 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(August 2022) |
Do-gooder derogation is a phenomenon where a person's morally motivated behavior leads to them being perceived negatively by others. The term "do-gooder" refers to a person who deviates from the majority in terms of behavior, because of their morality. [1]
Research surrounding "do-gooder derogation" takes many different forms. These include public goods games, experiments designed to measure altruism and generosity, and the analysis of preexisting data. Studies on meat eaters' perceptions of vegetarians indicate that meat eaters held more negative views towards vegetarians if they imagined the vegetarians morally judging them for their dietary choices. From this, the researchers concluded that moral minorities may receive backlash for their morally motivated behavior from members of the mainstream who feel morally judged. [2]
A study on generosity in children indicated that initially children favored generous individuals, but that this preference was reduced when the child's own generosity was not as good as another child's. However, this did not hold up when the child compared their own generosity to an adult. [3]
A combination of moral and dominance personality traits in a person have been linked to an increased level of moral self-righteousness and dislike by perceivers. [4]
Research suggests that the most generous can be punished more than those less generous. [5]
One possible reason for do-gooder derogation is 'anticipated moral reproach'. This describes a threat to one's moral standing and to their sense of self-worth. [6]
Research suggests that since people are highly sensitive to any criticism or challenge to their morals, they are more likely to put down the source of this 'threat'.[ citation needed ]
In research regarding non-vegetarians' attitudes towards vegetarians, non-vegetarians tended to harbor more hostile feelings towards vegetarians when they believed that the vegetarians saw themselves as morally superior. However, not all vegetarians choose to be so because of moral reasons. [7]
Other research looked at morally uncomfortable decision-making scenarios, for example a criminal lineup where the obvious guilty suspect is the only African American suspect and participants were asked to pick out the guilty suspect. Most participants followed the instructions, but 'moral do-gooders' refused to, on the basis that the activity was 'offensive'. The moral do-gooders were disliked by the rest of the group and rated more negatively in the first experiment. However, later in the study, participants were assured of their moral standing and the validity of their own decisions despite that of the moral do-gooder, and they were less sensitive to moral reproach, rating the do-gooders less negatively. [8]
Another possible explanation for do-gooder derogation is social comparison. Tasimi, Dominguez & Wynn (2015) offered the idea that do-gooder derogation could be put down to do-gooders deviating from the social norm. [9]
In a public goods game, where there was a punishment condition introduced, participants tended to punish anyone who cooperated more or less than the social norm: the low contributors, but also the high contributors, even though their generosity benefited the whole group. [10]
In addition, real-world data from an online fundraising website found that not only were the lowest donations anonymized, but so were the highest. This is compatible with the explanation of social comparison, whereby those donating the highest amounts are violating the social norms and therefore maintain anonymity. This might be because the top donators have set the bar at an undesirably high level and "make the contributions of others look less impressive by comparison." [11]
In another study looking at do-gooder derogation in children, participants preferred a more generous character throughout the study, which has inconsistencies with do-gooder derogation. However, when the child's generosity was less than that of another child, it didn't reverse their preference for the more generous child; their preference for the generous child lessened, but didn't disappear. Furthermore, when the child compared themselves to a more generous adult, there was no evidence of less preferable attitudes, perhaps as the children don't socially compare themselves to adults: social comparison leads us to feel negatively towards people in similar situations to our own who make better decisions than us.[ citation needed ]
In the original public goods game, Monin, Sawyer and Marquez (2008) found that a relevant factor in do-gooder derogation is their level of involvement in the decision: if the participant made a less generous decision before the do-gooder made theirs, they were more likely to feel negatively towards the do-gooder. However, if they were onlookers in the game, they were more likely to rate the do-gooders positively.[ citation needed ]
Existential freedom: individuals will ignore their own freedom in decision making, blaming their decision on situational pressures. [12]
Perceived altruism of the act: if individuals performed altruistic acts for intended gains, the act is seen as more selfish than altruistic. [13] There is also the possibility of ulterior motives behind altruistic acts: do-gooder derogation may be a defense mechanism.[ citation needed ]
Feelings of lesser morality: individuals might question their own morality as they compare themselves with do-gooders.[ citation needed ]
Shame and guilt: do-gooders are more likely to be derogated when others' sense of being a good person is threatened. [14]
There are also cross-cultural differences in the extent to which do-gooder derogation happens. Hermann, Thöni & Gächter (2008) looked at cross-cultural differences when carrying out their public goods experiment in 16 different participant pools. Raihani (2014) also observed some cultural differences with regards to donations and anonymity. Some of the findings were:
Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals above oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of selfishness.
The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" – that actions will necessarily have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, order, or the anglophone colloquial use of "Karma". It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers "deserve" it.
In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.
Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Historically, the term "moral psychology" was used relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development. Moral psychology eventually came to refer more broadly to various topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.
In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.
C. Daniel Batson is an American social psychologist. He has two doctoral degrees, in theology and psychology. Batson obtained his doctorate under John Darley and taught at the University of Kansas. He retired in 2006 and now is an emeritus professor in the psychology department of the University of Tennessee. He is best known for his contributions to the social psychology of altruism, empathic concern, and psychology of religion.
Self-sacrifice is the giving up of something that a person wants for themselves so that others can be helped or protected or so that other external values can be advanced or protected. Generally, the act of self-sacrifice conforms to the rule that it does not serve the person’s best self-interest and will leave the person in a worse situation than the person otherwise would have been.
Jean Decety is an American–French neuroscientist specializing in developmental neuroscience, affective neuroscience, and social neuroscience. His research focuses on the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms underpinning social cognition, particularly social decision-making, empathy, moral reasoning, altruism, pro-social behavior, and more generally interpersonal relationships. He is Irving B. Harris Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.
Empathy-altruism is a form of altruism based on moral emotions or feelings for others.
Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors. These actions may be motivated by empathy and by concern about the welfare and rights of others, as well as for egoistic or practical concerns, such as one's social status or reputation, hope for direct or indirect reciprocity, or adherence to one's perceived system of fairness. It may also be motivated by altruism, though the existence of pure altruism is somewhat disputed, and some have argued that this falls into philosophical rather than psychological realm of debate. Evidence suggests that pro sociality is central to the well-being of social groups across a range of scales, including schools. Prosocial behavior in the classroom can have a significant impact on a student's motivation for learning and contributions to the classroom and larger community. In the workplace, prosocial behaviour can have a significant impact on team psychological safety, as well as positive indirect effects on employee's helping behaviors and task performance. Empathy is a strong motive in eliciting prosocial behavior, and has deep evolutionary roots.
The negative-state relief model states that human beings have an innate drive to reduce negative moods. They can be reduced by engaging in any mood-elevating behaviour, including helping behaviour, as it is paired with positive value such as smiles and thank you. Thus negative mood increases helpfulness because helping others can reduce one's own bad feelings.
Benevolent prejudice is a superficially positive prejudice expressed in terms of positive beliefs and emotional responses, which are associated with hostile prejudices or result in keeping affected groups in inferior societal positions. Benevolent prejudice can be expressed towards those of different race, religion, ideology, country, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Warm-glow giving is an economic theory describing the emotional reward of giving to others. According to the original warm-glow model developed by James Andreoni, people experience a sense of joy and satisfaction for "doing their part" to help others. This satisfaction - or "warm glow" - represents the selfish pleasure derived from "doing good", regardless of the actual impact of one's generosity. Within the warm-glow framework, people may be "impurely altruistic", meaning they simultaneously maintain both altruistic and egoistic (selfish) motivations for giving. This may be partially due to the fact that "warm glow" sometimes gives people credit for the contributions they make, such as a plaque with their name or a system where they can make donations publicly so other people know the "good" they are doing for the community.
Self-licensing is a term used in social psychology and marketing to describe the subconscious phenomenon whereby increased confidence and security in one's self-image or self-concept tends to make that individual worry less about the consequences of subsequent immoral behavior and, therefore, more likely to make immoral choices and act immorally. In simple terms, self-licensing occurs when people allow themselves to indulge after doing something positive first; for example, drinking a diet soda with a greasy hamburger and fries can lead one to subconsciously discount the negative attributes of the meal's high caloric and cholesterol content.
Moral foundations theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. More recently, Mohammad Atari, Jesse Graham, and Jonathan Haidt have revised some aspects of the theory and developed new measurement tools. The theory has been developed by a diverse group of collaborators and popularized in Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. The theory proposes that morality is "more than one thing", first arguing for five foundations, and later expanding for six foundations :
Elevation is an emotion elicited by witnessing actual or imagined virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness. It is experienced as a distinct feeling of warmth and expansion that is accompanied by appreciation and affection for the individual whose exceptional conduct is being observed. Elevation motivates those who experience it to open up to, affiliate with, and assist others. Elevation makes an individual feel lifted up and optimistic about humanity.
The psychology of eating meat is an area of study seeking to illuminate the confluence of morality, emotions, cognition, and personality characteristics in the phenomenon of the consumption of meat. Research into the psychological and cultural factors of meat-eating suggests correlations with masculinity, support for hierarchical values, and reduced openness to experience. Because meat eating is widely practiced but is sometimes associated with ambivalence, it has been used as a case study in moral psychology to illustrate theories of cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement. Research into the consumer psychology of meat is relevant both to meat industry marketing and to advocates of reduced meat consumption.
Vegaphobia, vegephobia or veganophobia is an aversion to, or dislike of, vegetarians and vegans. The term first appeared in the 2010s, coinciding with the rise in veganism in the late 2010s. Several studies have found an incidence of vegaphobic sentiments in the general population. Positive feelings regarding vegetarians and vegans also exist. Because of their diet, others may perceive them as more virtuous or principled.
Moral emotions are a variety of social emotions that are involved in forming and communicating moral judgments and decisions, and in motivating behavioral responses to one's own and others' moral behavior. As defined by Jonathan Haidt, moral emotions "are linked to the interests or welfare either of a society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent". A person may not always have clear words to articulate, yet simultaneously, that same person knows it to be true deep down inside.
In the philosophy of effective altruism, an altruistic act such as charitable giving is considered more effective, or cost-effective, if it uses a set of resources to do more good per unit of resource than other options, with the goal of trying to do the most good. Following this definition of effectiveness, researchers in psychology and related fields have identified psychological barriers to effective altruism that can cause people to choose less effective options when they engage in altruistic activities such as charitable giving. These barriers can include evolutionary influences as well as motivational and epistemic obstacles.