» Articles » PMID: 31209312

Uncertainty About the Impact of Social Decisions Increases Prosocial Behaviour

Overview
Journal Nat Hum Behav
Date 2019 Jun 19
PMID 31209312
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Uncertainty about how our choices will affect others infuses social life. Past research suggests uncertainty has a negative effect on prosocial behaviour by enabling people to adopt self-serving narratives about their actions. We show that uncertainty does not always promote selfishness. We introduce a distinction between two types of uncertainty that have opposite effects on prosocial behaviour. Previous work focused on outcome uncertainty (uncertainty about whether or not a decision will lead to a particular outcome). However, as soon as people's decisions might have negative consequences for others, there is also impact uncertainty (uncertainty about how others' well-being will be impacted by the negative outcome). Consistent with past research, we found decreased prosocial behaviour under outcome uncertainty. In contrast, prosocial behaviour was increased under impact uncertainty in incentivized economic decisions and hypothetical decisions about infectious disease threats. Perceptions of social norms paralleled the behavioural effects. The effect of impact uncertainty on prosocial behaviour did not depend on the individuation of others or the mere mention of harm, and was stronger when impact uncertainty was made more salient. Our findings offer insights into communicating uncertainty, especially in contexts where prosocial behaviour is paramount, such as responding to infectious disease threats.

Citing Articles

When advisors do not know what is best for advisees: Uncertainty inhibits advice giving.

Zhu R, Tang H, Xue J, Li Y, Liang Z, Wu S Psych J. 2024; 13(4):663-678.

PMID: 38530882 PMC: 11317185. DOI: 10.1002/pchj.745.


Social Preferences Toward Humans and Machines: A Systematic Experiment on the Role of Machine Payoffs.

von Schenk A, Klockmann V, Kobis N Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023; 20(1):165-181.

PMID: 37751604 PMC: 11720266. DOI: 10.1177/17456916231194949.


Sure-thing vs. probabilistic charitable giving: Experimental evidence on the role of individual differences in risky and ambiguous charitable decision-making.

Schoenegger P, Costa-Gomes M PLoS One. 2022; 17(9):e0273971.

PMID: 36137160 PMC: 9499298. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273971.


Explaining interpersonal differences in COVID-19 disease prevention behavior based on the health belief model and collective resilience theory: a cross-sectional study from Bolivia.

Herbas-Torrico B, Frank B BMC Public Health. 2022; 22(1):1077.

PMID: 35641948 PMC: 9153240. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13068-1.


A dual-process approach to prosocial behavior under COVID-19 uncertainty.

Costa D, Fernandes N, Arantes J, Keating J PLoS One. 2022; 17(3):e0266050.

PMID: 35349603 PMC: 8963555. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266050.


References
1.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

2.
Crockett M, Kurth-Nelson Z, Siegel J, Dayan P, Dolan R . Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(48):17320-5. PMC: 4260587. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1408988111. View

3.
Buckholtz J, Martin J, Treadway M, Jan K, Zald D, Jones O . From Blame to Punishment: Disrupting Prefrontal Cortex Activity Reveals Norm Enforcement Mechanisms. Neuron. 2015; 87(6):1369-1380. PMC: 5488876. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.023. View

4.
Putnam A, Wahlheim C, Jacoby L . Memory for flip-flopping: detection and recollection of political contradictions. Mem Cognit. 2014; 42(7):1198-210. PMC: 4315172. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-014-0419-9. View

5.
Green J, Burnette J, Davis J . Third-party forgiveness: (not) forgiving your close other's betrayer. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008; 34(3):407-18. DOI: 10.1177/0146167207311534. View