Altruism in the wild: when affiliative motives to help positive people overtake empathic motives to help the distressed.

Psychological theories of human altruism suggest that helping results from an evolved tendency in caregiving mammals to respond to distress or need with empathy and sympathy. However, theories from biology, economics, and social psychology demonstrate that social animals also evolved to affiliate with and help desirable social partners. These models make different predictions about the affect of those we should prefer to help. Empathic models predict a preference to help sad, distressed targets in need, while social affiliative models predict a preference for happy, positive, successful targets. We compared these predictions in 3 field studies that measured the tendency to help sad, happy, and neutral confederates in a real-world, daily context: holding the door for a stranger in public. People consistently held the door more for happy over sad or neutral targets. To allow empathic motivations to compete more strongly against social affiliative ones, a 4th study examined a more consequential form of aid for hypothetical hospital patients in clear need. These conditions enhanced the preference to help a sad over a happy patient, because sadness made the patient appear sicker and in greater need. However, people still preferred the happy patient when the aid required a direct social interaction, attesting to the strength of social affiliation motives, even for sick patients. Theories of prosocial behavior should place greater emphasis on the role of social affiliation in motivating aid, particularly in everyday interpersonal contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).