The document summarizes a social psychology experiment on altruism conducted by Daniel Batson and in another experiment called the "Stolen Wallet Experiment." In Batson's experiment, participants exposed to high empathy conditioning were more likely to help another person in need. The "Stolen Wallet Experiment" staged a wallet theft in a grocery store to test rates of altruistic intervention. Of 56 witnesses, only 33.7% verbally helped the victim. Females were more likely to intervene than males. Factors like the bystander effect may have influenced the low response rate.

1. Running head: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 1
Social Psychology Experiment on Altruism
Karen Leggett & Audrey Suchecki
Baker College

2. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 2
Social Psychology Experiment on Altruism
Psychological Theory
What inspires people to help others with no expectation of receiving anything tangible in
return? Why would someone go out of their way to help someone else in need when nothing but
a “thank you” can be given in return? The simple answer is known as altruism. The concept of
altruism explains the unselfish concern of one person for the welfare of others, doing things
simply out of a desire to help. Everyday life is filled with small acts of altruism, from a man at
the grocery store holding the door for the elderly woman to the woman that gives twenty dollars
to a homeless man so that he may buy himself a meal. Most people never give their actions a
second thought and continue about their day never realizing the impact that they have had on
another. These people also seldom wonder what drove them to their act of kindness, but many
researchers have wondered about this very thing.
Daniel Batson, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to explain his
theory of altruism. He placed participants into cubicles were they read two essays where the
confederate Janet was very lonely. One group of participants were asked to think how the
individual felt in the essay (high empathy conditioning), and the other group was asked to think
objectively. After the participants read the two essays, they were asked how many hours they
would spend with Janet. The participants with high empathy conditioning were more likely to
spend more time with Janet – with or without the experimenter being present. Batson’s theory
states that altruistic behavior is the result of empathy, a consistent emotional response between
the helper and the individual in need. Batson’s participants with high empathy helped more than
the low empathy group, as well as the lower empathy group being less willing to help
(Psychwiki, 2015). There are several other theories that surround the many aspects of altruism,

3. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 3
such as social exchange theory, social responsibility theory and psychological altruism theory
which have all be studied by other researchers.
In the “Stolen Wallet Experiment” specific areas of altruism theory were targeted; the
moral norm theory and empathy-altruism hypothesis aspects of altruism as well as psychological
altruism. The moral norm theory of altruism focuses on a person’s “feeling of personal
responsibility” (Boundless, 2015), while the empathy-altruism hypothesis looks at the emotional
response felt toward the welfare of another and the reasons for acting on those feelings.
Psychological altruism is “acting out of concern for the well-being of others, without regard to
your own self-interest” (Taylor, 2015). It is believed that people have a tendency to act based on
their concept of what is right and wrong and therefore prevent any cognitive dissonance that they
may have experienced had they not acted in accordance with their values and morals.
“Stolen Wallet” Altruism Experiment
The hypothesis of the Stolen Wallet experiment is that people are willing to help a person
who is perceived to be a victim without expectation of reward. The bystander is more likely to
feel empathy towards a person whose personal property has been violated, and is likely to help
that person (in proportion to the empathy felt) without any selfish expectations. The bystander
will only help an individual if the reward for helping outweighs the costs. In this case, the
reward would simply be feeling good knowing that they were able to help someone else, and the
risk could be possible embarrassment if what they witnessed was not what had actually occurred.
It is estimated that at least 80% of the targeted bystanders will display altruistic behavior by
stepping forward and helping an individual who is believed to be the victim of a crime,
regardless of age or gender.

4. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 4
The materials used in the experiment consisted of a grocery cart, open purse and a wallet
placed in the seating area of the cart in full view of shoppers. Two confederates were involved,
known as A and K, who took turns removing an empty prop wallet from each other’s purse while
attempting to ensure being witnessed by bystanders. One confederate was to appear as though
she was shopping for groceries while the other was to blatantly “steal” the wallet from the other
in front of bystanders. The participants in the study were selected at random based on if they
appeared to be paying enough attention to their surroundings to witness the attempted theft. The
experiment took place at the Meijer’s grocery store in Cadillac, Michigan on Saturday, May 23rd
in the morning between 10:20 am and 12:30 pm. This particular day saw increased traffic for the
store because of it being the Memorial Day holiday weekend, which gave the experimenters a
wide sample of the general population of the community in the area.
To conduct the actual experiment, one confederate would place the wallet in such a way
that it was very visible to any passersby. That person would then park their cart slightly sticking
out in the isle with the wallet exposed, and turn their back to appear as though she were
shopping. This positioning made it easy for the other confederate to take the wallet and walk
away, unseen by the confederate partner, but visible to various bystanders. The confederate
taking the wallet would ensure that a randomly selected bystander could see the theft of the
wallet by making direct eye contact with the subject. The “thief” would then walk away with the
pilfered wallet allowing the subject the opportunity to speak up to the “victim” without fear of
the “thief” overhearing. At the end of every cycle, reactions were recorded along with subject
details of sex and approximate age. This process was repeated over fifty times with a total of 56
participants, in an attempt to get a sample size that would represent all possible reactions across
gender and all possible adult age groups.

5. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 5
Results
Reactions recorded ranged from subjects being angry, upset, shocked, polite, and no
reaction/involvement. Figure 1 below illustrates the gender and age of the targeted population.
The average age was between 30 and 65, and the gender more females than males.
Figure 1 Population Random Samples
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of participants that reacted with altruistic behavior by
intervening in some way after the “theft.” Surprisingly, only 33.7% of the subjects displayed
altruism to the level of actually becoming verbal, this is surprising because the experimenters
anticipated double the altruistic response. One possible reason for the low response can be
attributed to “the bystander effect.” The bystander effect is when one person stands by and fails
to help another person – a psychosocial phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do
not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present (Psychology, 2015). The
male and female ratio shows women were two times more likely to respond with empathy and
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
25 yrs
30-35 yrs
40-45 yrs
50-55 yrs
60-65 yrs
80 yrs
Number of Subjects
SubjectAge
AltruismExpirement
Male Female

6. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 6
altruism than males. However, the study also inadvertently sampled women nearly three times
more frequently than men.
Figure 2 Percentage of Subjects showing Altruism
Looking at Figure 2 above it can be seen that 66.3% of all participants did not react in a
verbal manor, meaning that they did not display altruistic tendencies. One major factor that is
presumed to have played a role in the outcome is the diffusion of responsibility. This means that
individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action when there are other observers present.
This lack of feeling of responsibility is due to the belief that the responsibility to take action
shared among everyone present (Psychology, 2015).
Also, it is plausible that some of the lack of reaction among the subjects is due to not
actually seeing and cognitively registering the act of theft. It was believed at the time by the
experimenters that the act was directly witnessed by all participants. However, it is impossible
to know for sure if the subjects actually registered cognitively what was happening without
conducting follow up interviews of each participant.
53.8
12.5
7
26.7
33.7
Percentage of Altruistic Behavior
No Response
Limited Response
Men
Women

7. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 7
Figure 3 Subject Reaction Types
To aid in measuring if a response was altruistic in nature, the responses were put into
three categories; “verbal,” “visual” and “none” as documented in figure 3 above. The only
reactions taken as being altruistic were verbal responses. For those that did verbally respond to
the act of theft, the reaction was generally the same. Emotions were strong and people instantly
went into a fight or flight response as demonstrated by sudden facial perspiration, flushing of the
skin and a visible sudden increase in respirations and heart rate.
One aspect of this experiment that is very interesting is the fact that most people who did
verbally respond had same initial question: “Do you know her?” Of the 19 total people who
exhibited altruistic behavior by alerting the “victim” to the theft, 14 of them asked a variation of
the same question, whether the “thief” and “victim” were together. This was a particularly
interesting find while reviewing the notes of the experiment. This makes one question the reason
for this reaction. Could it be because the person does not really want to get anyone in trouble but
yet he or she still feels the need to say something? Could this reaction be due to thinking that the
0
5
10
15
20
25
Verbal Visual None
Response Type
Female
Male

8. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 8
theft witnessed was in reality a prank? These and many more are interesting questions that can
only be answered with follow up interviews of the participants during the debriefing period if the
experiment were to ever be repeated.
Summary
For those that displayed altruistic behavior after witnessing a perceived theft, the
reactions were quite strong with obvious parasympathetic responses. These responses
demonstrate not just a psychological response but a physiological one as well, which is quite
interesting. While the empathy-altruism hypothesis looks at the emotional response felt toward
the welfare of another and the reasons for acting on those feelings, psychological altruism is
“acting out of concern for the well-being of others, without regard to your own self-interest”
(Taylor, 2015). None of these theories however, address the physiological responses that are
connected with these actions. It is believed that people have a tendency to act based on their
concept of what is right and wrong and therefore prevent any cognitive dissonance, but it is
plausible that this tendency to act goes much deeper.
There are also other factors that must be considered when addressing a person’s likely
hood to act in an altruistic manner. The moral norm theory of altruism focuses on a person’s
“feeling of personal responsibility” (Boundless, 2015), but this can be infringed upon by the
bystander affect. This phenomenon was clearly noted during the “Stolen Wallet” experiment as
some who did respond, did so only after another person initiated the rapport. There is also the
issue of people simply being so absorbed in their own tasks that they do not take note of world
around them to even notice when someone has become a victim.
The results of the “Stolen Wallet” experiment show that females are more likely to come
forward with empathy and altruism than men, however, this could be due to the test site location.

9. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 9
Had the test taken place in an area more frequented by men than a grocery store, the response
rate could be higher for males and lower for females. This is an experiment that clearly needs to
be repeated with much refinement and at several locations to increase the sample size. Such
variables as the gender of the “thief” and “victim” through the type of clothing worn by both
parties needs to be addressed and repeated several times. There are many questions that have
arisen from this experiment that can only be answered with repeat tests.

10. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 10
References
Boundless. (2015, May 28). “Altruism: Helping.” Boundless Psychology. Retrieved from
https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/
social-psychology-20/social-behavior-105/altruism-helping-399-12934/
Psychology. (2015, May 28). “The bystander effect.” Retrieved from http://psychology.about.
com/od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.htm
Psychwiki. (2015, May 28). Altruism. Retrieved from http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Altruism
Taylor, K., (2015, May 28). Psychological vs. biological altruism. Retrieved from http://
philosophytalk.org/blog/2011/09/psychological-vs-biological-altruism

11. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 11
Appendix A
Subject Reaction Notes
 1028: Female, approx. 50 yrs. old, witnessed A extract wallet from K’s purse, but said nothing to
K. Assisted K when picking up dropped item.
 1031: Male, approx. 55 yrs. old, K made direct eye contact with subject, both smiled while B
took the wallet from K’s purse. He did not react to the theft witnessed.
 1034: Female, approx. 45 yrs. old, witnessed A take wallet from K’s purse. Woman immediately
approached K and said “I hope you know her, she just took your wallet,” and pointed to A who
was down the aisle. The woman appeared to be on the verge of tears and was visibly shaking. K
debriefed the woman and assured her that it was just an experiment and thanked her for her quick
reaction.
 1036: Male, approx. 30 yrs. old. Made eye contact with K when taking wallet from A. He
immediately told A what happened and asked, “Do you know her?” He was willing to show A
who took her wallet. A debriefed the man and thanked him for his participation.
 1040: Female, approx. 40. K made direct eye contact with woman while taking wallet from A;
woman smiled at K but said nothing to A.
 1042: Male, approx. 60 yrs. old in a wheel chair. A is confident that he witnessed her taking the
wallet from K’s purse, but he said nothing.
 1042: Male, approx. 35. Made eye contact with K while taking the wallet from A, he said
nothing.
 1045: Female, approx. 50 immediately alerted K to the theft of the wallet by A. “That woman
just took your billfold!”

12. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 12
 She also got the attention of a store employee who had had her back turned. The
employee was about to call security, both women appeared quite agitated by the incident
until K debriefed the women and assured them that the theft was staged.
 1047: Female, approx. 60. Immediately stopped A and asked “Is she with you?” indicating K.
She then informed A that K took her wallet. A debriefed the woman.
 1049: Pair of Females, approx. 30 yrs. old. Said nothing.
 1050: Male, 50’s, balding. Said nothing.
 1051: Female, approx. 40 yrs. old. Said nothing.
 1054: Male, approx. 50 yrs. old. Said nothing.
 1056: Female, approx. 30 yrs. old with teenage female. Witnessed K take wallet form A,
stopped K and asked “Are you with her? You just took her wallet, we saw you.” The woman
said nothing to A. Woman was debriefed.
 1058: Female, approx. 60 yrs. old. Witnessed A take wallet from K. Physically stopped A by
grabbing her upper arm, then took the wallet from her hand and asked K “Is this your wallet?
This woman just took your wallet.” The woman was debriefed by both A and K and was shown
that the wallet was empty.
 1102: Female, approx. 40. Said nothing.
 1103: Male, approx. 50. Said nothing.
 1104: Female, approx. 65. Witnessed K take wallet from A. Responded with a visible “double
take” and a look of shock. She then promptly turned her cart around and left the aisle. She said
nothing about the theft she witnessed.
 1106: Females, 4 between ages 30 and 40 in a group appeared to witness K blatantly take wallet
from A. No one said anything about it.

13. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 13
 1108: Male, approx. 60. Make eye contact with A as she took the wallet from K, but said
nothing.
 1110: Female, approx. 60, said nothing.
 1115: Female, approx. 25, made eye contact with K and smiled, but said nothing about the theft.
 1116: Male approx. 25 asked K “Do you know her?” after witnessing A take the wallet.
 Female of the same age who was with the man spoke up as well and looked very
concerned about the missing wallet. Both were debriefed. A short while later, this
couple was encountered again and informed A that they did not like what she did.
 1126: Female, approx. 65, witnessed K take wallet from A. Said nothing, just smiled at K. This
woman was known to K as a former elementary school teacher. Both A and K spoke with her
after the incident and she claimed that because she knew K, she did not say anything because she
believed it have been staged. She assumed that K and A must know each other. She did state
that if A had taken the wallet from K, she would not have hesitated to speak up.
 1128: Family of 5, Female approx. 30, male approx. 35 and three children from approx. 5 to 13,
witnessed K take wallet from A, Twice in front of them, no one said anything.
 1131: Female, approx. 60, Hispanic. Witnessed A take wallet from K, looked back and forth
between A and K several times while A walked away with the wallet and did not say a word, but
did look shocked at what she had witnessed.
 1134: Female approx. 40, witnessed K take wallet from A. She immediately spoke up asking
“Did she just take your wallet? Do you know her?”
 Instantly two other women of the same age spoke up as well claiming that they too
witnessed the theft and proceeded to point K out to A. The women were then debriefed.

14. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 14
 1138: Female, approx. 40 witnessed K take wallet from A, did an obvious double take as though
confirming what she had witnessed but said nothing.
 1140: Female approx. 30, said nothing.
 1142: Female approx. 80 yrs. old. Appeared shocked as K took wallet from A. She approached
A, “Hey, is your wallet missing? I just watched her snatch it,” as she indicated K. She was very
sweet and kind to A. She was debriefed.
 1143: Male, approx. 50, stopped A after witnessing her take wallet from K. “Do you know her?
You just took her wallet. What did you do that for?” He seemed very shocked, stunned. He was
then debriefed by both A and K.
 1146: Female, early 40s, made direct eye contact and smiled at K as she took the wallet from A,
said nothing.
 1148: Female, approx. 40 witnessed A take wallet from K. “I hope you know her, she just took
your wallet.” K debriefed her and she stated “Oh good, I was about to whoop her ass.”
 Female, approx. 30 joined in during the debriefing who had apparently witnessed it as
well, “I know, I was like, did I just see that?” When asked why she had not said
anything, she stated that she felt she did not need to because the other woman had already
spoken up, but insisted that if the other woman had not, she would have.
 1152: Female, early 50’s, spoke up immediately after witnessing A take wallet from K, “Do you
know her?” She then started to go after A. K physically stopped the woman and explained the
experiment to her. A then joined and showed the group the empty wallet
 Female, approx. 30, spoke up, immediately after the first woman, they were together.
“She just took your wallet.”
 Male, approx. 13 yrs. old. Very confused by the entire encounter.

15. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT ON ALTRUISM 15
 1159: Female, approx. 50, witnessed K take wallet from A. “Is she your daughter? She just took
your wallet.” Once debriefed the woman stated that she was about to chase K down to the wallet
back.
 1203: Female, approx. 50, K said excuse me to the woman and smiled, then took the wallet from
A directly in front of the woman. She said nothing.
 1206: Female, early 20’s. Two women witnessed A take wallet from K, looked at each other
with eyes wide and said nothing.
 1208: Male, approx. 40, disheveled clothing, witnessed K take wallet from A and said nothing.
 1210: Female, approx. 65, two of them together, appeared to have witnessed theft and said
nothing.
 1213: Male, 40 yrs. old, witnessed A take wallet from K while having a conversation with K, he
said nothing about the theft. This man is known to K. When asked why he did not say anything
he claimed that he simply did not see it. He did not even remember seeing A walk by the cart.
 1220: Male, early 20’s instantly spoke up, “She just took your wallet.” When A took the wallet
from K. He pointed A out to K and started to go after her. K stopped him and debriefed him. It
was obvious that his heart rate was up and he was visibly ready to react if need be.
 1227: Female, early 30’s, on phone, known to A, witnessed K take wallet from A but said
nothing. When questioned afterward, the woman claimed that she did not see what had
happened, but she did remember seeing K and smiling at her.