The Dirty Underbelly of Prosocial Behavior: Reconceptualizing Greater Good as an Ecosystem with Unintended Consequences

This article is part of the issue “Consumer Psychology for Greater Good” Action in service greater good, which we define as collective well-being broader social group, typically comes with associated costs. Sometimes, these costs can even outweigh benefits. Consider case Colonial India. To solve a problem too many venomous cobras on loose, British offered monetary reward to cull snakes. incentive, not surprisingly, led local entrepreneurs instead breed snakes collect reward. The British, realizing they had worsened snake problem, then withdrew incentives. As result, locals released now worthless into streets, leaving cobra significantly worse than if nothing been done at all (Hartley, 2020). Firms seeking bring about good often also generate unintended negative consequences. For instance, when TOMS® Shoes began donating pair shoes every bought someone need low-income countries, it hurt and jobs because markets were flooded recipients chose sell (Jackson, 2016; Taub, 2015). These instances consequences are isolated examples. Yet, researchers, policy makers, firms fail consider bad that may accompany, or outweigh, seek deliver through their prosocial initiatives. One reason failure almost consumer research thus far societal trade-offs any act entails be its microlevel focus identifying psychologically grounded interventions motivate consumers, average, engage singular given (see White, Habib, & Dahl, 2020, review). however, substantive real-world phenomenon comprises rich ecosystem involving multiple actors who behavior, reasons why paths influence between what might action, benefit from acts. Moreover, accomplished limited by resources, therefore, must made deciding whom motivate, how them, cost, exclusion whom, accomplish one chosen good. allow consideration more complex but realistic processes outcomes, this editorial, present possible mapping ecosystem. Our goal facilitate (a) larger range antecedent motives reinforce impede each other, (b) cross-sectional cross-temporal selfish outcomes consumers likely serve well better opportunity, an experimenter, NGO, firm, prosocial, (c) both direct indirect pathways—that is, intended means—to including possibility pursuit indirectly result (d) inherent committing act. clear, presenting ecosystem, suggesting links interactions conceptualization considered simultaneously single investigation. Rather, initial representation designed realistically capture diverse relationships involved contextualize antecedents, consequences, action entails. In follows, first describe cumulative accelerating trajectory advances have understanding psychology We posit time has come broaden investigation construing rich, dynamic, complex, interconnected where acts extended conflicts Indeed, impactful, impact broad, enduring, multi-faceted involve cross-durational trade-offs. Thus, impactful entail only development promote act, careful considerations alternative routes create harm paths, opportunity taken. illustrate points using articles special conclude, use study detail approach used future questions. Prosocial behavior defined “voluntary another individual group individuals” (Eisenberg Mussen, 1989, 3). actions helping (e.g., returning lost letter, performing bystander-initiated CPR; Holland, Silva, Mace, 2012; Sasson et al., 2012) sharing valued resources allocation money economic game; Camerer Thaler, 1995), organization Savary, Goldsmith, Dhar, 2015), purchasing eco-friendly and/or sustainably produced products Roux, Wilson, 2020), following rules paying taxes abiding traffic rules; Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, Keltner, 2012), beyond. Such cost self, clear others. term “prosocial” emerged 1960s counter opposite “antisocial.” Following Kitty Genovese’s murder 1964, psychologists became interested bystanders failed help while Genovese was publicly stabbed death front dozens witnesses (Darley Latane, 1968). Researchers noted people do help. notice others, there diffusion responsibility expect others instead, apprehensive acting differently being evaluated poorly, experience pluralistic ignorance infer lack acting, know 1968, Latane Darley, 1970). Although early findings presented picture human later investigations found pervasive evidence animals doing so entailed significant self (Wilson, 1975). showed rats will give up free other danger (Sato, Tan, Tate, Okada, velvet monkeys emit calls attract predator themselves kin (Cheney Seyfarth, 1990), humpback whales killer attacking unrelated species (Pitman 2017). Similarly, participants experiment 15–35% earnings strangers (Camerer, 2003; Fehr Gächter, 2002), age, 6-month-old babies prefer helping, rather harming (Hamlin, Bloom, Wynn, 2007). findings, interest therefore shifted ways specific behaviors. date, documented two primary motivations Figure 1a). motivation “altruism”—wherein predominantly out concern (Batson, 1987, 2011), little regard own needs. Factors increase needs evoke empathy among potential donors altruistic acts, philanthropy 1987). mood, sensitive feelings wish maintain harmony mood consistent ways; evoking positive cooperative behaviors (Fishbach Labroo, 2007; Isen 2003). Chronic situational cues perspective taking, perceiving strongly having interdependent over independent self-construal) similarly altruism (Cialdini, 1987; Labroo Kim, 2009). A second underlying “egocentrism”—wherein engages primarily derive benefits (Andreoni, 1990; Cialdini, personal take forms, ranging overt expectations reciprocity assistance helped (Roux, Bonezzi, 2015) social-signaling (Savary self-signaling boost one’s esteem/positive (Aknin 2013; Imas, 2014; Khan, 2020; Savary 1a presents “nomological” net—a summarizes some known abstract psychological constructs such perception, motivation, emotion, elaboration, forth, behavior. built net variety ways: new motivators, developing executing existing motivator, validating theoretically derived moderators reverse, attenuate, magnify observed relationships. Over time, resulted different conditions under so. researchers developed increased public observability actions, salience norms threat censure, ease routinization encourage (White set, invaluable, especially uncover establish causal antecedents follow. Recognizing engaging increasingly associating causes improve standing marketplace (Chandy, Johar, Moorman, Roberts, 2021; Khan Pond, 2012). domain impact. When conducting inquiry, “substantive” actors, interrelationships, reflect real world—may potentially identify consequential pathways desired outcome less ones. includes types previously identified (Figure 1b, left panel), substitutes complements (i.e., several means achieve non-prosocial outcomes; right panel 1c), versus directly sought end accompanying ends; 1d), level pursuing center panel). By referring building net, hope able richer meaningful next-generation questions ask pertaining next elements our proposed highlight advance current Postulate 1: Interpersonal may, addition motives, outcomes. Furthermore, three sometimes cue and, times, aspect interpersonal refer interact immediate circles. impetus extent (Hamilton 2021); coming years, grow area investigation, growth technology allowing connect like-minded online communities, peer-to-peer crowdfunding sites, forth. Consumers networks independently motives. first-time parents communities friendship goals bond going same experiences theirs. could prompted gain useful tips manage effectively parents. Alternatively, share notion “interpersonal” expanded include firm–consumer reduce customer retention costs), solicit feedback), learn equity). get preferred customer), brand community), boycotting supporting nudge stance). How relate feel firm interpersonally firms, support firms. example, shows tend perceive teams moral, donate nonprofits leadership (Khan Kalra, 2021). Firm–consumer important investigations. issue, addressing role play encouraging donors, Sepheri al. (this issue) pioneering fundraising platforms GoFundMe, Rally, Fundly). On platforms, interacting degree recipient influencing lives. At try motives—for funding vacation—on platforms. find situations, fund appeals (she/he), (I, me), pronouns. Considering vacation donor, finding pronouns donations intriguing. Future examining results arise match donor appeal recipient, apply diverge effects mass appeals, inform selfish, interpersonal, language frames donations. makes salient motives—selfish, prosocial—may Considerations otherwise largely missing literature. motive subtypes comprise signal moral externally ego-driven reasons, person build self-esteem. motives) motives). faces moderate distress, elaborating make thus, happier. However, extreme threatening, An open pertains combine kinds impede. respect, Pechmann interpreted accepted similar “faults” inability quit smoking) acceptance confers higher esteem, be-productive cued) productive). authors investigate highly context self-disclosures way trust community. lay assumption closer members fostered commonalities disclosed, past like differences exposed. contrast, exposing smoking community increases integration. It self-select join support; accepting supportive those disclosures differences. data further suggest revealing ones integration community, superior similarities. facilitates motivates accomplishment smoking. theorize exactly groups, underlie perceived most pursued, Whereas Pundak, Steinhart, Goldenberg suggests derail shaming wrongdoers deter identifiable, show prevents believe non-maleficence—that no harm—from non-maleficent would wrongdoer Taken together, studies raise novel regarding interfere More generally, areas prosocial—facilitate submotives, circumstances, why. 2: Among entities 1c). Traditional assumed entities—consumers firms—having substitute prosocial. Subsequently, outcomes—for making entity probability complement delivery extends ideas first, recognize additionally seek. profits visible credentials customers. discover accomplishing goals. examples, achieving Rather costly respectively. although overcoming seems plausible are, reduce, increase, Second, Entities trade-off compare against primary, though motive, reported Silver, Kelly, Small mover attempt exact cause profit off effect movers selfish. Notably, regardless whether “for-profit” mover, money) arguably simply set non-profits. Third, arise, spontaneously seek, consider, choose array experiencing reputational advantage, motive. But instrumental effective one. serves favorability enough overcome directly. Suggestive possibility, Schlager particular, women (advancing careers), (finding friendships), (social justice) gender pay equity say boycott inequity. intentions cheap talk: inconvenient, selfishly continue firm. Possibly, (or not). prompt intent differ, factors crowd highlighting suppressing credentials) becoming person) 3: sought-after accompanies 1d). third distinction consequence outcome. sake consequence, unintended, framing ultimately retirement savings preventative health screenings. Both looking after individual. practices quality life. Policy makers option outcome—retirement care—for either reasons. them attainment more, conditions. That asking ones, when. Would save less, view (a comfortable retirement) (being burden) why, when? question investigated level—for purely initiative provides mosquito nets malaria, “selfish” microfinancing funds buy fishing instead. reasoning construe choices—for taking vacation—as prosocial—for economy, i.e., unpopular stance—as selfish— grandstanding. Suggesting choice Dugan, Clarkson, Beck issue). They utilitarian, hedonic, one-for-one promotions (where donates product buys). utilitarian feels hedonic uncertain appreciate product. (2021) finds charity partners producing products. Presumably, charitable important, hence corporate partner sells goods. Chernev Blair inferences firm—a sustainability initiative—can undermine purchase consumers. Purchases