Is altruism always morally good, or is the morality of altruism fundamentally shaped by the social opportunity costs that often accompany helping decisions? Across four studies, we reveal that in cases of realistic tradeoffs in social distance for gains in welfare where helping socially distant others necessitates not helping socially closer others with the same resources, helping is deemed as less morally acceptable. Making helping decisions at a cost to socially closer others also negatively affects judgments of relationship quality (Study 2) and in turn, decreases cooperative behavior with the helper (Study 3). Ruling out an alternative explanation of physical distance accounting for the effects in Studies 1 to 3, social distance continued to impact moral acceptability when physical distance across social targets was matched (Study 4). These findings reveal that attempts to decrease biases in helping may have previously unconsidered consequences for moral judgments, relationships, and cooperation.
BaranN. M.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2010). Can we infer social preferences from the lab? Evidence from the Trust Game (No. w15654). National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
BaraschA.LevineE. E.BermanJ. Z.SmallD. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 393–413. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0037207
3.
BergJ.DickhautJ.McCabeK. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.
4.
BermanJ. Z.BaraschA.LevineE. E.SmallD. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797617747648
5.
BloomP. (2016). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Random House.
6.
BostynD. H.RoetsA. (2016). The morality of action: The asymmetry between judgments of praise and blame in the action–omission effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.005
7.
BurnhamT.McCabeK.SmithV. L. (2000). Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00108-6
8.
CarlsonR. W.ZakiJ. (2018). Good deeds gone bad: Lay theories of altruism and selfishness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.005
9.
CarpenterJ.MyersC. K. (2010). Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11-12), 911–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.007
10.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A.SavulescuJ.KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9(4), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1028.9287
11.
CesariniD.DawesC. T.FowlerJ. H.JohannessonM.LichtensteinP.WallaceB. (2008). Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(10), 3721–3726. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710069105
CikaraM.BruneauE.Van BavelJ. J.SaxeR. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007
14.
CikaraM.BruneauE. G.SaxeR. R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408713
15.
CloreG. L.JefferyK. M. (1972). Emotional role playing, attitude change, and attraction toward a disabled person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(1), 105–111. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0032867
CrimstonD.BainP. G.HornseyM. J.BastianB. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000086
18.
De DreuC. K.GreerL. L.HandgraafM. J.ShalviS.Van KleefG. A.BaasM.FeithS. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408–1411. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189047
19.
DelgadoM. R.FrankR. H.PhelpsE. A. (2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1611–1618. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1575
20.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.ValidzicA.MatokaK.JohnsonB.FrazierS. (1997). Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1327
21.
EverettJ. A.FaberN. S.SavulescuJ.CrockettM. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004
22.
EverettJ. A.KahaneG. (2020). Switching tracks? Towards a multidimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.012
23.
EverettJ. A.PizarroD. A.CrockettM. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 772–787. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0000165
24.
FareriD. S.NiznikiewiczM. A.LeeV. K.DelgadoM. R. (2012). Social network modulation of reward-related signals. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(26), 9045–9052. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0610-12.2012
25.
FehrE.LeibbrandtA. (2011). A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the tragedy of the commons. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1144–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.013
26.
FiskeA. P.RaiT. S. (2015). Virtuous violence: Hurting and killing to create, sustain, end, and honor social relationships. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316104668
27.
GentileD. A.AndersonC. A.YukawaS.IhoriN.SaleemM.MingL. K.. . . Rowell HuesmannL. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 752–763. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167209333045
GoereeJ. K.McConnellM. A.MitchellT.TrompT.YarivL. (2010). The 1/d law of giving. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.2.1.183
30.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4
31.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0021847
32.
GreeneJ. D. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin.
33.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
34.
HamiltonW. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. The American Naturalist, 97(896), 354–356. https://doi.org/10.1086/497114
HeinG.SilaniG.PreuschoffK.BatsonC. D.SingerT. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.003
37.
HobsonN. M.GinoF.NortonM. I.InzlichtM. (2017). When novel rituals lead to intergroup bias: Evidence from economic games and neurophysiology. Psychological Science, 28(6), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797617695099
38.
HoffmanE.McCabeK.SmithV. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.
39.
HseeC. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257.
40.
HughesJ. S. (2017). In a moral dilemma, choose the one you love: Impartial actors are seen as less moral than partial ones. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(3), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12199
41.
JamesT. K.ZagefkaH. (2017). The effects of group memberships of victims and perpetrators in humanly caused disasters on charitable donations to victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(8), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12452
42.
JazaieriH.McGonigalK.JinpaT.DotyJ. R.GrossJ. J.GoldinP. R. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of compassion cultivation training: Effects on mindfulness, affect, and emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 23–35. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9368-z
JordanJ. J.HoffmanM.NowakM. A.RandD. G. (2016). Uncalculating cooperation is used to signal trustworthiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8658–8663. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601280113
46.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899
47.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093
48.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A.EarpB. D.FariasM.SavulescuJ. (2015). “Utilitarian” judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
49.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492
50.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003
51.
LandyJ. F.UhlmannE. L. (2018). Morality is personal. In GrahamJ.GrayK. (Eds.), The atlas of moral psychology: Mapping good and evil in the mind (pp. 121–132). Guilford.
52.
LeckyW. E. H. (1869). History of European morals from Augustus to Charlemagne (Vol. 2). Longmans, Green.
53.
LevineM.ProsserA.EvansD.ReicherS. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167204271651
54.
LiviatanI.TropeY.LibermanN. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256–1269.
55.
MastenC. L.Gillen-O’NeelC.BrownC. S. (2010). Children’s intergroup empathic processing: The roles of novel ingroup identification, situational distress, and social anxiety. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(2-3), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.002
56.
McFarlandS.WebbM.BrownD. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724
57.
McManusR. M.Kleiman-WeinerM.YoungL. (2020). What we owe to family: The impact of special obligations on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 31(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797619900321
PiazzaJ.GoodwinG.RozinP.RoyzmanE. (2014). When a virtue is not a virtue: Conditional virtues in moral evaluation. Social Cognition, 32(6), 528–558. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528
60.
PinkerS. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin.
61.
PizarroD.UhlmannE.SaloveyP. (2003). Asymmetry in judgments of moral blame and praise. Psychological Science, 14(3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03433
62.
PrestonJ. L.RitterR. S. (2013). Different effects of religion and God on prosociality with the ingroup and outgroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1471–1483. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167213499937
63.
PrestonS. D.de WaalF. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018
RaiT. S.ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (2017). Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8511–8516. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705238114
66.
ShipleyA. (2008). Social comparison and prosocial behavior: An applied study of social identity theory in community food drives. Psychological Reports, 102(2), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.102.2.425-434
67.
SingerP. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. Oxford University Press.
68.
SingerP. (2015). Famine, affluence, and morality. Oxford University Press.
69.
SingerP. (2016). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. The Text Publishing Company.
SommervilleJ. A.SchmidtM. F.YunJ. E.BurnsM. (2013). The development of fairness expectations and prosocial behavior in the second year of life. Infancy, 18(1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00129.x
72.
StrombachT.JinJ.WeberB.KenningP.ShenQ.MaQ.KalenscherT. (2014). Charity begins at home: Cultural differences in social discounting and generosity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1802
Touré-TilleryM.FishbachA. (2017). Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(6), 860–876. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000089
75.
TriversR. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.
76.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0018963
77.
VekariaK. M.Brethel-HaurwitzK. M.CardinaleE. M.StoycosS. A.MarshA. A. (2017). Social discounting and distance perceptions in costly altruism. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, Article 0100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0100
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
