformity is defined as the tendency to act or think like other members of a group. The identity of members within a group, i.e. status, similarity, expertise, as well as cohesion, prior commitment, and accountability to the group help to determine the level of conformity of an individual. Individual variation among group members plays a key role in the dynamic of how willing people will be to conform. [19]:27 Conformity is usually viewed as a negative tendency in American culture, but a certain amount of conformity is adaptive in some situations, as is nonconformity in other situations.[20]:15 Social psychology 11

The second major area of social influence research is compliance. Compliance refers to any change in behavior that is due to a request or suggestion from another person. The Foot-in-the-door technique is a compliance method in which the persuader requests a small favor and then follows up with requesting a larger favor, e.g., asking for the time and then asking for ten dollars. A related trick is the Bait and switch.[21]

The third major form of social influence is obedience; this is a change in behavior that is the result of a direct order or command from another Which line matches the first line, A, B, or C? In person. Obedience as a form of compliance was dramatically the Asch conformity experiments, people highlighted by the Milgram study, wherein people were ready to frequently followed the majority judgment, even administer shocks to a person in distress on a researcher's when the majority was (objectively) wrong. command.[20]:41

An unusual kind of social influence is the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become true. For example, in the stock market, if it is widely believed that a crash is imminent, investors may lose confidence, sell most of their stock, and thus actually cause the crash. Similarly, people may expect hostility in others and actually induce this hostility by their own behavior.[11]:18

Group dynamics A group can be defined as two or more individuals that are connected to each another by social relationships.[22] Groups tend to interact, influence each other, and share a common identity. They have a number of emergent qualities that distinguish them from aggregates: • Norms: Implicit rules and expectations for group members to follow, e.g. saying thank you, shaking hands. • Roles: Implicit rules and expectations for specific members within the group, e.g. the oldest sibling, who may have additional responsibilities in the family. • Relations: Patterns of liking within the group, and also differences in prestige or status, e.g., leaders, popular people. Temporary groups and aggregates share few or none of these features, and do not qualify as true social groups. People waiting in line to get on a bus, for example, do not constitute a group.[citation needed] Groups are important not only because they offer social support, resources, and a feeling of belonging, but because they supplement an individual's self-concept. To a large extent, humans define themselves by the group memberships which form their social identity. The shared social identity of individuals within a group influences intergroup behavior, the way in which groups behave towards and perceive each other. These perceptions and behaviors in turn define the social identity of individuals within the interacting groups. The tendency to define oneself by membership of a group leads to intergroup discrimination, which involves favorable perceptions and behaviors directed towards the in-group, but negative perceptions and behaviors directed towards the out-group.[23] Intergroup discrimination leads to prejudice and stereotyping, while the processes of social facilitation and encourage extreme behaviors towards the out-group. Groups often moderate and improve decision making,[citation needed] and are frequently relied upon for these benefits, such as in committees and juries. A number of group biases, however, can interfere with effective decision making. For example, group polarization, formerly known as the "risky shift," occurs when people polarize their views in a more extreme direction after group discussion. More problematic is the phenomenon of groupthink. This is a collective thinking defect that is characterized by a premature consensus or an incorrect assumption of consensus, caused by members of a group failing to promote views which are not consistent with the views of other members. Groupthink occurs in a variety of situations, including isolation of a group and the presence of a highly directive Social psychology 12

leader. Janis offered the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion as a historical case of groupthink.[24] Groups also affect performance and productivity. Social facilitation, for example, is a tendency to work harder and faster in the presence of others. Social facilitation increases the dominant response's likelihood, which tends to improve performance on simple tasks and reduce it on complex tasks.[citation needed] In contrast, social loafing is the tendency of individuals to slack off when working in a group. Social loafing is common when the task is considered unimportant and individual contributions are not easy to see.[25]Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Social psychologists study group-related (collective) phenomena such as the behavior of crowds. An important concept in this area is , a reduced state of self-awareness that can be caused by feelings of anonymity. Deindividuation is associated with uninhibited and sometimes dangerous behavior. It is common in crowds and mobs, but it can also be caused by a disguise, a uniform, alcohol, dark environments, or online anonymity.[citation needed]

Relations with others Social psychologists are interested in the question of why people sometimes act in a prosocial way (helping, liking, or loving others), but at other times act in an antisocial way (hostility, aggression, or prejudice against others).[citation needed]

Aggression can be defined as any behavior that is intended to harm another human being. Hostile aggression is accompanied by strong , particularly anger: harming the other person is the goal. Instrumental aggression is only a means to an end: harming the person is used to obtain some other goal, such as money. Research indicates that there are many causes of aggression, including biological factors like testosteroneWikipedia:Disputed statement and environmental factors, such as social learning. Immediate situational factors such as frustration are also important in triggering an aggressive response.[] Although violence is a fact of life, people are also capable of helping each other, even complete strangers in emergencies. Research indicates that altruism occurs when a person feels empathy for another individual, even in the absence of other motives.[26] However, according to the bystander effect, the probability of receiving help in an emergency situation drops as the number of bystanders increases; this is due to both conformity and diffusion of responsibility, the tendency for people to feel less personally responsible when other people are around.[27] Social psychology 13

Interpersonal attraction

A major area in the study of people's relations to each other is interpersonal attraction. This refers to all forces that lead people to like each other, establish relationships, and (in some cases) fall in love. Several general principles of attraction have been discovered by social psychologists, but many still continue to experiment and do research to find out more. One of the most important factors in interpersonal attraction is how similar two particular people are. The more similar two people are in general attitudes, backgrounds, environments, worldviews, and other traits, the more probable an attraction is possible.[28]Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include Contrary to popular opinion, opposites do not usually attract.

Physical attractiveness is an important element of romantic relationships, particularly in the early stages characterized by high levels of passion. Later on, similarity and other compatibility factors become more important, and the type of love people experience shifts from passionate to companionate. Robert Sternberg has suggested that there are actually three components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment.[29] When two (or more) people experience all three, they are said to be in a state of consummate love.

According to social exchange theory, relationships are based on rational choice and cost-benefit analysis. If one partner's costs begin to outweigh Social psychologists study interactions within his or her benefits, that person may leave the relationship, especially if groups, and between both groups and there are good alternatives available. This theory is similar to the individuals. minimax principle proposed by mathematicians and economists (despite the fact that human relationships are not zero-sum games). With time, long term relationships tend to become communal rather than simply based on exchange.[citation needed]

Research

Methods Social psychology is an empirical science that attempts to answer questions about human behavior by testing hypotheses, both in the laboratory and in the field. Careful attention to sampling, research design, and statistical analysis is important; results are published in peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Social psychology studies also appear in general science journals such as Psychological Science and Science. Experimental methods involve the researcher altering a variable in the environment and measuring the effect on another variable. An example would be allowing two groups of children to play violent or nonviolent videogames, and then observing their subsequent level of aggression during free-play period. A valid experiment is controlled and uses random assignment. Correlational methods examine the statistical association between two naturally occurring variables. For example, one could correlate the amount of violent television children watch at home with the number of violent incidents the children participate in at school. Note that this study would not prove that violent TV causes aggression in children: it is quite possible that aggressive children choose to watch more violent TV. Social psychology 14

Observational methods are purely descriptive and include naturalistic observation, "contrived" observation, participant observation, and archival analysis. These are less common in social psychology but are sometimes used when first investigating a phenomenon. An example would be to unobtrusively observe children on a playground (with a videocamera, perhaps) and record the number and types of aggressive actions displayed. Whenever possible, social psychologists rely on controlled experimentation. Controlled experiments require the manipulation of one or more independent variables in order to examine the effect on a dependent variable. Experiments are useful in social psychology because they are high in internal validity, that they are free from the influence of confounding or extraneous variables, and so are more likely to accurately indicate a causal relationship. However, the small samples used in controlled experiments are typically low in external validity, or the degree to which the results can be generalized to the larger population. There is usually a trade-off between experimental control (internal validity) and being able to generalize to the population (external validity). Because it is usually impossible to test everyone, research tends to be conducted on a sample of persons from the wider population. Social psychologists frequently use survey research when they are interested in results that are high in external validity. Surveys use various forms of random sampling to obtain a sample of respondents that are representative of a population. This type of research is usually descriptive or correlational because there is no experimental control over variables. However, new statistical methods like structural equation modeling are being used to test for potential causal relationships in this type of data.[citation needed] Regardless of which method is used, it is important to evaluate the research hypothesis using the results, either confirming or rejecting the original prediction. Social psychologists use statistics and probability testing to judge their results; these define a significant finding as less than 5% likely to be due to chance.[citation needed] Replications are important, to ensure that the result is valid and not due to chance, or some feature of a particular sample. False positive conclusions, often resulting from the pressure to publish or the author's own confirmation bias, are a hazard in the field.[]

Ethics The goal of social psychology is to understand cognition and behavior as they naturally occur in a social context, but the very act of observing people can influence and alter their behavior. For this reason, many social psychology experiments utilize deception to conceal or distort certain aspects of the study. Deception may include false cover stories, false participants (known as confederates or stooges), false feedback given to the participants, and so on.Wikipedia:Please clarify The practice of deception has been challenged by some psychologists who maintain that deception under any circumstances is unethical, and that other research strategies (e.g., role-playing) should be used instead. Unfortunately, research has shown that role-playing studies do not produce the same results as deception studies and this has cast doubt on their validity.[citation needed] In addition to deception, experimenters have at times put people into potentially uncomfortable or embarrassing situations (e.g., the and Stanford prison experiment), and this has also been criticized for ethical reasons. To protect the rights and well-being of research participants, and at the same time discover meaningful results and insights into human behavior, virtually all social psychology research must pass an ethical review process. At most colleges and universities, this is conducted by an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board. This group examines the proposed research to make sure that no harm is likely to be done to the participants, and that the study's benefits outweigh any possible risks or discomforts to people taking part in the study. Furthermore, a process of informed consent is often used to make sure that volunteers know what will happen in the experimentWikipedia:Please clarify and understand that they are allowed to quit the experiment at any time. A debriefing is typically done at the experiment's conclusion in order to reveal any deceptions used and generally make sure that the participants are unharmed by the procedures.Wikipedia:Please clarify Today, most research in social psychology involves no more risk of harm than can be expected from routine or normal daily Social psychology 15

activities.[citation needed]

Famous experiments

The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated the power of conformity in small groups with a line estimation task that was designed to be extremely easy.[30] On over a third of the trials, participants conformed to the majority, even though the majority judgment was clearly wrong. Seventy-five percent of the participants conformed at least once during the experiment.

Muzafer Sherif's Robbers' Cave Experiment divided boys into two competing groups to explore how much hostility and aggression would emerge. Sherif's explanation of the results became known as realistic group conflict theory, because the intergroup conflict was induced through competition over resources.[31] Inducing cooperation and superordinate goals later reversed this effect.

In Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance experiment, participants were asked to perform a boring task. They were divided into 2 groups and given two different pay scales. At the study's end, some participants were paid $1 to say that they enjoyed the task The Milgram experiment: The experimenter (E) and another group of participants was paid $20 to say the same lie. persuades the participant (T) to give what the participant believes are painful electric shocks to The first group ($1) later reported liking the task better than the another participant (L), who is actually an actor. Many second group ($20). Festinger's explanation was that people participants continued to give shocks despite pleas for justified their lies by changing their previously unfavorable mercy from the actor. attitudes about the task.[32]

One of the most notable experiments in social psychology was the Milgram experiment, which studied how far people would go to obey an authority figure. Following the events of The Holocaust in World War II, the experiment showed that (most) normal American citizens were capable of following orders from an authority even when they believed they were causing an innocent person to suffer.[33] 's Bobo doll experiment demonstrated how aggression is learned by imitation.[34] This was one of the first studies in a long line of research showing how exposure to media violence leads to aggressive behavior in the observers.[citation needed] In the Stanford prison study, by Philip Zimbardo, a simulated exercise between student prisoners and guards showed how far people would follow an adopted role. In just a few days, the "guards" became brutal and cruel, and the prisoners became miserable and compliant. This was initially argued to be an important demonstration of the power of the immediate social situation and its capacity to overwhelm normal personality traits.[35] However, to this day, it remains a matter of contention what conclusions may be drawn from this study. For example, it has been pointed out that participant self-selection may have affected the participants' behaviour,[] and that the participants' personality influenced their reactions in a variety of ways, including how long they chose to remain in the study.[citation needed] One of the most concerted empirical revisitations of the themes raised by Zimbardo came with the 2002 BBC prison study.[] Social psychology 16

Academic journals • Asian Journal of Social Psychology • Basic and Applied Social Psychology • British Journal of Social Psychology • European Journal of Social Psychology • Journal of Applied Social Psychology • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology • Journal of Social Psychology • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin • Personality and Social Psychology Review • Social Psychology

References [1] p.5

[25] PsyBlog (http:/ / www. spring. org. uk/ 2009/ 05/ social-loafing-when-groups-are-bad-for-productivity. php), "Social Loafing: when groups are bad for productivity," 19 May 2009. [28] Byrne, D. (1961). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 62. pp. 713–715. "Thus Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity have a direct correlation. More so than those with dissimilar attitudes and views, who tend to not be as successful in the attraction department."

External links

• Social Psychology Network (http:/ / www. socialpsychology. org)

• Introduction to Social Psychology (http:/ / www. wilderdom. com/ psychology/ social/ Introduction. html)

• Social Psychology – basics (http:/ / www. ship. edu/ ~cgboeree/ socpsy. html) Altruism 17 Altruism

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness.

Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but one's self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (e.g., a god, a king), or collective (e.g., a government). Pure Giving alms to the poor is often considered an altruistic action in many cultures and altruism consists of sacrificing religions. something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving).

Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits." The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it's usually contrasted to egoism, which is defined as acting to the benefit of one's self.

The notion of altruism The concept has a long history in philosophical and ethical thought. The term was originally coined in the 19th century by the founding sociologist and philosopher of science, Auguste Comte, and has become a major topic for psychologists (especially researchers), evolutionary biologists, and ethologists. Whilst ideas about altruism from one field can have an impact on the other fields, the different methods and focuses of these fields always lead to different perspectives on altruism. In simple terms, altruism is caring about the welfare of other people and acting to help them. Altruism 18

Scientific viewpoints

Anthropology Marcel Mauss's book The Gift contains a passage: "Note on alms." This note describes the evolution of the notion of alms (and by extension of altruism) from the notion of sacrifice. In it, he writes: Alms are the fruits of a moral notion of the gift and of fortune on the one hand, and of a notion of sacrifice, on the other. Generosity is an obligation, because Nemesis avenges the poor and the gods for the superabundance of happiness and wealth of certain people who should rid themselves of it. This is the ancient of the gift, which has become a principle of justice. The gods and the spirits accept that the share of wealth and happiness that has been offered to them and had been hitherto destroyed in useless sacrifices should serve the poor and children. • Compare Altruism (ethics) – perception of altruism as self-sacrifice. • Compare explanation of alms in various scriptures.

Evolutionary explanations

In the science of (the study of animal behaviour), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.[] In evolutionary psychology this may be applied to a wide range of human behaviors such as charity, emergency aid, help to coalition partners, tipping, courtship gifts, production of public goods, and environmentalism.[1]

Theories of apparently altruistic behavior were accelerated by the need to produce theories compatible with evolutionary origins. Two related strands of research on altruism have emerged from traditional evolutionary analyses and from . Some of the proposed mechanisms are: • .[2] That animals and humans are more altruistic towards close kin than to distant kin and non-kin has been confirmed in numerous studies across many different cultures. Even Giving alms to beggar children subtle cues indicating kinship may unconsciously increase altruistic behavior. One kinship cue is facial resemblance. One study found that slightly altering photographs so that they more closely resembled the faces of study participants increased the trust the participants expressed regarding depicted persons. Another cue is having the same family name, especially if rare, and this has been found to increase . Another study found more cooperative behavior the greater the number the perceived kin in a group. Using kinship terms in political speeches increased audience agreement with the speaker in one study. This effect was especially strong for firstborns, who are typically close to their families.[1] • Vested interests. People are likely to suffer if their friends, allies, and similar social ingroups suffer or even disappear. Helping such group members may therefore eventually benefit the altruist. Making ingroup membership more noticeable increases cooperativeness. Extreme self-sacrifice towards the ingroup may be adaptive if a hostile outgroup threatens to kill the entire ingroup.[1] • .[3] See also Reciprocity (evolution). • Direct reciprocity.[4] Research shows that it can be beneficial to help others if there is a chance that they can and will reciprocate the help. The effective strategy is one game theoretic example. Many people seem to be following a similar strategy by cooperating if and only if others cooperate in return.[1] Altruism 19

One consequence is that people are more cooperative if it is more likely that individuals will interact again in the future. People tend to be less cooperative if they perceive that the frequency of helpers in the population is lower. They tend to help less if they see non-cooperativeness by others and this effect tend to be stronger than the opposite effect of seeing cooperative behaviors. Simply changing the cooperative framing of a proposal may increase cooperativeness such as calling it a "Community Game" instead of a "Wall Street Game."[1] A tendency towards reciprocity implies that people will feel obligated to respond if someone helps them. This has been used by charities that give small gifts to potential donors hoping thereby to induce reciprocity. Another method is to announce publicly that someone has given a large donation. The tendency to reciprocate can even generalize so people become more helpful toward others in general after being helped. On the other hand, people will avoid or even retaliate against those perceived not to be cooperating. People sometimes mistakenly fail to help when they intended to, or their helping may not be noticed, which may cause unintended conflicts. As such, it may be an optimal strategy to be slightly forgiving of and have a slightly generous interpretation of non-cooperation.[1] People are more likely to cooperate on a task if they can communicate with one another first. This may be due to better assessments of cooperativeness or due to exchange of promises. They are more cooperative if they can gradually build trust, instead of being asked to give extensive help immediately. Direct reciprocity and cooperation in a group can be increased by changing the focus and incentives from intra-group competition to larger scale competitions such as between groups or against the general population. Thus, giving grades and promotions based only on an individual's performance relative to a small local group, as is common, may reduce cooperative behaviors in the group.[1] • Indirect reciprocity.[5] The avoidance of poor reciprocators and cheaters causes a person's reputation to become very important. A person with a good reputation for reciprocity have a higher chance of receiving help even from persons they have had no direct interactions with previously.[1] • .[6] A form of reciprocity where some individuals seem to spend more resources on cooperating and punishing than would be most beneficial as predicted by several established theories of altruism. A number of theories have been proposed as explanations as well as criticisms regarding its existence. • Pseudo-reciprocity.[7] An organism behaves altruistically and the recipient does not reciprocate but has an increased chance of acting in a way that is selfish but also as a byproduct benefits the altruist. • Costly signaling and the handicap principle.[8] Since altruism takes away resources from the altruist it can be an "honest signal" of resource availability and the abilities needed to gather resources. This may signal to others that the altruist is a valuable potential partner. It may also be a signal of interactive and cooperative intentions since those not interacting further in the future gain nothing from the costly signaling. It is unclear if costly signaling can indicate a long-term cooperative personality but people have increased trust for those who help. Costly signaling is pointless if everyone has the same traits, resources, and cooperative intentions but become a potentially more important signal if the population increasingly varies on these characteristics.[1] Hunters widely sharing the meat has been seen as a costly signal of ability and research has found that good hunters have higher reproductive success and more adulterous relations even if they themselves receive no more of the hunted meat than anyone else. Similarly, holding large feasts and giving large donations has been seen as ways of demonstrating one's resources. Heroic risk-taking has also been interpreted as a costly signal of ability.[1] Altruism 20

Both indirect reciprocity and costly signaling depend on the value of reputation and tend to make similar predictions. One is that people will be more helping when they know that their helping behavior will be communicated to people they will interact with later, is publicly announced, is discussed, or is simply being observed by someone else. This have been documented in many studies. The effect is sensitive to subtle cues such as people being more helpful when there were stylized eyespots instead of a logo on a computer screen. Weak Volunteers assist Hurricane victims at the Houston Astrodome, following Hurricane reputational cues such as eyespots may become unimportant if Katrina. there are stronger cues present and may lose their effect with continued exposure unless reinforced with real reputational effects.[1] Public displays such as public weeping for dead celebrities and participation in demonstrations may be influenced by a desire to be seen as altruistic. People who know that they are publicly monitored sometimes even wastefully donate money they know are not needed by recipient which may be because of reputational concerns.[9]

Women have been found to find altruistic men to be attractive partners. When looking for a long-term partner more conventional altruism may be preferred which may indicate that he is also willing to share resources with her and her children while when looking for a short-term partner heroic risk-taking, which may be costly signal showing good genes, may be more preferable. Men also perform more altruistic acts in the early stages of a romantic relationship or simply when in the presence of an attractive woman. While both sexes state that kindness is the most preferable trait in a partner there is some evidence that men place less value on this than women and that women may not be more altruistic in presence of an attractive man. Men may even avoid altruistic women in short-term relationships which may be because they expect less success.[1][9] People may compete over getting the benefits of a high reputation which may cause . On other hand, in some experiments a proportion of people do not seem to care about reputation and they do not help more even if this is conspicuous. This may possibly be due to reasons such as psychopathy or that they are so attractive that they need not be seen to be altruistic. The reputational benefits of altruism occur in the future as compared to the immediate costs of altruism in the present. While humans and other organisms generally place less value on future costs/benefits as compared to those in the present, some have shorter time horizons than others and these people tend to be less cooperative.[1] Explicit extrinsic rewards and punishments have been found to sometimes actually have opposite effects on behaviors. This may be because such extrinsic, top-down incentives may undermine intrinsic and reputational incentives which overall may make the behaviors less desirable to do. Another effect is that people would like altruism to be due to a personality characteristic rather than due to overt reputational concerns and simply pointing out that there are reputational benefits of an action may actually reduce them. This may possibly be used as derogatory tactic against altruists, especially by those who are non-cooperators. A counterargument is that doing good due to reputational concerns is better than doing no good at all.[1] • . It has controversially been argued by some evolutionary scientists such as E. O. Wilson that can act at the level of non-kin groups to produce adaptations that benefit a non-kin group even if these adaptions are detrimental at the individual level. Thus, while altruistic persons may under some circumstances be outcompeted by less altruistic persons at the individual level, according to group selection theory the opposite may occur at the group level where groups consisting of the more altruistic persons may outcompete groups consisting of the less altruistic persons. Such altruism may only extend to ingroup members while there may instead prejudice and antagonism against outgroup members (See also in-group favoritism). Group selection theory has been criticized by many other evolutionary scientists.[10][11] Altruism 21

Such explanations do not imply that humans are always consciously calculating how to increase their when they are doing altruistic acts. Instead, evolution has shaped psychological mechanisms, such as emotions, that promote altruistic behaviors.[1] Every single instance of altruistic behavior need not always increase inclusive fitness; altruistic behaviors would have been selected for if such behaviors on average increased inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment. This need not imply that on average 50% or more of Helping the homeless in altruistic acts were beneficial for the altruist in the ancestral environment; if the benefits from helping the right person were very high it would be beneficial to err on the side of caution and usually be altruistic even if in most cases there were no benefits.[1]

The benefits for the altruist may be increased and the costs reduced by being more altruistic towards certain groups. Research has found that people are more altruistic to kin than to no-kin, to friends than to strangers, to those attractive than to those unattractive, to non-competitors than to competitors, and to members ingroups than to members of outgroup.[1] The study of altruism was the initial impetus behind George R. Price's development of the Price equation, which is a mathematical equation used to study genetic evolution. An interesting example of altruism is found in the cellular slime moulds, such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. These protists live as individual amoebae until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body. Selective investment theory proposes that close social bonds, and associated emotional, cognitive, and neurohormonal mechanisms, evolved in order to facilitate long-term, high-cost altruism between those closely depending on one another for survival and reproductive success.[12] Such cooperative behaviors have sometimes been seen as arguments for left-wing politics such by the Russian zoologist and anarchist Kropotkin in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution and Peter Singer in his book A Darwinian Left. Most recently, Jeremy Griffith has proposed a biological theory for the development of truly altruistic instincts that accommodates the biological imperative to reproduce, as evidenced by a moral conscience visible in humans today.[13]

Neurobiology Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in October, 2006,[14] they showed that both pure monetary rewards and charitable donations activated the mesolimbic reward pathway, a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food and sex. However, when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[] Another experiment funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted in 2007 at the Duke University in Durham, North Carolina suggests a different view, "that altruistic behavior may originate from how people view the world rather than how they act in it."[15] In the study published in the February 2007 print issue of Nature Altruism 22

Neuroscience, researchers have found a part of the brain that behaves differently for altruistic and selfish people. The researchers invited 45 volunteers to play a computer game and also to watch the computer play the game. In some rounds, the game resulted in the volunteers winning money for themselves, and in others it resulted in money being donated to a charity of the volunteer's choice. During these activities, the researchers took functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the participants' brains and were "surprised by the results". Although they "were expecting to see activity in the brain's reward centers," based on the idea that "people perform altruistic acts because they feel good about it," what they found was that "another part of the brain was also involved, and it was quite sensitive to the difference between doing something for personal gain and doing it for someone else's gain." That part of the brain is called the posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC). In the next stage, the scientists asked the participants some questions about type and frequency of their altruistic or helping behaviours. They then analysed the responses to generate an estimate of a person's tendency to act altruistically and compared each person's level of altruism against their fMRI brain scan. The results showed that pSTC activity rose in proportion to a person's self-reported level of altruism. According to the researchers, the results suggest that altruistic behavior may originate from how people view the world rather than how they act in it. "We believe that the ability to perceive other people's actions as meaningful is critical for altruism," said lead study investigator Dharol Tankersley.[16]

Psychology The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences defines psychological altruism as "a motivational state with the goal of increasing another’s welfare." Psychological altruism is contrasted with psychological egoism, which refers to the motivation to increase one’s own welfare.[17] There has been some debate on whether or not humans are truly capable of psychological altruism.[18] Some definitions specify a self-sacrificial nature to altruism and a lack of external rewards for altruistic behaviors.[19] However, because altruism ultimately benefits the self in many cases, the selflessness of altruistic acts is brought to question. The social exchange theory postulates that altruism only exists when benefits outweigh costs.[20] Daniel Batson is a psychologist who examined this question and argues against the social exchange theory. He identified four major motives for altruism: altruism to ultimately benefit the self (egoism), to ultimately benefit the other person (altruism), to benefit a group (collectivism), or to uphold a moral principle (principlism). Altruism that ultimately serves selfish gains is thus differentiated from selfless altruism, but the general conclusion has been that empathy-induced altruism can be genuinely selfless.[21] The empathy-altruism hypothesis basically states that psychological altruism does exist and is evoked by the empathic desire to help someone who is suffering. Feelings of empathic concern are contrasted with feelings of personal distress, which compel people to reduce their own unpleasant emotions. People with empathic concern help others in distress even when exposure to the situation could be easily avoided, whereas those lacking in empathic concern avoid helping unless it is difficult or impossible to avoid exposure to another's suffering.[17] Helping behavior is seen in humans at about two years old, when a toddler is capable of understanding subtle emotional cues.[22] Altruism 23

In psychological research on altruism, studies often observe altruism as demonstrated through prosocial behaviors such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperation, philanthropy, and community service.[19] Research has found that people are most likely to help if they recognize that a person is in need and feel personal responsibility for reducing the person's distress. Research also suggests that the number of bystanders witnessing Peace Corps trainees swearing in as volunteers in Cambodia, 4 distress or suffering affects the likelihood of helping (the April 2007 Bystander effect). Greater numbers of bystanders decrease individual feelings of responsibility.[17][23] However, a witness with a high level of empathic concern is likely to assume personal responsibility entirely regardless of the number of bystanders.[17]

Many studies have observed the effects of volunteerism (as a form of altruism) on happiness and health and have consistently found a strong connection between volunteerism and current and future health and well-being.[][24] In a study of older , those who volunteered were significantly higher on life satisfaction and , and significantly lower in depression, anxiety, and somatization.[] Volunteerism and helping behavior have not only been shown to improve , but physical health and longevity as well.[][25][][] One study examined the physical health of mothers who volunteered over a 30-year period and found that 52% of those who did not belong to a volunteer organization experienced a major illness while only 36% of those who did volunteer experienced one.[] A study on adults ages 55+ found that during the four-year study period, people who volunteered for two or more organizations had a 63% lower likelihood of dying. After controlling for prior health status, it was determined that volunteerism accounted for a 44% reduction in mortality.[] Merely being aware of kindness in oneself and others is also associated with greater well-being. A study that asked participants to count each act of kindness they performed for one week significantly enhanced their subjective happiness.[] It is important to note that, while research supports the idea that altruistic acts bring about happiness, it has also been found to work in the opposite direction—that happier people are also kinder. The relationship between altruistic behavior and happiness is bidirectional. Studies have found that generosity increases linearly from sad to happy affective states.[] Studies have also been careful to note that feeling over-taxed by the needs of others has conversely negative effects on health and happiness.[] For example, one study on volunteerism found that feeling overwhelmed by others' demands had an even stronger negative effect on mental health than helping had a positive one (although positive effects were still significant).[] Additionally, while generous acts make people feel good about themselves, it is also important for people to appreciate the kindness they receive from others. Studies suggest that gratitude goes hand-in-hand with kindness and is also very important for our well-being. A study on the relationship happiness to various character strengths showed that "a conscious focus on gratitude led to reductions in negative affect and increases in optimistic appraisals, positive affect, offering emotional support, sleep quality, and well-being."[]

Sociology "Sociologists have long been concerned with how to build the good society" ("Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity". American Sociological Association.[26]). The structure of our societies and how individuals come to exhibit charitable, philanthropic, and other pro-social, altruistic actions for the common good is a largely researched topic within the field. The American Sociology Association (ASA) acknowledges Public sociology saying, "The intrinsic scientific, policy, and public relevance of this field of investigation in helping to construct 'good societies' is unquestionable" ("Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity" ASA). This type of sociology seeks contributions that aid grassroots and theoretical understandings of what motivates altruism and how it is organized, and promotes an altruistic focus in order to benefit the world and people it studies. How altruism is framed, organized, carried out, Altruism 24

and what motivates it at the group level is an area of focus that sociologists seek to investigate in order to contribute back to the groups it studies and "build the good society".

Religious viewpoints Most, if not all, of the world's religions promote altruism as a very important moral value. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism and Sikhism, etc., place particular emphasis on altruistic morality.

Buddhism

Altruism figures prominently in Buddhism. Love and compassion are components of all forms of Buddhism, and are focused on all beings equally: love is the wish that all beings be happy, and compassion is the wish that all beings be free from suffering. "Many illnesses can be cured by the one medicine of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of human happiness, and the need for them lies at the very core of our being" (Dalai Lama).[27]

Since "all beings" includes the individual, love and compassion in Monks collecting alms Buddhism are outside the opposition between self and other. It is even said that the distinction between self and other is part of the root cause of our suffering. In practical terms, however, since most of us are spontaneously self-centered, Buddhism encourages us to focus love and compassion on others, and thus can be characterized as "altruistic." Many would agree with the Dalai Lama that Buddhism as a religion is kindness toward others.

Still, the notion of altruism is modified in such a world-view, since the belief is that such a practice promotes our own happiness: "The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes" (Dalai Lama[27]). In the context of larger ethical discussions on moral action and judgment, Buddhism is characterized by the belief that negative (unhappy) consequences of our actions derive not from or correction based on moral judgment, but from the of karma, which functions like a natural law of cause and effect. A simple illustration of such cause and effect is the case of experiencing the effects of what I cause: if I cause suffering, then as a natural consequence I will experience suffering; if I cause happiness, then as a natural consequence I will experience happiness. In Buddhism, karma (Pāli kamma) is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning "fruit" or "result". Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause (Pāli hetu) in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities" (Pali sankhara) and "action" (Pali bhava). Any action is understood to create "seeds" in the mind that sprout into the appropriate results (Pāli vipaka) when they meet the right conditions. Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one in the wheel of samsāra; others will liberate one to nirvāna. Buddhism relates karma directly to motives behind an action. Motivation usually makes the difference between "good" and "bad", but motivation also includes the aspect of ignorance; so a well-intended action from an ignorant mind can easily be "bad" in that it creates unpleasant results for the "actor." In Buddhism, karma is not the only cause of all that happens. As taught in the early texts, the commentarial tradition classified causal mechanisms governing the universe in five categories, known as Niyama Dhammas:[28][29] • Kamma Niyama — Consequences of one's actions • Utu Niyama — Seasonal changes and climate • Biija Niyama — of heredity • Citta Niyama — Will of mind • Dhamma Niyama — Nature's tendency to produce a perfect type Altruism 25

Jainism The fundamental principles of Jainism revolve around the concept of altruism, not only for humans but for all sentient beings. Jainism preaches the view of Ahimsa – to live and let live, thereby not harming sentient beings, i.e. uncompromising reverence for all life. It also considers all living things to be equal. The first Thirthankar, Rishabh introduced the concept of altruism for all living beings, from extending knowledge and experience to others to donation, giving oneself up for others, non-violence and compassion for all living things. Jainism prescribes a path of non-violence to progress the soul to this ultimate goal. Jains believe that to attain enlightenment and ultimately liberation, one must practice the following ethical principles (major vows) in thought, speech and action. The degree to which these principles are practiced is different for householders and monks. They are: 1. Non-violence (Ahimsa); 2. Truthfulness (Satya); 3. Non-stealing (Asteya); 4. Celibacy (Brahmacharya); 5. Non-possession or non-materialism (Aparigraha); A major characteristic of Jain belief is the emphasis on the consequences of not only physical but also mental behaviors. One's unconquered mind with anger, pride (ego), deceit, greed and uncontrolled sense organs are the powerful enemies of humans. Anger spoils good relations, pride destroys humility, deceit destroys peace and greed destroys everything. Jainism recommends conquering anger by forgiveness, pride (ego) by humility, deceit by straight-forwardness and greed by contentment. The principle of non-violence seeks to minimize karmas which limit the capabilities of the soul. Jainism views every soul as worthy of respect because it has the potential to become Siddha (Param-atma – "highest soul"). Because all living beings possess a soul, great care and awareness is essential in one's actions. Jainism emphasizes the equality of all life, advocating harmlessness towards all, whether the creatures are great or small. This policy extends even to microscopic organisms. Jainism acknowledges that every person has different capabilities and capacities to practice and therefore accepts different levels of compliance for ascetics and householders. The "great vows" (mahavrata) are prescribed for monks and "limited vows" (anuvrata) are prescribed for householders. In other words, the house-holders are encouraged to practice the five cardinal principles of non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, celibacy and non-possessiveness with their current practical limitations while the monks have to observe them very strictly. With consistent practice, it will be possible to overcome the limitations gradually, accelerating the spiritual progress. Altruism 26

Christianity

Altruism is central to the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospel, especially in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. From biblical to medieval Christian traditions, tensions between self-affirmation and other-regard were sometimes discussed under the heading of "disinterested love", as in the Pauline phrase "love seeks not its own interests." In his book Indoctrination and Self-deception, Roderick Hindery tries to shed light on these tensions by contrasting them with impostors of authentic self-affirmation and altruism, by analysis of other-regard within creative individuation of the self, and by contrasting love for the few with love for the many. Love confirms others in their freedom, shuns propaganda and masks, assures others of its presence, and is ultimately confirmed not by mere declarations from others, but by each person's experience and practice from within. As in practical arts, the presence and meaning of love becomes validated and grasped not by words and reflections alone, but in the making of the connection. Statue of Mother Teresa in India

St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, II:II Quaestio 25, Article 4 states that we should love our neighbour more than our ourselves. His interpretation of the Pauline phrase is that we should seek the common good more than the private good, but this is because the common good is a more desirable good for the individual. St Thomas interprets 'You should love your neighbour as yourself' from Leviticus 19 and Matthew 22 as meaning that love for ourselves is the exemplar of love for others. However, he thinks we should love God more than ourselves and our neighbours, and more than our bodily life—since the ultimate purpose of loving our neighbour is to share in eternal beatitude: a more desirable thing than bodily well being. In coining the word Altruism, as stated above, Comte was probably opposing this Thomistic doctrine, which is present in some theological schools within Catholicism.

Many biblical authors draw a strong connection between love of others and love of God. 1 John 4 states that for one to love God one must love his fellowman, and that hatred of one's fellowman is the same as hatred of God. Thomas Jay Oord has argued in several books that altruism is but one possible form of love. An altruistic action is not always a loving action. Oord defines altruism as acting for the other's good, and he agrees with feminists who note that sometimes love requires acting for one's own good when the other's demands undermine overall well-being. German philosopher Max Scheler distinguishes two ways in which the strong can help the weak. One way is a sincere expression of Christian love, "motivated by a powerful feeling of security, strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible fullness of one’s own life and existence".[30] Another way is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love, ... nothing but the urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other people’s business."[31] At its worst, Scheler says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak, and the oppressed is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: wealth, strength, power, largesse."[32]

Islam and Sufism In Sufism, the concept 'īthār' (altruism) is the notion of 'preferring others to oneself'. For Sufis, this means devotion to others through complete forgetfulness of one's own concerns. The importance lies in sacrifice for the sake of the greater good; Islam considers those practicing īthār as abiding by the highest degree of nobility.[33] This is similar to the notion of chivalry, but unlike that European concept, in i'thar attention is focused on everything in existence. A constant concern for Allah (i.e. God) results in a careful attitude towards people, animals, and other things in this world.[] This concept was emphasized by Sufi mystics like Rabia al-Adawiyya who paid attention to the difference Altruism 27

between dedication to Allah (i.e. God) and dedication to people. Thirteenth-century Turkish Sufi poet Yunus Emre explained this philosophy as "Yaratılanı severiz, Yaratandan ötürü" or We love the creature, because of The Creator. For many Muslims, i'thar must be practiced as a religious obligation during specific Islamic holidays. However, i'thar is also still an Islamic ideal to which all Muslims should strive to adhere at all times.

Judaism Judaism defines altruism as the desired goal of creation. The famous Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook stated that love is the most important attribute in humanity.[34] This is defined as bestowal, or giving, which is the intention of altruism. This can be altruism towards humanity that leads to altruism towards the creator or God. Kabbalah defines God as the force of giving in existence. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto in particular focused on the 'purpose of creation' and how the will of God was to bring creation into perfection and adhesion with this upper force.[35] Modern Kabbalah developed by Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag, in his writings about the future generation, focuses on how society could achieve an altruistic social framework.[36] Ashlag proposed that such a framework is the purpose of creation, and everything that happens is to raise humanity to the level of altruism, love for one another. Ashlag focused on society and its relation to divinity.[37]

Sikhism Altruism is essential to the Sikh religion. The central faith in Sikhism is that the greatest deed any one can do is to imbibe and live the godly qualities like love, affection, sacrifice, patience, harmony, truthfulness. The fifth Nanak, Guru Arjun Dev Sacrificed his life to uphold 22 Carats of pure truth, the greatest gift to humanity, the Guru Granth. The Ninth Nanak, Guru Tegh Bahadur Sacrificed his head to protect weak and defenseless people against atrocity. In the late 17th century, Guru Gobind Singh Ji (the tenth guru in Sikhism), was in war with the Moghul rulers to protect the people of different faiths, when a fellow Sikh, Bhai Kanhaiya, attended the troops of the enemy. He gave water to both friends and foes who were wounded on the battlefield. Some of the enemy began to fight again and some Sikh warriors were annoyed by Bhai Kanhaiya as he was helping their enemy. Sikh soldiers brought Bhai Kanhaiya before Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and complained of his action that they considered counterproductive to their struggle on the battlefield. "What were you doing, and why?" asked the Guru. "I was giving water to the wounded because I saw your face in all of them," replied Bhai Kanhaiya. The Guru responded, "Then you should also give them ointment to heal their wounds. You were practicing what you were coached in the house of the Guru." It was under the tutelage of the Guru that Bhai Kanhaiya subsequently founded a volunteer corps for altruism. This volunteer corps still to date is engaged in doing good to others and trains new volunteering recruits for doing the same.[38]

Hinduism Advaita Vedanta differs from the view that karma is a law of cause and effect but instead additionally hold that karma is mediated by the will of a personal supreme god. This view of karma is in contradiction to Buddhism, Jainism and other Indian religions that do view karma as a law of cause and effect. Swami Sivananda, an Advaita scholar, reiterates the same views in his commentary synthesising Vedanta views on the Brahma Sutras, a Vedantic text. In his commentary on Chapter 3 of the Brahma Sutras, Sivananda notes that karma is insentient and short-lived, and ceases to exist as soon as a deed is executed. Hence, karma cannot bestow the fruits of actions at a future date according to one's merit. Furthermore, one cannot argue that karma generates apurva or punya, which gives fruit. Since apurva is non-sentient, it cannot act unless moved by an intelligent being such as a god. It cannot independently bestow reward or punishment.[39] Altruism 28

Philosophy There exists a wide range of philosophical views on man's obligations or motivations to act altruistically. Proponents of ethical altruism maintain that individuals are morally obligated to act altruistically. The opposing view is ethical egoism, which maintains that moral agents should always act in their own self-interest. Both ethical altruism and ethical egoism contrast with utilitarianism, which is the view that every individual's well-being (including one's own) is of equal moral importance. A related concept in descriptive ethics is psychological egoism, the thesis that humans always act in their own self-interest and that true altruism is impossible. Rational egoism is the view that rationality consists in acting in one's self-interest (without specifying how this affects one's moral obligations).

References Notes [1] Pat Barcaly. The evolution of charitable behaviour and the power of reputation. In [9] Wendy Iredal and . Altruism as showing off: a signaling perspective on promoting green behaviour and acts of kindness. In

[10] Leon Neyfakh Where does good come from?, 17 April 2011, http:/ / www. boston. com/ bostonglobe/ ideas/ articles/ 2011/ 04/ 17/ where_does_good_come_from/

[11] E. O. Wilson. Biologist E.O. Wilson on Why Humans, Like Ants, Need a Tribe. 2 April 2012. The Daily Beast. http:/ / www. thedailybeast.

com/ newsweek/ 2012/ 04/ 01/ biologist-e-o-wilson-on-why-humans-like-ants-need-a-tribe. html

[13] Griffith J. 2011. Conscience. In The Book of Real Answers to Everything! ISBN 9781741290073. http:/ / www. worldtransformation. com/ conscience/ [14] Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation, PNAS 2006:103(42);15623–15628

[15] "Brain Scan Predicts Difference Between Altruistic And Selfish People" (http:/ / www. medicalnewstoday. com/ articles/ 61312. php)

[16] "Activation Of Brain Region Predicts Altruism" (http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2007/ 01/ 070121162756. htm) [17] ["Altruism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 87-88. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 10 April 2012.] [18] [Batson, C. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.] [19] [Batson, C. (2012). A history of prosocial behavior research. In A. W. Kruglanski, W. Stroebe, A. W. Kruglanski, W. Stroebe (Eds.) , Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 243–264). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.] [20] [Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., & Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601–1610. doi:10.1177/014616702237586] [21] [Batson, C., Ahmad, N., & Stocks, E. L. (2011). Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In D. Dunning, D. Dunning (Eds.) , Social motivation (pp. 103–126). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.] [23] Hudson, James M. & Bruckman, Amy S. (2004). "The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation". Journal of the Learning Sciences 13 (2): 165–195. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_2. [24] [Koenig, L. B., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. r. (2007). Religiousness, antisocial behavior, and altruism: Genetic and environmental mediation. Journal Of Personality, 75(2), 265-290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00439.x] [25] Kayloe, J. C., & Krause, M. (1985). RARE FIND: or The value of volunteerism. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 8(4), 49-56.

[26] American Sociological Association: Altruism, Morality and Social Solidarity (http:/ / www. asanet. org/ sections/ altruism. cfm)

[27] Speech by the Dalai Lama (http:/ / www. dalailama. com/ page. 65. htm) [39] Sivananda, Swami. Phaladhikaranam, Topic 8, Sutras 38–41. Bibliography • Oord, Thomas (2007). The Altruism Reader. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. ISBN 978-1-59947-127-3. • Oord, Thomas (2010). Defining Love. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. ISBN 1-58743-257-9. • Batson, Charles (1991). The Altruism Question. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum, Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-0245-0.

• Nowak, M. A. (2006). "Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation" (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/

articles/ PMC3279745). Science 314 (5805): 1560–1563. Bibcode: 2006Sci...314.1560N (http:/ / adsabs. harvard.

edu/ abs/ 2006Sci. . . 314. 1560N). doi: 10.1126/science.1133755 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1126/ science.

1133755). PMC 3279745 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC3279745). PMID 17158317

(http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 17158317). Altruism 29

• Fehr, E.; Fischbacher, U. (2003). "The nature of human altruism". Nature 425 (6960): 785–791. doi:

10.1038/nature02043 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nature02043). PMID 14574401 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm.

nih. gov/ pubmed/ 14574401). • Comte, Auguste, Catechisme positiviste (1852) or Catechism of Positivism, tr. R. Congreve, (London: Kegan Paul, 1891) • Knox, T. (1999). "The volunteer's folly and socio-economic man: some thoughts on altruism, rationality, and

community". Journal of Socio-Economics 28 (4): 475–967. doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(99)00045-1 (http:/ / dx. doi.

org/ 10. 1016/ S1053-5357(99)00045-1). • Kropotkin, Peter, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902) • Oord, Thomas (2004). Science of Love. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. ISBN 978-1-932031-70-6. • Nietzsche, Friedrich, Beyond Good and Evil • Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Philosophy of Poverty (1847) • Lysander Spooner, Natural Law • Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue • Oliner, Samuel P. and Pearl M. Towards a Caring Society: Ideas into Action. West Port, CT: Praeger, 1995. • Axelrod, Robert (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02121-2. • Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. • Wright, Robert (1995). . New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0-679-76399-6. • Madsen, E. A.; Tunney, R. J.; Fieldman, G.; Plotkin, H. C.; Dunbar, R. I. M.; Richardson, J. M.; McFarland, D. (2007). "Kinship and altruism: A cross-cultural experimental study". British Journal of Psychology 98 (Pt 2):

339–359. doi: 10.1348/000712606X129213 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 000712606X129213). PMID

17456276 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 17456276). • Wedekind, C. and Milinski, M. Human Cooperation in the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma: Pavlov versus Generous Tit-for-tat. Evolution, Vol. 93, pp. 2686–2689, April 1996. • Monk-Turner, E.; Blake, V.; Chniel, F.; Forbes, S.; Lensey, L.; Madzuma, J. (2002). "Helping hands: A study of

altruistic behavior". Gender Issues 20 (4): 65. doi: 10.1007/s12147-002-0024-2 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12147-002-0024-2).

External links General

• Altruism (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ programmes/ p0038x9c) on In Our Time at the BBC. ( listen now (http:/ /

www. bbc. co. uk/ iplayer/ console/ p0038x9c/ In_Our_Time_Altruism))

• "Radiolab: "The Good Show"" (http:/ / www. radiolab. org/ 2010/ dec/ 14/ ). Season 9. Episode 1. 14 December 2011. WNYC. Society

• What is Altruism? (http:/ / altruists. org/ 215) from Altruists International Philosophy and religion

• "Giving and Receiving" (http:/ / www. kabbalah. info/ engkab/ kabbalah-video-clips/ giving-and-receiving) from Kabbalah.info

• Selflessness: Toward a Buddhist Vision of Social Justice (http:/ / them. polylog. org/ 3/ fcs-en. htm) by Sungtaek Cho Science

• Altruism: Myth or Reality? (http:/ / beta. in-mind. org/ node/ 211), by Dan Batson and Nadia Ahmad

• Biological Altruism (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ altruism-biological) entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Altruism 30

• The Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behavior Institute (http:/ / www. humboldt. edu/ altruism/ ) at Humboldt State University • Dharol Tankersley, C. Jill Stowe & Scott A. Huettel (21 January 2007). "Altruism is associated with an increased

neural response to agency" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ neuro/ journal/ v10/ n2/ abs/ nn1833. html). Nature 10 (2):

150–151. doi: 10.1038/nn1833 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nn1833). PMID 17237779 (http:/ / www. ncbi.

nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 17237779).

• "Unraveling altruism, conscience, and condemnation" (http:/ / ibcsr. org/ index. php?option=com_content&

view=article& id=114:unraveling-moral-condemnation& catid=25:research-news& Itemid=59)

Persuasion

Persuasion is underneath the umbrella term of Influence. In other words, persuasion is influence, but it requires communication, whereas influence doesn't necessarily. Persuasion can attempt to influence the beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviors.[1] Persuasion is a process aimed at changing a person's (or a group's) attitude or behavior toward some event, idea, object, or other person(s), by using written or spoken words to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination thereof.[2] Persuasion is also an often used tool in the pursuit of personal gain, such as election campaigning, giving a sales pitch,[3] or in Trial Advocacy. Persuasion can also be interpreted as using one's personal or positional resources to change people's behaviors or attitudes. Systematic persuasion is the process through which attitudes or beliefs are changed by appeals to logic and reason. Heuristic persuasion on the other hand is the process through which attitudes or beliefs are changed because of appeals to habit or emotion.[4]

Brief History Persuasion, novel by Jane Austen. Illustrated by C. E. Brock Persuasion began with the Greeks, who emphasized rhetoric and For Sir Elliot, baronet, the hints of Mr Shepherd, elocution has the highest standard for a successful politician. All trials his agent, were quite unwelcome were held in front of the Assembly, and both the prosecution and the defense rested, as they often do today, on the persuasiveness of the speaker.[5] Rhetoric was the ability to find the available means of persuasion in any instance. The Greek philosopher Aristotle listed four reasons why one should learn the art of persuasion: 1) truth and justice are perfect; thus if a case loses, it is the fault of the speaker; 2) it is an excellent tool for teaching; 3) a good rhetorician needs to know how to argue both sides to understand the whole problem and all the options; and 4) there is no better way to defend one’s self.

In the fifteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, which explored how a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but might also need to be willing to act immorally at the right times. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasized that occasional need for the methodical exercise of brute force or deceit. His moral and ethical beliefs led to the formation of Machiavellianism, which is characterized as “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct,”[5] a very different form of persuasion. Persuasion 31

Theories of Persuasion

Functional theories Functional theorists attempt to understand the divergent attitudes individuals have towards people, objects or issues in different situations.[] There are four main functional attitudes: • Adjustment function: A main motivation for individuals is to increase positive external rewards and minimize the costs. Attitudes serve to direct behavior directed towards the rewards and away from punishment. • Ego Defensive function: The process by which an individual protects their ego from being threatened by their own negative impulses or threatening thoughts. • Value-expressive: When an individual derives pleasure from presenting an image of themselves which is in line with their self-concept and the beliefs that they want to be associated with. • Knowledge function: The need to attain a sense of understanding and control over one’s life. An individual’s attitudes therefor serve to help set standards and rules which govern their sense of being.[] When communication is targeted at an underlying function its degree of persuasiveness will influence whether the individual will change their attitude, after determining that another attitude will be more effective in fulfilling that function.[]

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Persuasion Persuasion has traditionally been associated with two routes.[] • Central route: Whereby an individual evaluates information presented to them based on the pros and cons of it and how well it supports their values • Peripheral route: Change is mediated by how attractive the source of communication is bypassing the deliberation process.[] The ELM forms a new facet of the route theory. It holds that the probability of effective persuasion depends on how successful the communication is at bringing to mind a relevant mental representation, which is the elaboration likelihood. Thus if the target of the communication is personally relevant, this increases the elaboration likelihood of the intended outcome and would be more persuasive if it were through the central route. Communication which does not require careful thought would be better suited to the peripheral route.[]

Conditioning Theories Conditioning plays a huge part in the concept of persuasion. It is more often about leading someone into taking certain actions of their own, rather than giving direct commands. In advertisements for example, this is done by attempting to connect a positive emotion to a brand/product logo. This is often done by creating commercials that make people laugh, using a sexual undertone, inserting uplifting images and/or music etc. and then ending the commercial with a brand/product logo. Great examples of this are professional athletes. They are paid to connect themselves to things that can be directly related to their roles; sport shoes, tennis rackets, golf balls, or completely irrelevant things like soft drinks, popcorn poppers and panty hose. The important thing for the advertiser is to establish a connection to the consumer.[6] The thought is that it will affect how people view certain products, knowing that most purchases are made on the basis of emotion. Just like you sometimes recall a memory from a certain smell or sound, the objective of some ads is solely to bring back certain emotions when you see their logo in your local store. The hope is that by repeating the message several times it will cause the consumer to be more likely to purchase the product because he/she already connects it with a good emotion and a positive experience. Stefano DellaVigna and Matthew Gentzkow did a comprehensive study on the effects of persuasion in different domains. They discovered that persuasion has little or no effect on advertisement; however, there was a substantial effect of persuasion on voting if there was face-to-face Persuasion 32

contact.[7]

Cognitive Dissonance Theory Leon Festinger originally proposed the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in 1956. He theorized that human beings constantly strive for mental consistency. Our cognition (thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes) can be in agreement, unrelated, or in disagreement with each other. Our cognition can also be in agreement or disagreement with our behaviors. When we detect conflicting cognition, or dissonance, it gives us a sense of incompleteness and discomfort. For example, a person who is addicted to smoking cigarettes but also suspects it could be detrimental to his health suffers from cognitive dissonance. Festinger suggests that we are motivated to reduce this dissonance until our cognition is in harmony with itself. We strive for mental consistency. There are four main ways we go about reducing or eliminating our dissonance: (1) Changing our minds about one of the facets of cognition, (2) reducing the importance of a cognition, (3) increasing the overlap between the two, and (4) re-evaluating the cost/reward ratio. Revisiting the example of the smoker, he can either quit smoking, reduce the importance of his health, convince himself he is not at risk, or evaluate the reward of his smoking to be worth the cost of his health. Cognitive Dissonance is powerful when it relates to competition and self-concept. The most famous example of how Cognitive Dissonance can be used for persuasion comes from Festinger and Carlsmith’s 1959 experiment in which participants were asked to complete a very dull task for an hour. Some were paid $20, while others were paid $1, and afterwards they were instructed to tell the next waiting participants that the experiment was fun and exciting. Those who were paid $1 were much more likely to convince the next participants that the experiment really was enjoyable than those who received $20. This is because $20 is enough reason to participate in a dull task for an hour, so there is no dissonance. Those who received $1 experienced great dissonance, so they had to truly convince themselves that the task actually was enjoyable in order to avoid feeling like they were taken advantage of, and therefore reduce their dissonance.[8]

Inoculation Theory A vaccine introduces a weak form of a virus that can easily be defeated to prepare the immune system should it need to fight off a stronger form of the same virus. In much the same way, the Theory of Inoculation suggests a certain party can introduce a weak form of an argument that can easily be thwarted in order to prepare the audience to disregard a stronger, full-fledged form of the argument from an opposing party. This is often practiced in negative advertisements and comparative advertisements, both for products and political causes. An example would be a manufacturer of a product displaying an ad that refutes one particular claim made about a rival’s product, so that when the audience sees an ad for said rival product, they will refute all the claims of the product without a second thought.[9]

Attribution Theory Humans attempt to explain the actions of others through either Dispositional Attribution or Situational Attribution. Dispositional Attribution, also referred to as Internal Attribution, attempts to point to a person’s traits, abilities, motives, or dispositions as a cause or explanation for their actions. A citizen criticizing a president by saying the nation is lacking economic progress and health because the president is either lazy or lacking in economic intuition is utilizing a dispositional attribution. Situational Attribution, also referred to as External Attribution, attempts to point to the context around the person and factors of his surroundings, particularly things that are completely out of his control. A citizen claiming that a lack of economic progress is not a fault of the president but rather the fact that he inherited a poor economy from the previous president is situational attribution. Persuasion 33

Fundamental Attribution Error occurs when people wrongly attribute either a shortcoming or accomplishment to internal or external factors, when in fact the inverse is true. In general, people tend to make dispositional attributions more often than situational attributions when trying to explain or understand a person’s behavior. This happens when we are much more focused on the individual because we do not know much about their situation or context. When trying to persuade others to like us or another person, we tend to explain positive behaviors and accomplishments with dispositional attribution, and negative behaviors and shortcomings with situational attributions.[10]

Social Judgement Theory Social Judgement Theory suggests that when people are presented with an idea or any kind of persuasive proposal, their natural reaction is to immediately seek a way to sort the information subconsciously and react to it. We evaluate the information and compare it with the attitude we already have, which is called the initial attitude or anchor point. When attempting to sort the incoming persuasive information, an audience will evaluate whether it lands in their latitude of acceptance, latitude of non-commitment or indifference, or the latitude of rejection. The size of these latitudes will vary from topic to topic. Our “ego-involvement” generally plays one of the largest roles in determining the size of these latitudes. When a topic is closely connected to how we define and perceive ourselves, or deals with anything we care passionately about, our latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment are likely to be much smaller and our attitude of rejection much larger. A person’s anchor point is considered to be the center of his latitude of acceptance, the position that is most acceptable to him. An audience is likely to distort incoming information to fit into their unique latitudes. If something falls within the latitude of acceptance, the subject tends to assimilate the information and consider it closer to his anchor point than it really is. Inversely, if something falls within the latitude of rejection, the subject tends to contrast the information and convince himself the information is farther away from is anchor point than it really is. When trying to persuade an individual target or an entire audience, it is vital to first learn the average latitudes of acceptance, non-commitment, and rejection of your audience. It is ideal to use persuasive information that lands near the boundary of the latitude of acceptance if the goal is to change the audience’s anchor point. Repeatedly suggesting ideas on the of the acceptance latitude will cause people to gradually adjust their anchor points, while suggesting ideas in the rejection latitude or even the non-commitment latitude will not result in any change to the audience’s anchor point.[11]

Methods Persuasion methods are also sometimes referred to as persuasion tactics or persuasion strategies.

Weapons of influence Robert Cialdini, in Influence, his book on persuasion, defined six "influence cues or weapons of influence":[12] Influence is the process of changing. Reciprocity The principle of reciprocity states that when a person provides us with something, we attempt to repay him or her in kind. Reciprocation produces a sense of obligation, which can be a powerful tool in persuasion. The reciprocity rule is effective because it can be overpowering and instill in us a sense of obligation. Generally, we have a dislike for individuals who neglect to return a favor or provide payment when offered a free service or gift. As a result, reciprocation is a widely held principle. This societal standard makes reciprocity extremely powerful persuasive technique, as it can result in unequal exchanges and can even apply to an uninvited first favor. Commitment and Consistency Consistency is an important aspect of persuasion because it 1)is highly valued by society, 2)results in a beneficial approach to daily life, and 3)provides a valuable shortcut through the complicated nature of modern existence. Consistency allows us to more effectively make decisions and process information. The concept of commitment Persuasion 34

states that if a person commits, either orally or in writing, he or she is more likely to honor that particular commitment. This is especially true for written commitments, as they appear psychologically more concrete and can be back up with hard proof. Once a person commits to a stance, he or she has a tendency to behave according to that commitment. Commitment is an effective persuasive technique because once you get someone to make a commitment, they are more likely to engage in self-persuasion, providing themselves and others with reasons and justifications to support his or her commitment in order to avoid dissonance. Social Proof We are influenced by others around us; we want to be doing what everyone else is doing. People often base their actions and beliefs on what others around them are doing, how others act or what others believe. “The power of the crowd” is very effective. We all want to know what others are doing around us. We are so obsessed with what others do and how others act, that we then try to be just like other people. Cialdini gives an example that is somewhat like this: in a phone–a–thon, the host will say something along the line of, “Operators are waiting, please call now.” The only context that you have from that statement is that the operators are waiting and they are not busy. Rather the host may say: “If operators are busy, please call again.” This is proving the technique of social proof. Just by changing three words, it sounds like the lines are busy and other people are calling; so it must be a good, legitimate organization. Social proof is most effective when people are uncertain or when there are similarities in a situation. In uncertain or ambiguous situations, when there are multiple possibilities or choices that need to be made, people are likely to conform to what others do/are doing. We become more influenced by the people around us, in situations that cause us to make a decision. The other effective situation for social proofing is when there are similarities. We are more prone to change/conform around people who are similar to us. If someone who is similar to you is being controlling and a leader, you are more likely to listen and follow what it is they are saying. Liking This principle is simple and concise. People say “yes” to people that they like. Two major factors contribute to overall liking. The first is physical attractiveness. People who are more physically attractive seem to be more persuasive; they get what they want and they can easily change others' attitudes. This attractiveness is proven to send favorable messages/impressions of other traits that a person may have, such as talent, kindness, and . The second factor is similarity. This is the simpler aspect of "liking." The idea of similarity states if people like you, they are more likely to say “yes” to what you ask them. When we do this, we usually don’t think about it, it just comes naturally. Authority We have the tendency to believe that if an expert says something, then it must be true. People like to listen to those who are knowledgeable and trustworthy, so if you can be those two things, then you are already on your way to getting people to believe and listen to you. The Milgram study, done in 1974, consisted of a teacher and a learner who are both in different rooms. The teacher was told to ask questions to the learner and if the learner got it wrong, the teacher was to give him an electric shock. The catch to this experiment is that the teacher does not know is that the learner does not actually get a shock; the experiment was being done to see “When it is their job, how much suffering will ordinary people be willing to inflict on an entirely innocent other person” (Cialdini 176). In this study the results show that most teachers were willing to give as much pain that was available to them. People are willing to bring pain upon others when they are directed to do so by some other authority figure. Scarcity Scarcity is a principle that people underestimate. When something has limited availability, people assign it more value. According to Cialdini, “people want more of what they cannot have.” When scarcity is an issue, the context matters. This means that within certain contexts, scarcity “works” better. To get people to believe that something is Persuasion 35

scarcer, you need to explain what about that certain product will give them what no other product will. You have to work the audience in the correct way. Something else that you can do to get people believe that something is scarce is to tell them what they will lose, not what they will gain. Saying things like “you will lose $5”, rather than saying “you could save $5”. You are making something sound more scarce. There are two major reasons why the scarcity principle keeps: 1)when things are difficult to get, they are usually more valuable so that can make it a better cue for the quality; and 2) when things become less available, we lose the chances to acquire those things. When this happens, we assign the scarce item or service more value simply because it is harder to acquire. The whole of this principle is that we all want things that are out of our reach. If we see something that is popular we do not want it as much as something that is very rare.

Machiavellian Persuasion Machiavellianism employs the tools of manipulation and deceit to gain wealth and power. Robert Greene wrote The 48 Laws of Power, a distillation of 3,000 years of the history of power, drawing on the lives of strategists and historical figures using the philosophies of Machiavelli to show people how to gain power, preserve it, and defend themselves against power manipulators.[5] In the preface of his book, Greene explains the dilemma of courtier, embodied in most of rules in his book: “While appearing the very paragon of elegance, they had to outwit and thwart their opponents in the subtlest of ways. The successful courtier learned over time to make all of his moves indirect; if he stabbed an opponent in the back, it was with a velvet glove and the sweetest of smiles on his faces. Instead of coercion or outright treachery (expect into the most rare of occasions), the perfect courtier got his way through seduction, charm, deception, and subtle strategy, always planning several moves ahead. Life in the court was a never-ending game that required constant vigilance and tactical thinking. It was civilized war.”[5] Some of the 48 Laws include: • 1: Never Outshine the Master - Draws on the issues of Authority and Need for Ego Gratification • 5: So Much Depends on Reputation - Emphasizes the power and necessity for Credibility and Likeability • 16: Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor - Draws upon the influential power of Authority and Scarcity • 37: Create Compelling Spectacles - Emphasizes the power of Vividness • 40: Despise the Free Lunch - Recognizes on the danger of Reciprocity

Relationship based persuasion In their book The Art of Woo, G. Richard Shell and Mario Moussa present a four-step approach to strategic persuasion.[13] They explain that persuasion means to win others over, not to defeat them. Thus it is important to be able to see the topic from different angles in order to anticipate the reaction others have to a proposal. Step 1: Survey your situation This step includes an analysis of the persuader's situation, goals, and challenges that the persuader faces in his or her organization. Step 2: Confront the five barriers Five obstacles pose the greatest risks to a successful influence encounter: relationships, credibility, communication mismatches, belief systems, and interest and needs. Step 3: Make your pitch People need a solid reason to justify a decision, yet at the same time many decisions are made on the basis of intuition. This step also deals with presentation skills. Step 4: Secure your commitments In order to safeguard the longtime success of a persuasive decision, it is vital to deal with politics at both the Persuasion 36

individual and organizational level.

List of methods By appeal to reason: • Logic • Logical argument • Rhetoric • Scientific evidence (proof) • Scientific method By appeal to emotion: • Advertising • Faith • Presentation and Imagination • Propaganda • Pity • Seduction • Tradition Aids to persuasion: • Body language • Communication skill or Rhetoric • Personality tests and conflict style inventory help devise strategy based on an individual's preferred style of interaction • Sales techniques Other techniques: • Deception • Hypnosis • Power (sociology) • Subliminal advertising Coercive techniques, some of which are highly controversial and/or not scientifically proven to be effective: • Brainwashing • Coercive persuasion • Mind control • Torture

Persuasion in Culture It is through a basic cultural personal definition of persuasion that everyday people understand how others are attempting to influence them and then how they influence others. The dialogue surrounding persuasion is constantly evolving because of the necessity to use persuasion in everyday life. Persuasion tactics traded in society have influences from researchers, which may sometimes be misinterpreted. It is evolutionary advantageous, in the sense of wealth and survival, to persuade and not be persuaded. In order to understand persuasion, members of a culture will gather knowledge from domains such as “buying, selling, advertising, and shopping, as well as parenting and courting.”[14] Persuasion 37

Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) was created by Friestad and Wright in 1994. This framework allows the researchers to analyze the process of gaining and using everyday persuasion knowledge. The researchers suggest the necessity of including “the relationship and interplay between everyday folk knowledge and scientific knowledge on persuasion, advertising, selling, and marketing in general.”[14] In order to educate the general population about research findings and new knowledge about persuasion, teacher must draw on their pre-existing beliefs from folk persuasion in order to make the research relevant and informative to lay people, which creates “mingling of their scientific insights and commonsense beliefs.”[14] As a result of this constant mingling, the issue of persuasion expertise becomes messy. Expertise status can be interpreted from a variety of sources like job titles, celebrity, or published scholarship. It is through this multimodal process that we who create concepts like "stay away from car salesmen, they will try to trick you.” The kind of persuasion techniques blatantly employed by car salesman creates an innate distrust of them in popular culture. According to Psychology Today, they employ tactics ranging from making personal life ties with the customer to altering reality by handing the customer the new car keys before the purchase.[15]

Neurobiology of persuasion Attitudes and persuasion are among the central issues of social behavior. One of the classic questions is when are attitudes a predictor of behavior. Previous research suggested that selective activation of left prefrontal cortex might increase the likelihood that an attitude would predict a relevant behavior. Using lateral attentional manipulation, this was supported.[16] An earlier article showed that EEG measures of anterior prefrontal asymmetry might be a predictor of persuasion. Research participants were presented with arguments that favored and arguments that opposed the attitudes they already held. Those whose brain was more active in left prefrontal areas said that they paid the most attention to statements with which they agreed while those with a more active right prefrontal area said that they paid attention to statements that disagreed.[17] This is an example of defensive repression, the avoidance or forgetting of unpleasant information. Research has shown that the trait of defensive repression is related to relative left prefrontal activation.[18] In addition, when pleasant or unpleasant words, probably analogous to agreement or disagreement, were seen incidental to the main task, an fMRI scan showed preferential left prefrontal activation to the pleasant words.[19] One way therefore to increase persuasion would seem to be to selectively activate the right prefrontal cortex. This is easily done by monaural stimulation to the contralateral ear. The effect apparently depends on selective attention rather than merely the source of stimulation. This manipulation had the expected outcome: more persuasion for messages coming from the left.[20] Persuasion 38

External links • The Art of Persuasion, by Blaise Pascal [21]

References [4] Schacter, Daniel L., Daniel T. Gilbert, and Daniel M. Wegner. "The Accuracy Motive: right is better than wrong-Persuasion." Psychology. ; Second Edition. New York: Worth, Incorporated, 2011. 532. Print. [5] Ancient greece [6] Cialdini, R.B. (2007). "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" New York: HarperCollins Publishers. [7] DellaVigna , S., & Gentzko, M. (2010). Persuasion: Empirical evidence. The Annual Review of Economics, 2, 643-69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.12430

[8] http:/ / www. simplypsychology. org/ cognitive-dissonance. html#

[9] http:/ / www. uky. edu/ ~drlane/ capstone/ persuasion/ ino. htm

[10] http:/ / changingminds. org/ explanations/ theories/ fundamental_attribution_error. htm

[11] http:/ / healthyinfluence. com/ wordpress/ steves-primer-of-practical-persuasion-3-0/ feeling/ social-judgment-theory/ [12] Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [13] The art of Woo by G. Richard Shell and Mario Moussa, New York 2007, ISBN 978-1-59184-176-0 [14] Friestad, Marian; Wright, Peter. Everyday persuasion knowledge. Psychology & Marketing16. 2 (Mar 1999) [15] Lawson, Willow. Persuasion:Battle on the Car Lot, Psychology Today published on September 1, 2005 - last reviewed on July 31, 2009 [16] Drake, R. A., & Sobrero, A. P. (1987). Lateral orientation effects upon trait behavior and attitude behavior consistency. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 639-651. [17] Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Quintanar, L. R. (1982). Individual differences in relative hemispheric alpha abundance and cognitive responses to persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 623-636. [18] Tomarken, A. J., & Davidson, R. J. (1994). Frontal brain activity in repressors and nonrepressors. Journal of , 103, 339-349. [19] Herrington, J. D., Mohanty, A., Koven, N. S., Fisher, J. E., Stewart, J. L., Banich, M. T., et al. (2005). Emotion-modulated performance and

activity in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Emotion, 5, 200-207. Free full-text (http:/ / www. researchgate. net/ publication/

7761973_Emotion-modulated_performance_and_activity_in_left_dorsolateral_prefrontal_cortex/ file/ d912f50b4e59e780da. pdf). [20] Drake, R. A., & Bingham, B. R. (1985). Induced lateral orientation and persuasibility. Brain and Cognition, 4, 156-164. Induced lateral

orientation and persuasibility (http:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science/ article/ pii/ 0278262685900673).

[21] http:/ / passiontolearn. com/ index. php/ items/ show/ 28 • Herbert I. Abelson, Ph D. Persuasion "How opinions and attitudes are changed" Copyright© 1959 Article Sources and Contributors 39 Article Sources and Contributors

Reciprocity (social psychology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=562865680 Contributors: 2pointsomeone, Adoniscik, Aeonx, Al Lemos, Ambreena, Cproskin, Dalgliesh0, Deborah909, Eubulides, Glenn, Hamoudafg, Hede2000, Iridescent, J.delanoy, Jhertel, Josh Parris, Joshuaali, Khazar2, Kocio, Longbow4u, MaryAnn8484, Mikael Häggström, Pjoef, Posidonious, PrincessofLlyr, , Res2216firestar, Serein (renamed because of SUL), Shaddack, Tide rolls, Whouk, 28 anonymous edits

Robert Cialdini Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=554707123 Contributors: ABOUIAWUK, Adrian J. Hunter, Alai, Almwi, Arno Matthias, Ashmoo, Bgwhite, Calvin08, CanisRufus, Comatmebro, CrisBCT, Dandv, Eilyjane, Eilyjaneaz, Enchanter, Ericamick, Felix Folio Secundus, FidusAchates, FreeKresge, Genjix, Hu12, JHP, Janarius, JasonPetzke, JayC, Jcbarr, Jcbutler, Kptmt, Kurt000, LarryLACa, Lotje, Lynneoconnor, Malkavian, Mcourtne199, Millionairex, Nabeth, Nishkid64, Nohomers48, Ohnoitsjamie, OlEnglish, Pacificeq, Pastelcolors321, Pataki Márta, Plaasjapie, Rajah, Rjwilmsi, RockMFR, Rossami, Rowmn, Rpberg, Schutz, Schwnj, Smee, Stefanomione, Steve Dufour, Steveatsalesinteraction, Sun King, T@Di, THE KING, Taak, Thedarkestclear, Tony Sidaway, VanBuren, Wellspring, Winwriter, Wxm29, Yrithinnd, ZarlanTheGreen, Zellin, Zzyzx11, 70 anonymous edits

Social psychology Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=564467207 Contributors: 1exec1, APH, Aanimies, AbsolutDan, AdSR, Ahk360, Ajoykt, Alansohn, Albanynewyorker, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, Allens, Allisonmarieanne, Anarchitect, Andre Engels, Andycjp, Angela, Anna Frodesiak, Arcann, Arjayay, Arnoutf, Auto469680, Baduin, Barland1, Bayerischermann, Bdubay, Bikeable, Birdmessenger, Bobo192, Bomac, Born2x, Br1z, Bt625, CDN99, CWenger, Canto2009, CarlosCalderon, Catmoongirl, Chanlyn, Charles Matthews, ChemBrothers, Cielomobile, Cmdrjameson, Coin945, CommonsDelinker, Conversion script, Cooka2011, Cosmic Latte, Ctmt, DMG413, Darkildor, David91, Delmonte, Den fjättrade ankan, Deus Cincinnatus, Deville, Docjay8406, DoctorShade, DoctorW, Doczilla, Dpv, DrAllison, Dzforman, EPM, ESkog, Earcanal, Edward, El C, Emperorbma, Eras-mus, Everything counts, Ewlyahoocom, Fraggle81, Frazzydee, Freedazzel7, Froes, Frédérick Lacasse, Fuhghettaboutit, Game-Guru999, Gbohner, Ginsuloft, Glane23, Gogo Dodo, Goodmanrob, GreatWhiteNortherner, Greyo, Gsociology, Gustavb, Gzabers, H.Tamahagane, Hu12, Hughcharlesparker, Humanizer879, I dream of horses, Imasleepviking, IronGargoyle, Iulus Ascanius, JForget, Jacquerie27, Jayjg, Jcbutler, Jeff3000, JenLouise, JesseHogan, Jj137, Jnlemons, John, Johnkarp, JorgeGG, JoshuaTapgon, Jsarmi, Jtneill, Justinfr, KF, Karl Dickman, Karol Langner, Keith D, Kenny sh, Kerksal, L Kensington, Landroo, Learn2xl, Lethanhhai1971, LilHelpa, Livre, Lotje, Lourine, Lova Falk, Lucidish, Luckas Blade, Lugia2453, Lyojah, MIKHEIL, Maethordaer, Magnanimousmishael, Malcolmxl5, Mandarax, Marc Venot, Martarius, MartinPoulter, Maryam.pourrahimi, Mathonius, Mattisse, Mbell, Mcflysarecool, Memestream, Mentifisto, Michael Hardy, Michael82, Mikker, Milenashields123, Mistry101, Mlang.Finn, Mlessard, Mootros, Morel, Morenoodles, MrOllie, Nekura, Nemodomi, Nick123, Nmilety, Nonymous-raz, ONEder Boy, Open2universe, Orereta, Osubuckeyeguy, Oxymoron83, PM800, Penbat, Pgreenfinch, Pinethicket, Pjvpjv, Plroseman, Poeloq, Pointillist, Ppe42, Prototime, Psychresearch237, Quiddity, Quinobi, R Lowry, RedWolf, Reneeholle, Restu20, Rich Farmbrough, RichardF, Rjhangiani, Robin klein, Romanm, Roop25, Rosner, Roux, Sam Spade, Sander123, Sannse, Santa Sangre, Schwnj, Seb, Sebastiancianci, Seglea, Semmler, Shyammurli, SimonP, Skalla25, Slipstream, Smcg8374, Sndenny1234, Snowyc4, SobyJones, Socant, Sopranosmob781, SpeedyGonsales, Strike Eagle, Suidafrikaan, SummerWithMorons, Sun Creator, Supspirit, Taak, Taranet, TedwardHall, TheArguer, Thedjatclubrock, Thereditor, Tide rolls, Tomsega, Topbanana, Travis Freetly, Treisijs, Tyw7, U3964057, Ultimate Star Wars Freak, Vaughan, VernoWhitney, Vgy7ujm, WLU, Wavelength, Widr, Wikiklrsc, Wikipelli, WissensDürster, Wonglokking, Woodshed, Wotnow, Xenctuary, Xeworlebi, Yue4, Yzerbyt, Zujua, Zzuuzz, А.Минас, Александър, Сергей Олегович, 426 anonymous edits

Altruism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=562610471 Contributors: .:Ajvol:., 00129, 172, A Sunshade Lust, AJR, AXRL, AbuSophia, Acadēmica Orientālis, Acdx, AdamRetchless, AdjustShift, Admiral Norton, AjitPD, Akerans, Alansohn, Aldrich Hanssen, AlecStewart, Alex S, Alienus, Allens, Altairisfar, Altenmann, Andonic, Andycjp, Angela, Angela m123, Angr, Aquillion, ArturoHD, Arwkoppen, Asarlaí, Atif.t2, AtticusX, Augurar, BD2412, Beamathan, Before My Ken, Bennybp, Between My Ken, Beyond My Ken, BiT, Binbashir, Bittergrey, Blanchardb, Bob1960evens, Born2cycle, Brad7777, BradBeattie, Brevan, Brewcrewer, Bryan Derksen, Buridan, Burlywood, ButchK, C9cflute2wall, CapitalR, Cbr2702, Cdc, CharlotteWebb, Chealer, Chendy, Chesterelchistoso, Chinesearabs, Chowbok, Chris the speller, ChrisGualtieri, Cinik, Clemwang, Closedmouth, Clrockets, Cobgenius, Comet Tuttle, Common Man, Connelly, Conversion script, CoolBeansG, Crotalus horridus, Cureden, Dansab, David Eppstein, DavidCary, Daydreamer302000, Deanmullen09, Deflective, DenisDiderot, Denoir, Der Golem, Dictabeard, Diemunkiesdie, Dl2000, Dlarmore, Dodo bird, Dominio, Dorit, Dougweller, Dpv, DrChrissy, Drand14850, Drbreznjev, Drmies, EPM, Eastlaw, Ebony202, Ed Poor, Ed g2s, Edward, Eequor, ElBenevolente, EliV, Eman2129, Empireheart, Epbr123, Epeefleche, Erianna, Eric Wester, Eridani, Etoiledumonde, Euanmarop, EverSince, Ewthmatth, EyeKnows, FWBOarticle, Farzaneh, Feezo, Feinoha, Flo98, Florin zeitblom, Fnielsen, Former user, FrancisTyers, Frank A, Frjlove, Fvw, Gaius Cornelius, Galf, Garik, Geeoharee, Gemmer, George100, Gilliam, Go for it!, Gobonobo, Gogo Dodo, Good Olfactory, Govindk, Graham87, Granpuff, Greater2007, GreedyCapitalist, GregorB, Hadal, Haleyga, Hamir12345, Harvester, Headbomb, Hede2000, Hellno2, Highland14, Hmains, Ikfaldu, Inexplicable, Infinity0, Intranetusa, InverseHypercube, Isarra, Itsnotwhatitseems, Ivan Bajlo, J.delanoy, J04n, JForget, JLaTondre, Jaardon, Jasonrhodes, Jbening, Jcbutler, Jeff Silvers, Jeff3000, Jessi1989, Jethro B, Jevergreen, Jheald, JimWae, Jj1236, Jlazenby, JoeMystical, John D. Croft, JohnJohn, JohnWinder, Johnkarp, Johnuniq, Jojhutton, Jonathan.s.kt, Josh Grosse, Jpoelma13, Jprg1966, Jtneill, Jtsang, Jujutacular, KF, Kbdank71, Ken Gallager, Kevin B12, Kierant, Kikishima, Kipferl, Klemen Kocjancic, Kmccoy, Knutux, Kodster, Konychiwa, Kross, Ksyrie, Kusyadi, Kwamikagami, Kzollman, L Kensington, LGagnon, Lapaz, Larry Sanger, Larry_Sanger, LaszloWalrus, Lexor, Liftarn, LilHelpa, Little Mountain 5, Lleemmoonn11, Logan, Logarkh, Lopakhin, Lotje, Loupiotte, Lova Falk, Lucidish, Lukethered, Luna Santin, Lystrablue, MBisanz, MER-C, MSClaudiu, Magioladitis, Mangostar, Marek69, Mark Renier, Marskell, Martarius, Martinp23, Mattisse, Max rspct, Maxripple, Mel Etitis, Memills, Merlion444, Miami33139, Michael Greiner, Michael Hardy, MichaelExe, Mike Rosoft, MillsReciprocity, Mindeye, Minimac's Clone, Mipake, Mketelaars, Mollj, Mouse is back, Mrt3366, Ms2ger, Muziah, Myquil, Myself0101, N0G0DSN0ADMNS, NJMauthor, Neelix, Nesbit, NewEnglandYankee, NickW557, Niculaegeorge, Nikodemos, Nikolaj Christensen, Nirvana2013, NotACow, Oceana Elemental, Octothorn, Ogress, Ohnoitsjamie, Omer88f, Oopsshesaid, Orangesky44, Ornil, OverlordQ, PAR, Pajfarmor, Pakaran, Parallel or Together?, Pascal.Tesson, Paul , Paul Stansifer, PaulAndrewAnderson, Paulwehr, Penbat, Peter1c, Peterdjones, Philip Sutton, Philip Trueman, Philippe, Phlegat, Phyrros, Pollinator, Polonium, Portillo, Qmwne235, Qoou.Anonimu, Quadell, Quarl, R.E. Freak, RDF, RJII, RTG, Randywombat, Rbj, Reinis, Rich Farmbrough, Richard holt, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, RucasHost, Rursus, S0uj1r0, SWAdair, Salsburg, Sam Spade, Sampi, Sardanaphalus, SchnitzelMannGreek, SchreiberBike, Sdorrance, Seaphoto, Severisth, Shadowjams, Shakajo, ShakingSpirit, Shanoman, Sheilrod, Shoeofdeath, Skittleys, Skizzik, Skywalker, SlingPro, Smmurphy, Solipsist, Soporaeternus, Spongebob42, Srleffler, Sskkiii, Stardust8212, Steve Newport, Steve9821, Steven Zhang, Stiobhan, Storkk, Storkynoob, Stratvic, Surtsicna, Swimmtastic, Taggard, Taka, Teardrop onthefire, Template namespace initialisation script, Texture, The 8472, The Fish, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Transhumanist, The soul is unknown, TheTruth12, Thedcm, Thomasmeeks, Threedots dead, Tim bates, TimBentley, Tjoord, Tloc, Tobby72, Tomsega, Tomyumgoong, Tony Sidaway, TrollishTackyBling, Twas Now, Twinsday, Tynisha b, U3964057, Uirauna, Ulric1313, Unvampire, Urod, Uthbrian, Van helsing, Varga Mila, Vastlight, Versageek, Versus22, Vespristiano, Vir, Visakanv, Vision Thing, Vladkornea, Volteron, Wadehudson, Waldow, Wapondaponda, Wavelength, anonymous edits 604 ,ﺯﻛﺮﻳﺎ ,Werieth, WiHkibew, Wik, Wikid77, Wikididact, Wikiposter0123, Woodrox, Yehoishophot Oliver, Yuming, Yuri dragon 17, Z35, Zickzack, Zigger, Zntrip

Persuasion Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=560658445 Contributors: -Ozone-, 16@r, 212.67.105.xxx, 5 albert square, Aetius41, Alro, Altenmann, Andrew Ross-Parker, Andycjp, Anonymi, Anum27, Anypodetos, Ashenai, BD2412, Beatagreen, Bigbangvip, BlaineReinsma, Bobo192, Bongwarrior, Bookandcoffee, Bytwerk, C14ism, CWSault, CalvinG1rl, Camembert, Charlesatencio, ChrisGualtieri, Ciphergoth, Cleared as filed, Colin, Comm&emotion, Conversion script, Courcelles, Cybercobra, Dagoblin, Darkfred, Darth Panda, Decety, Decltype, Delicious carbuncle, Derekrogerson, Dresdnhope, Edward321, Eighmey, Elmschrat, Emperorbma, Epbr123, Everyking, Exec second, Firsfron, Fluffernutter, GraemeL, Gregbard, Henninb, Hifrommike65, Hughcharlesparker, IGeMiNix, Icut4you, ImperfectlyInformed, Infamous Castle, J.delanoy, Jackfork, Jan E. Schreiber, Jcbutler, Jennavecia, Jim Douglas, Jim Michael, JohnGabriel1, Johnkarp, Johnteslade, Joie de Vivre, Jrockley, Kaypoh, Kenny sh, Kevinalewis, Khalid hassani, Khazar2, Kingpin13, Kraybilr, Kristen Eriksen, Lambiam, Lithiumgold, Lotje, Louie81, Lova Falk, Luckyshe, Madhero88, Magioladitis, Marcika, MartinPoulter, Materialscientist, Mathmo, MaxHund, Mhansonfbs, Mikeg pkp, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mmm.designs, MrOllie, NTox, Naddy, Nagrasat, Neelix, Nemhun, Nihola, Nuiloa, Oleyea, Oli Filth, Orphan Wiki, Ot, Patrick, Paul A, Penbat, Peter S., Pikiwyn, PramathMalik, Pravincumar pek, Pseudomonas, Publictransport, Quaeler, Radiojon, Rchopman, Ready, Reneeholle, Requiredforclass, RichardF, Rmosler2100, Roman Korzh, Ronz, Rossami, SEWilco, SP612, Salishsea, Sam Francis, Sara161616, Sarahbmcd, SaveTheWhales, Singhh64, Skizzik, Spblat, Spotcream, Staffwaterboy, Stefanomione, Stephenb, Sumone10154, TastyPoutine, Tbhotch, Terrek, The Anome, The Thing That Should Not Be, Thebrainsalad, ThirteenthGreg, Thosjleep, TippTopp, Tophernator, Tothebarricades.tk, Trondarild, Tsuchiya Hikaru, Van helsing, Vantage01, Vjayant, Wars, Wavelength, WilliamDavidRogers, Woodshed, Zappaz, Zombiebaron, 278 anonymous edits Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 40 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:RCialdini.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:RCialdini.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Blurpeace, JasonPetzke, Nyttend, 1 anonymous edits File:Psi2.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Psi2.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Arjen Dijksman, Badseed, Beao, Bouncey2k, Gdh, Herbythyme, Imz, Jack Phoenix, KillOrDie, Nagy, Proteins, Remember the dot, Wutsje, 27 anonymous edits File:Asch experiment.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Asch_experiment.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Jtneill, Nyenyec File:Soc-psy diagram.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Soc-psy_diagram.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Lucidish at en.wikipedia File:Milgram Experiment v2.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Original uploader was Expiring frog at en.wikipedia File:Belisaire demandant l'aumone Jacques-Louis David.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Belisaire_demandant_l'aumone_Jacques-Louis_David.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:CaptainHaddock File:Manner of Francis Wheatley, Giving alms to beggar children.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Manner_of_Francis_Wheatley,_Giving_alms_to_beggar_children.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: unknown File:FEMA - 15337 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-10-2005 in Texas.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FEMA_-_15337_-_Photograph_by_Andrea_Booher_taken_on_09-10-2005_in_Texas.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Infrogmation File:Helping the homeless.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Helping_the_homeless.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Contributors: Ed Yourdon from New York City, USA File:Peace Corps Volunteer swearing in Cambodia, 2007.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Peace_Corps_Volunteer_swearing_in_Cambodia,_2007.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Amcaja, Benchill, Bgag File:Monks collecting alms - Bun Vat Phu.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Monks_collecting_alms_-_Bun_Vat_Phu.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: User:GuillaumeG File:StThomasMount Theresa.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:StThomasMount_Theresa.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: User:Sa.balamurugan File:2pers-01.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2pers-01.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: C. E. Brock (died 1938) License 41 License

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/