<p>It seems that what you are describing is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy-altruism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Empathy-Altruism</a>.</p>

<p>Debate over whether other-helping behavior is motivated by self- or other interest has raged over the last 20 or so years. The prime people involved in this debate are Daniel Batson arguing for empathy-altruism, Robert Cialdini arguing for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interest" rel="nofollow noreferrer">self-interest</a> and the works of John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, Caryl Rusbult, and George Homans on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exchange_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Social Exchange Theory</a></p>

<p>Social Exchange Theory states that human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives.  The basis is that that altruism does not exist unless benefits to the helper outweigh the costs.</p>

<p>By contrast, C. Daniel Batson holds that people help others in need out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other person.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The key ingredient to helping is "empathic concern". According to [Batson's] 'empathy-altruism hypothesis', if someone feels empathy towards another person, they will help them, regardless of what they can gain from it.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-23T17:21:20.860Z
There are people who studies the construction of people and the underlying reasons for why we are like we are. In regards to our mental processes, these are called evolutionary psychologists. Try asking them and see how much debate there is regarding this.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-23T19:39:49.817Z
@Alex - Hence why the debate has been raging for many years as highlighted in my answer.  Not just with evolutionary psychology but with many other branches of psychology.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-24T17:33:17.680Z
The thing is that both are right. Evolutionarily speaking, altruism exists because it helps all individuals as a society in the long run. Compare local optima v. global ones. However, the phenotypical expression & reasoning to an individual is that the individual does feel concerned about other people, motivating it to actually help and take action. This is the difference between objective & subjective reality.
Arc
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-22T23:14:49.333Z
2017-02-22T23:14:49.333Z
Chris Rogers
<p>If I am hungry, I often ignore my hunger because I'm more interested in continuing what I'm currently working on than getting myself food. However, if someone else (my girlfriend, a friend, a sibling, etc) expresses that they are hungry (even unintentionally, perhaps by their stomach growling), I am much more likely to get them something to eat.</p>

<p>In both situations, I need to stop what I am currently doing. In one situation, I receive food. In the other situation, someone else receives food. Why is someone else receiving food (or some other benefit) a stronger motivator than receiving that benefit myself? </p>

<social-psychology><decision-making>
Why is it easier to neglect one's self than others?
Jacob
# Why is it easier to neglect one's self than others?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-02-22)

If I am hungry, I often ignore my hunger because I'm more interested in continuing what I'm currently working on than getting myself food. However, if someone else (my girlfriend, a friend, a sibling, etc) expresses that they are hungry (even unintentionally, perhaps by their stomach growling), I am much more likely to get them something to eat.

In both situations, I need to stop what I am currently doing. In one situation, I receive food. In the other situation, someone else receives food. Why is someone else receiving food (or some other benefit) a stronger motivator than receiving that benefit myself?

**Tags:** social-psychology, decision-making


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-02-22. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

It seems that what you are describing is [Empathy-Altruism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy-altruism).

Debate over whether other-helping behavior is motivated by self- or other interest has raged over the last 20 or so years. The prime people involved in this debate are Daniel Batson arguing for empathy-altruism, Robert Cialdini arguing for [self-interest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-interest) and the works of John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, Caryl Rusbult, and George Homans on [Social Exchange Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exchange_theory)

Social Exchange Theory states that human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. The basis is that that altruism does not exist unless benefits to the helper outweigh the costs.

By contrast, C. Daniel Batson holds that people help others in need out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other person.

> The key ingredient to helping is "empathic concern". According to [Batson's] 'empathy-altruism hypothesis', if someone feels empathy towards another person, they will help them, regardless of what they can gain from it.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: There are people who studies the construction of people and the underlying reasons for why we are like we are. In regards to our mental processes, these are called evolutionary psychologists. Try asking them and see how much debate there is regarding this.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 - Hence why the debate has been raging for many years as highlighted in my answer.  Not just with evolutionary psychology but with many other branches of psychology.  
> **username_3**: The thing is that both are right. Evolutionarily speaking, altruism exists because it helps all individuals as a society in the long run. Compare local optima v. global ones. However, the phenotypical expression & reasoning to an individual is that the individual does feel concerned about other people, motivating it to actually help and take action. This is the difference between objective & subjective reality.  

---

