Despite the potential to significantly increase the impact of donations, people often fail to prioritize the cost-effectiveness of charities. This paper examines an explanation for why people may donate less effectively due to reputational concerns that favor empathizing with donation recipients rather than deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities. Across seven studies, we find that “deliberators” are perceived as less moral and less desirable as social partners than “empathizers.” Moreover, people accurately anticipate the reputational costs of deliberation and are more likely to donate to causes that evoke more empathy but are less cost-effective when reputational concerns are highlighted. Our findings suggest that there are disincentives for selecting charities by deliberating about their cost-effectiveness, as people are more rewarded for signaling socially valued moral traits than for prioritizing charitable impact.
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.
2.
BarclayP. (2015). Reputation. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–19). Wiley.
3.
BaronJ.SzymanskaE. (2011). Heuristics and biases in charity. In OppenheimerD. M.OlivolaC. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 215–235). Psychology Press.
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.
6.
BloomP. (2017). Empathy and its discontents. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 24–31.
7.
BrambillaM.RusconiP.SacchiS.CherubiniP. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 135–143.
8.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558.
9.
BurumB.NowakM. A.HoffmanM. (2020). An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12), 1245–1257.
10.
CaviolaL.SchubertS.GreeneJ. D. (2021). The psychology of (in)effective altruism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(7), 596–607.
11.
CaviolaL.SchubertS.NemirowJ. (2020). The many obstacles to effective giving. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 159.
12.
CaviolaL.SchubertS.TepermanE.MossD.GreenbergS.FaberN. (2020). Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 159–172.
13.
ChapmanL. M.ValenzuelaA.VohsK. D. (2024). More than just your name: Public donations drive inferences of egoistic and altruistic motives. Psychology & Marketing, 41(8), 1854–1867.
14.
CritcherC. R.InbarY.PizarroD. A. (2013). How quick decisions illuminate moral character. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 308–315.
15.
EisenbergN.MillerP. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.
16.
EverettJ. A. C.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.
17.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
18.
FrankR. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. W W Norton & Co.
HelionC.PizarroD. A. (2015). Beyond dual-processes: The interplay of reason and emotion in moral judgment. In ClausenJ.LevyN. (Eds.), Handbook of neuroethics (pp. 109–125). Springer.
21.
HoffmanM.YoeliE.NowakM. A. (2015). Cooperate without looking: why we care what people think and not just what they do. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(6), 1727–1732.
22.
InbarY.ConeJ.GilovichT. (2010). People’s intuitions about intuitive insight and intuitive choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 232–247.
23.
JaegerB.van VugtM. (2022). Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 130–134.
24.
JellisonJ. M.GreenJ. (1981). A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 643–649.
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.
27.
LawK. F.CampbellD.GaesserB. (2022). Biased benevolence: The perceived morality of effective altruism across social distance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(3), 426–444.
28.
LevineE. E.BaraschA.RandD.BermanJ. Z.SmallD. A. (2018). Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 702–719.
29.
LoewensteinG.O’DonoghueT.BhatiaS. (2015). Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. Decisions, 2(2), 55–81.
30.
MacAskillW. (2015). Doing good better: How effective altruism can help you make a difference. Gotham Books.
31.
MacAskillW. (2019). The definition of effective altruism. In GreavesH.PummerT. (Eds.), Effective altruism: Philosophical issues (pp. 1–10). Oxford University Press.
32.
McAuliffeW. H. B.CarterE. C.BerhaneJ.SnihurA. C.McCulloughM. E. (2020). Is Empathy the default response to suffering? A meta-analytic evaluation of perspective taking’s effect on empathic concern. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(2), 141–162.
33.
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.
34.
MetzgerL.GüntherI. (2019). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33.
35.
MontealegreA.BushL. S.MossD.PizarroD. (2023). Public vs. private donations: The influence of social visibility on choices between empathetic and cost-effective causes. Manuscript in preparation.
36.
NemirowJ. A. (2022). The sacrifice halo: Do we esteem altruists for the sacrifices they make or the benefits they deliver? [Doctoral Dissertation]. Harvard University.
37.
OktarK.LombrozoT. (2022). Deciding to be authentic: Intuition is favored over deliberation when authenticity matters. Cognition, 223, 105021.
38.
SimlerK.HansonR. (2017). The elephant in the brain: Hidden motives in everyday life. Oxford University Press.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG.SlovicP. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.
43.
SperberD.BaumardN. (2012). Moral reputation: An evolutionary and cognitive perspective. Mind & Language, 27(5), 495–518.
44.
TetlockP.KristelO. V.ElsonS.GreenM.LernerJ.BassettS.SzteiterR.BerkowitzM. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.
45.
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.DiermeierD. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81.
46.
UhlmannE. L.ZhuL. L.TannenbaumD. (2013). When it takes a bad person to do the right thing. Cognition, 126(2), 326–334.
47.
WojciszkeB.BazinskaR.JaworskiM. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251–1263.
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.
