Tainted altruism: Explorations into charitable credit for doing good

There has been much research on prosocial behavior, especially on factors that increase prosocial behavior and prosocial actors’ motives. Few researchers, however, have investigated how people perceive prosocial actors. When do prosocial actors get more—or less—“charitable credit” for their good deeds? While some factors that affect charitable credit are obvious, I demonstrate two that are not. First, I demonstrate that charitable donors get less credit when they have a personal connection to the target cause. Even in the absence of clear potential gain, these donors are nonetheless perceived as more selfishly motivated. A personal connection increases the likelihood of supporting a cause, so my results suggest that the very thing that drives much prosocial behavior also causes actors to lose credit. Second, I demonstrate that altruistic prosocial actors are perceived as less likely to benefit from their acts (“Nice guys finish last”); and prosocial actors who benefit are judged as less altruistic (“Guys in last are nice”)—even if the benefits are randomly determined or uncontrollable. I demonstrate these effects for both individual and corporate prosocial acts. The results contradict widespread religious principles and established psychological theories as well as rational logic