sciencetech-blog

comments

Pessimists may claim that all humans are focused on preserving their own self interests.

But a new study has shown that adults were willing to make financial sacrifices to spare a stranger pain.

In fact, the study, which used small electric shocks, proved that they were willing to pay twice as much money to save a stranger from an uncomfortable electric shock than they were to save themselves,

A new study has shown that adults are willing to pay twice as much money to save a stranger from an electric shock than they were to save themselves. Participants were divided into deciders and receivers (pictured A) and chose between different amounts of money for different numbers of shocks (choices shown B and C)

The research was conducted by University College London and Oxford University.

It involved 180 pairs of adults, and was the first to experimentally compare how much pain people were willing to anonymously inflict on themselves, and strangers, in exchange for money.

The optimistic findings contrast with previous economic studies claiming that people care about their own interests over those of other people,  

It provides insight into clinical disorders characterised by a lack of empathy, such as psychopathy, and could be used to influence economic policy making decisions. 

A better understanding of how people evaluate the suffering of others relative to themselves, could lead to more effective treatments.

In the experiment, which was published in the journal PNAS, 160 participants who were strangers were randomly assigned to the roles of decider and receiver.

They were all given mildly painful electric shows to match their pain threshold so that the intensity wasn't intolerable, so the deciders knew any shocks they chose to inflict would hurt.

The deciders sat alone in a room with a computer, each taking part in approximately 150 trials.

For each trial, they chose between different amounts of money for different numbers of shocks - up to a maximum 20 shocks and £20 per trial. 

For example, they might be offered a choice of seven shocks for £10, or 10 shocks for £15.

The results showed that people sacrificed an average of 20p (illustrated with a stock image, centre) per shock to prevent discomfort to themselves, and 40p per shock to prevent shocks to others. For example, they would pay on average £8 to prevent 20 shocks to others but only £4 to spare themselves 20 shocks

Half of the decisions related to shocks for themselves, and half to shocks for the receiver - but in all cases the deciders would get the money.

At the end of the session, one of the chosen trial results was be implemented so that the decider or receiver got the shocks and the decider received the profits, so their decisions had real consequences.

Although the people in this study were altruistic in terms of sparing others from pain, they only donated 20 per cent of their winnings to charity

The decisions made by the deciders were kept secret to protect them from judgement or retaliation, which would have skewed the results.

The results showed that people sacrificed an average of 20p per shock to prevent discomfort to themselves and 40p per shock to prevent shocks to others. For example, they would pay on average £8 to prevent 20 shocks to others but only £4 to spare themselves 20 shocks.

Similarly, they needed an average 30p incentive per shock to increase shocks to themselves and 50p per shock to increase shocks to others. This means they would need a £10 incentive to give others 20 shocks but would do the same to themselves for £6.

At the end of the study, volunteers could donate a proportion of their winnings to charity. 

Although the people in this study were highly altruistic in terms of sparing others from pain, they only donated an average 20 per cent of their winnings to charity, consistent with past research. 

This comparatively selfish behaviour shows that altruism is dependent on context.

'These results contradict not just classical assumptions of human self-interest, but also more modern views of altruism,' lead author Molly Crockett explained. 

She conducted the experiment while she studied at UCL and is now at Oxford University.

'Recent theories claim people value others' interests to some extent, but never more than their own. We have shown that when it comes to harm, most people put others before themselves. People would rather profit from their own pain than from someone else's.'

The scientists timed volunteers' decisions and found they hesitated longer when the decision involved harming another person.

'The most altruistic subjects in our study took the longest to decide for others, suggesting that they may have been making moral calculations,' Dr Crockett explained.

'The more selfish subjects decided the fate of others more quickly, which may indicate a lack of thought about moral responsibility. These findings suggest that the speed of people's decisions, as well as decisions themselves, can reveal how moral people are.

'This logic is reflected in our everyday language – we describe morally praiseworthy people as "thoughtful" and "considerate," whereas more selfish people are described as "thoughtless" and "inconsiderate".

'Although people in this study were highly altruistic in terms of sparing others from pain, they were much more selfish when given the chance to donate money to charity. Exchanging money seems to bring out the worst in people who might otherwise selflessly help others avoid suffering, if given the opportunity.'