Rare and Costly Prosocial Behaviors Are Perceived as Heroic

The costs and benefits of kindness for kids

What do children think makes an act kind? Which kind acts are children likely to perform? Previous research with adults suggests that the kindness of acts depends largely on the benefit provided and to a lesser extent on the cost incurred, and that adults are more likely to perform low-cost, high-benefit kind acts. In the current study, children (9-12 years, n = 945) and teens (13-17 years, n = 939) rated the benefit, cost, kindness, and likelihood of performing 173 acts of kindness, and adults (18+ years, n = 891) rated how beneficial, costly, kind, and likely the acts would be for young people to perform. Among children and teens, benefit but not cost predicted the kindness of acts, and benefit positively predicted, but cost negatively predicted, performance (for "kindness quotients" of 61% and 65%, respectively). Among adults, benefit and cost predicted the kindness of acts, and cost, but not benefit, negatively predicted performance (for a kindness quotient of 59%). The results for children and teens are similar to those from previous research with adults; however, adults are more sensitive to cost when rating kindness, are less sensitive to benefit when rating performance by young people, and are less likely to think young people will perform acts of kindness overall. In practical terms, the results suggest that recommending cost-effective acts may be the best way to encourage children to be kinder.

Observing heroic behavior and its influencing factors in immersive virtual environments

Studying heroism in controlled settings presents challenges and ethical controversies due to its association with physical risk. Leveraging virtual reality (VR) technology, we conducted a three-study series with 397 participants from China to investigate heroic actions. Participants unexpectedly witnessed a criminal event in a simulated scenario, allowing observation of their tendency to physically intercept a thief. We examined situational factors (voluntariness, authority, and risk) and personal variables [gender, impulsivity, empathy, and social value orientation (SVO)] that may influence heroism. Also, the potential association between heroism and social conformity was explored. In terms of situational variables, voluntariness modulated participants' tendency to intercept the escaping thief, while perceived risk demonstrated its impact by interacting with gender. That is, in study 3 where the perceived risk was expected to be higher (as supported by an online study 5), males exhibited a greater inclination toward heroic behavior compared to females. Regarding other personal variables, the tendency to engage in heroic behavior decreased as empathy levels rose among males, whereas the opposite trend was observed for females. SVO influenced heroic behavior but without a gender interaction. Finally, an inverse relationship between heroism and social conformity was observed. The robustness of these findings was partly supported by the Chinese sample (but not the international sample) of an online study 4 that provided written descriptions of VR scenarios, indicating cultural variations. These results advance insights into motivational factors influencing heroism in the context of restoring order and highlight the power of VR technology in examining social psychological hypotheses beyond ethical constraints.

Choosing Among Undesirable Options: Children Consider Desirability of Available Choices in Evaluation of Socially Mindful Actions

Previous studies show that adults and children evaluate the act of leaving a choice for others as prosocial, and have termed such actions as socially mindful actions. The current study investigates how the desirability of the available options (i.e., whether the available options are desirable or not) may influence adults' and children's evaluation of socially mindful actions. Children (N = 120, 4- to 6-year-olds) and adults (N = 124) were asked to evaluate characters selecting items for themselves from a set of three items-two identical items and one unique item-in a way that either leaves a choice (two diverse items) or leaves no choice (two identical items) for the next person (i.e., the beneficiary). We manipulated whether the available options were either desirable or undesirable (i.e., damaged). We found that adults' and 6-year-olds' evaluation of socially mindful actions is moderated by the desirability of the options. Although they evaluate the act of leaving a choice for others as nicer than the act of leaving no choice both when the choosing options are desirable and when they are undesirable, the discrepancy in the evaluation becomes significantly smaller when the choosing options are undesirable. We also found that inference of the beneficiary's feeling underlies social evaluation of the actor leaving a choice (or not). These findings suggest that children consider both the diversity of options left and the desirability of the available options in understanding and evaluating socially mindful acts.

The development and predictors of a preference for strivers over naturals in the United States and China

Across three pre-registered studies (n = 221 4-9-year olds, 51% female; 218 parents, 80% female; working- and middle-class backgrounds; data collected during 2019-2021) conducted in the United States (Studies 1-2; 74% White) and China (Study 3; 100% Asian), we document the emergence of a preference for "strivers." Beginning at age 7, strivers (who work really hard) were favored over naturals (who are really smart) in both cultures (R2 ranging .03-.11). We explored several lay beliefs surrounding this preference. Beliefs about outcomes and the controllability of effort predicted the striver preference: Children who expected strivers to be more successful than naturals and believed effort was more controllable than talent preferred strivers more. Implications of the striver preference in education and beyond are discussed.

Neural responses underlying extraordinary altruists' generosity for socially distant others

Most people are much less generous toward strangers than close others, a bias termed social discounting. But people who engage in extraordinary real-world altruism, like altruistic kidney donors, show dramatically reduced social discounting. Why they do so is unclear. Some prior research suggests reduced social discounting requires effortfully overcoming selfishness via recruitment of the temporoparietal junction. Alternatively, reduced social discounting may reflect genuinely valuing strangers' welfare more due to how the subjective value of their outcomes is encoded in regions such as rostral anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and amygdala. We tested both hypotheses in this pre-registered study. We also tested the hypothesis that a loving-kindness meditation (LKM) training intervention would cause typical adults' neural and behavioral patterns to resemble altruists. Altruists and matched controls (N = 77) completed a social discounting task during functional magnetic resonance imaging; 25 controls were randomized to complete LKM training. Neither behavioral nor imaging analyses supported the hypothesis that altruists' reduced social discounting reflects effortfully overcoming selfishness. Instead, group differences emerged in social value encoding regions, including rostral ACC and amygdala. Activation in these regions corresponded to the subjective valuation of others' welfare predicted by the social discounting model. LKM training did not result in more generous behavioral or neural patterns, but only greater perceived difficulty during social discounting. Our results indicate extraordinary altruists' generosity results from the way regions involved in social decision-making encode the subjective value of others' welfare. Interventions aimed at promoting generosity may thus succeed to the degree they can increase the subjective valuation of others' welfare.

When it's not easy to do the right thing: Developmental changes in understanding cost drive evaluations of moral praiseworthiness

Recent work identified a shift in judgments of moral praiseworthiness that occurs late in development: adults recognize the virtue of moral actions that involve resolving an inner conflict between moral desires and selfish desires. Children, in contrast, praise agents who do the right thing in the absence of inner conflict. This finding stands in contrast with other work showing that children incorporate notions of cost and effort into their social reasoning. Using a modified version of Starmans and Bloom's (2016) vignettes, we show that understanding the virtue of costly moral action precedes understanding the virtue of resolving inner conflict. In two studies (N = 192 children, range = 4.00-9.95 years; and N = 193 adults), we contrasted a character who paid a personal cost (psychological in Study 1, physical in Study 2) to perform a moral action with another who acted morally without paying a cost. We found a developmental progression; 8- and 9-year-old children and adults recognized the praiseworthiness of moral actions that are psychologically or physically costly. Six- and 7-year-old children only recognized the praiseworthiness of moral actions that are physically costly, but not actions that are psychologically costly. Moreover, neither adults nor children inferred that paying a cost to act morally required having a moral desire or resolving inner conflict. These results suggest that both adults and children conceptualize obligation as a direct motivational force on actions. They further suggest that costly choice-a hallmark of moral agency-is implicated in judgments of praiseworthiness early in development.

Testing effects of social rejection on aggressive and prosocial behavior: A meta-analysis

Social rejection elicits profound feelings of distress. From an evolutionary perspective, the best way to alleviate this distress is to behave prosocially, minimizing the likelihood of further exclusion. Yet, examples ranging from the playground to the pub suggest rejection commonly elicits aggression. Opposing theoretical perspectives and discordant empirical results have left a basic question unanswered: does rejection more commonly elicit prosocial or aggressive behavior? We conducted three meta-analyses (one with studies measuring aggressive behavior; one with studies measuring prosocial behavior; and one with studies measuring both aggressive and prosocial behavior; N = 3864) to quantify: (1) the extent to which social rejection elicits prosocial or aggressive behavior and (2) potential moderating effects on these relations. Random-effects models revealed medium effects such that social rejection potentiated aggressive behavior (k = 19; d = 0.41, p < .0001) and attenuated prosocial behavior (k = 7; d = 0.59, p < .0001), an effect that remained consistent even when participants were given the option to behave prosocially or aggressively (k =  15; d = 0.71, p < .0001). These results cast doubt on the theory that rejection triggers prosocial behavior, and instead suggest it is a robust elicitor of aggression. Statement of Relevance: To our knowledge, these meta-analyses are the first to directly test whether social rejection elicits aggressive or prosocial behavior. By including a comprehensive collection of both published and unpublished research studies, and examining a wide variety of previously untested moderators, we show that social rejection robustly elicits aggressive behavior and inhibits prosocial behavior. Additionally, we demonstrate that aggressive behavior following social rejection is not simply a function of limited choices in response options. In fact, aggressive behavior was evoked even when the option to engage in prosocial behavior was provided. Furthermore, we conducted a comprehensive narrative review of the neural mechanisms underlying social rejection-elicited aggressive and prosocial behavior to supplement primary analyses. Overall, we believe that our work makes a critical theoretical contribution to the field.

Leadership and risk: a review of the literature

Purpose

Even though every decision a leader makes carries an element of risk, no review on the topic of leadership and risk has appeared in highly-ranked management journals in the past 20 years. This is in contrast to the discipline of psychology in which leadership and risk receives considerable attention, particularly in the field of heroism studies. In the context of the established body of research on the topic of leadership and risk in the discipline of psychology, this review therefore explores the research on leadership and risk in highly-ranked management studies’ journals.

Design/methodology/approach

The review was conducted in five stages. During phase 1, journal rankings were used as basis to determine which highly-ranked journals to include in the review. Phase 2 focused on identifying all relevant articles in the journals included in our review. We searched for articles published from 2000 to 2021 with the words “risk” or “danger” and “leader” or “leadership” in their abstracts. In phase 3, the author analysed the abstracts of the articles in depth to determine whether the keywords were included on the basis of an explicit scholarly reflection or research on leadership and risk. Phase 4 focused on analysing articles' treatment of leadership and risk, and assigning key words and key phrases. Finally, during phase 5 key words and key phrases were clustered together thematically.

Findings

This study analysis yielded six thematic clusters. The first two clusters – on risk appetite of followers and leaders – are closely related. In total, 12 journal articles explored these themes. The remaining thematic clusters contain four and seven articles each. These clusters are risk, creativity and innovation; risk and failure; risk in dangerous contexts; and risk and gender. Nine of the selected articles did not fit in any of the thematic clusters.

Originality/value

The review reveals a significant lack of research on leadership and risk in highly-ranked management studies’ journals. The author found that the topic of leadership and risk is approached in a binary fashion: successful leaders are viewed as using risk to drive innovation and unsuccessful leaders fail because of risk. The author argues that the heroic bias in leadership research could be partly blamed for this binarism. In practical terms, the author highlights that the growing importance of chief risk officers – leaders appointed to deal with company risk – indicates a clear need for research on leadership and risk in general management studies’ journals.

Grassroots Autonomy: A Laypersons' Perspective on Autonomy

In the age of artificial intelligence, the common interest in human autonomy is experiencing a revival. Autonomy has formerly and mostly been investigated from a theoretical scientific perspective, in which scholars from various disciplines have linked autonomy with the concepts of dignity, independence from others, morality, self-awareness, and unconventionality. In a series of three semi-qualitative, preregistered online studies (total N = 505), we investigated laypersons' understanding of autonomy with a bottom-up procedure to find out how far lay intuition is consistent with scientific theory. First, in Study 1, participants (n = 222) provided us with at least three and up to 10 examples of autonomous behaviors, for a total of 807 meaningful examples. With the help of blinded research assistants, we sorted the obtained examples into categories, from which we generated 34 representative items for the following studies. Next, in Study 2, we asked a new sample of participants (n = 108) to rate the degree of autonomy reflected in each of these 34 items. Last, we presented the five highest-rated and the five lowest-rated items to the participants of Study 3 (n = 175), whom we asked to evaluate how strongly they represented the components of autonomy: dignity, independence from others, morality, self-awareness, and unconventionality. We identified that dignity, independence from others, morality, and self-awareness significantly distinguished between high- and low-autonomy items, implying that high autonomy items were rated higher on dignity, independence from others, morality, and self-awareness than low autonomy items, but unconventionality did not. Our findings contribute to both our understanding of autonomous behaviors and connecting lay intuition with scientific theory.

Searching for meaning is associated with costly prosociality

The study of meaning in life has largely centered on its relationship with personal well-being, while a focus on how meaning is related to enhancing the well-being of others has received less research attention. Although searching for meaning may imply lower personal well-being, we find that meaning-seekers are more motivated to perform costly prosocial actions for the sake of others’ well-being, given the perceived meaningfulness of these behaviors. Studies 1–4 (N = 780) show that meaning-seeking correlates with the motivation to engage in a range of costly prosocial behaviors. Meaning-seeking is further shown to be distinct from pursuing happiness in its relationship with costly prosociality (Study 2 & 3) and to share a stronger association with high-cost than low-cost prosociality (Study 3 & 4). Study 5 (N = 370; pre-registered) further shows that the search for meaning is related to costly prosocial behavior in the recent past. While our studies are cross-sectional, the pattern of findings suggests that seeking meaning (rather than happiness) may play an important role in motivating altruistic tendencies.

Prosocial behavior and reputation: When does doing good lead to looking good?

One reason people engage in prosocial behavior is to reap the reputational benefits associated with being seen as generous. Yet, there isn't a direct connection between doing good deeds and being seen as a good person. Prosocial actors are often met with suspicion and sometimes castigated as disingenuous braggarts, empty virtue-signalers, or holier-than-thou hypocrites. In this article, we review recent research on how people evaluate those who engage in prosocial behavior and identify key factors that influence whether observers will praise or denigrate a prosocial actor for doing a good deed.

Personal, semantic and communicational aspects of helping among adolescents

BACKGROUND

The main research question of the article is how the perception of help and the style of interpersonal relations are connected. In a broad sense, the question refers to the problem of constant and situational variables of prosocial activity. The main methodological framework is Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology, in particular, the mechanism of interiorization and the interaction of interpsychological and intrapsychological processes.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

Over 215 participants (students attending school and university, living in Ukraine, aged from 12 to 22 years) took part in our experiment, but because not all of them completed all the necessary forms correctly, only 193 participants' answers were further analyzed. Our two research techniques were Leary's Interpersonal Behavior Circle Personal Inventory and the semantic differential (N = 193).

RESULTS

Each disposition from Leary's questionnaire had at least one significant correlation with the way Ukrainian adolescents perceive help. The semantic aspects of perceiving help were investigated with the help of ranking the qualities of the semantic differential for the words "help the other".

CONCLUSIONS

The identified correlations contribute to the psychological analysis of the detailed characteristics of perceiving help concerning personal dispositions. Personal, communicational and semantic aspects of help are interconnected and their further research can bring rich insights.

Viral Heroism: What the Rhetoric of Heroes in the COVID-19 Pandemic Tells Us About Medicine and Professional Identity

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic the use of the term "hero" has been widespread. This is especially common in the context of healthcare workers and it is now unremarkable to see large banners on hospital exteriors that say "heroes work here". There is more to be gleaned from the rhetoric of heroism than just awareness of public appreciation, however. Calling physicians and nurses heroes for treating sick people indicates something about the concept of medicine and medical professionals. In this essay, I will examine three aspects of the social role of medicine exposed by the language of heroism. One, if a hero is someone who goes above and the call of duty, then does that mean exposing oneself to risk of infection is no longer a duty of physicians (as it used to be)? If so, does that mean the "profession" of medicine is much like any other business? Two, physicians and nurses are not the only "heroes" this go-around. Anyone deemed essential to the US "infrastructure" is designated by the US government as having "special responsibilities" to remain at their posts for the public good, which explicitly puts physicians in the same category as sewage workers and grocery store cashiers. Three, what does it mean to belong to a profession that does (or does not) have self-sacrifice and risk-taking as part of its mission-especially a profession that rarely gets called upon to practice these obligations?