Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Social discounting and distance perceptions in costly altruism

Nature Human Behaviour volume 1, Article number: 0100 (2017) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Extraordinary acts of altruism towards strangers represent puzzling phenomena not easily explained by dominant biological models of altruism, such as kin selection and reciprocity1–3. These theories stipulate that genetically or socially close others should be the beneficiaries of costly generosity4,5. Extraordinary altruists exhibit increased empathic sensitivity and a fast, intuitive decision-making style6,7, but no clear explanation yet exists for the most perplexing feature of these altruists, which is that they incur significant risks to benefit strangers5. Here, we considered two related proximal mechanisms—social discounting (valuational) and social distancing (perceptual)—that have been proposed to explain why costly help is preferentially given to close others. We hypothesized that variations in one or both mechanisms drive costly altruism towards distant others. We show that extraordinary altruists exhibit reduced social discounting, with altruists discounting the subjective value of outcomes for socially distant others less than controls. Group differences in social discounting were associated with self-reported other-oriented preferences and could not be accounted for by variation in social distancing. These results suggest a psychological mechanism by which costly helping behaviour towards genetically and socially close others might be extended to unrelated others.

Donation of a kidney to a stranger is painful, costly8, non-normative9, exceedingly rare10 and meets the most exacting definitions of costly altruism. Established biological models of altruism, such as inclusive fitness, or shared genetic fitness of the altruist3, and reciprocal altruism, according to which costly help may later be reciprocated by a beneficiary who usually shares social group membership with the altruist2,4, cannot easily explain costly altruism towards strangers. We hypothesized that variations in social discounting may represent a proximal mechanism supporting this form of altruism. Social discounting is a robust phenomenon, with respondents across settings and cultures reliably willing to sacrifice more resources for socially close others relative to distant others11,12. Previous evidence does not directly link costly altruism towards strangers to reduced social discounting. However, participants who contribute more in a laboratory-based public goods game exhibit a shallower discount function13, and, conversely, aggressive individuals exhibit a relatively steep social discounting function14.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Social discounting and AUC for altruists and controls.
Figure 2: Social distance perceptions for altruists and controls.
Figure 3: Mediation model demonstrating that coldheartedness has an indirect effect on group through AUC.

References

  1. Batson, C. D. The naked emperor: seeking a more plausible genetic basis for psychological altruism. Econ. Philos. 26, 149–164 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Trivers, R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 35–57 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamilton, W. D. The genetical evolution of social behavior. J. Theoret. Biol. 7, 1–16 (1964).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Burnstein, E., Crandall, C. & Kitayama, S. Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 773–789 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marsh, A. A. Neural, cognitive, and evolutionary foundations of human altruism. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 7, 59–71 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marsh, A. A. et al. Neural and cognitive characteristics of extraordinary altruists. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15036–15041 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rand, D. G. & Epstein, Z. G. Risking your life without a second thought: intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism. PLoS ONE 9, 1–6 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodrigue, J. R. et al. Predonation direct and indirect costs incurred by adults who donated a kidney: findings from the KDOC study. Am. J. Transplant. 15, 2387–2393 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brethel-Haurwitz, K. M., Stoycos, S. A., Cardinale, E. M., Huebner, B. & Marsh, A. A. Is costly punishment altruistic? Exploring rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game in real-world altruists. Sci. Rep. 6, 18974 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, accessed 16 November 2016); https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data/

  11. Strombach, T. et al. Charity begins at home: cultural differences in social discounting and generosity. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 27, 235–245 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ma, Q., Pei, G., Jin, J. & De Wit, H. What makes you generous? The influence of rural and urban rearing on social discounting in China. PLoS ONE 10, e0133078 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones, B. & Rachlin, H. Delay, probability, and social discounting in a public goods game. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 91, 61–73 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharp, C. et al. Social discounting and externalizing behavior problems in boys. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 25, 239–247 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research 4–6 (United States Government Printing Office, 1978).

  16. Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. Empathy: conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motiv. Emot. 14, 131–149 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. de Waal, F. B. M. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 279–300 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. LePort, A. K. R. et al. Behavioral and neuroanatomical investigation of highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM). Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 98, 78–92 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Duncan, J., Emslie, H., Williams, P., Johnson, R. & Freer, C. Intelligence and the frontal lobe: the organization of goal-directed behavior. Cogn. Psychol. 30, 257–303 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Duchaine, B., Yovel, G. & Nakayama, K. No global processing deficit in the Navon task in 14 developmental prosopagnosics. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2, 104–113 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones, B. & Rachlin, H. Social discounting. Psychol. Sci. 17, 283–286 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, R. P. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 261–304 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Myerson, J., Green, L. & Warusawitharana, M. Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 76, 235–243 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Reed, D. D., Kaplan, B. A. & Brewer, A. T. A tutorial on the use of Excel 2010 and Excel for Mac 2011 for conducting delay-discounting analyses. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 45, 375–386 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burtch, G., Ghose, A. & Wattal, S. An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Inf. Syst. Res. 24, 499–519 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rachlin, H. & Locey, M. A behavioral analysis of altruism. Behav. Processes 87, 25–33 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Small, D. A. & Loewenstein, G. Helping a victim or helping the victim: altrusim and identifiability. J. Risk Uncertain. 26, 5–16 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yamakawa, Y., Kanai, R., Matsumura, M. & Naito, E. Social distance evaluation in human parietal cortex. PLoS ONE 4, (2009).

  29. Bogardus, E. S. Measurement of personal-group relations. Sociometry 10, 306–311 (1947).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Parkinson, C., Liu, S. & Wheatley, T. A common cortical metric for spatial, temporal, and social distance. J. Neurosci. 34, 1979–1987 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis, M. H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 44, 113–126 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lilienfeld, S. O. & Widows, M. Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised: Professional Manual (Psychological Assessment Resources, 2005).

  33. Hayes, A. F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Guilford Press, 2013).

  34. Philippe Rushton, J., Chrisjohn, R. D. & Cynthia Fekken, G. The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2, 293–302 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Takahashi, T. Non-reciprocal altruism may be attributable to hyperbolicity in social discounting function. Med. Hypotheses 68, 184–187 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Margittai, Z. et al. A friend in need: time-dependent effects of stress on social discounting in men. Horm. Behav. 73, 75–82 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Henderson, A. J. Z. et al. The living anonymous kidney donor: lunatic or saint? Am. J. Transplant. 3, 203–213 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C. & Neuberg, S. L. Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: when one into one equals oneness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 481–494 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Batson, C. D. et al. Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 413–426 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hrdy, S. B. Mothers and Others (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Burkart, J. M. et al. The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation. Nat. Commun. 5, 4747 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Singer, P. The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (Princeton Univ. Press, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. Innovation in the collective brain. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150192 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. U.S. and World Population Clock (United States Census Bureau, accessed 16 November 2016); http://www.census.gov/popclock/

  45. Locey, M. L., Jones, B. A. & Rachlin, H. Real and hypothetical rewards in self-control and social discounting. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6, 522–564 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Madden, G. J., Begotka, A. M., Raiff, B. R. & Kastern, L. L. Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 11, 139–145 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rachlin, H. & Jones, B. A. Altruism among relatives and non-relatives. Behav. Processes 79, 120–123 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2nd edn (Pearson Inc., 2004).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. M. Veatch and L. Brigham for their assistance with this project, which was supported by a Templeton Positive Neuroscience Award and Templeton Award #47861 to A.A.M. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We also thank the participants who contributed their time and energy to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, 20057, DC, USA.

    Kruti M. Vekaria, Elise M. Cardinale & Abigail A. Marsh

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 19104, Pennsylvania, USA.

    Kristin M. Brethel-Haurwitz

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 90089, California, USA.

    Sarah A. Stoycos

Authors
  1. Kruti M. Vekaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristin M. Brethel-Haurwitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elise M. Cardinale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah A. Stoycos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abigail A. Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.A.M. developed the study concept. E.M.C. contributed to the study design. Testing and data collection were performed by K.M.B.-H., E.M.C., and S.A.S. K.M.V. performed the data analysis and interpretation under the supervision of A.A.M. K.M.V. and A.A.M. drafted the manuscript, and K.M.B.-H., E.M.C. and S.A.S. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kruti M. Vekaria.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, Supplementary Figures 1 and 2, Supplementary References. (PDF 251 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vekaria, K., Brethel-Haurwitz, K., Cardinale, E. et al. Social discounting and distance perceptions in costly altruism. Nat Hum Behav 1, 0100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0100

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0100

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing