Altruistic decisions are central to civic engagement and humanitarian efforts. However, altruistic behavior is often context-dependent rather than consistent—the same individuals who act generously in one situation may behave selfishly in another. Here, we review research on this phenomenon, which we label reluctant altruism. We outline its various forms, from willful ignorance to the strategic avoidance of morally challenging decisions. We examine three key psychological drivers of reluctant altruism: (i) cognitive inattentiveness, (ii) guilt and self-image concerns, and (iii) shame and social-image concerns. We also review cross-cultural findings, highlighting robust evidence for willful ignorance across nations. Taken together, this literature offers a cautiously optimistic outlook: by thoughtfully designing decision-making environments, we can encourage reluctant individuals to act altruistically.

Abstract: People give more to a person in need when this person’s identity is known. Such altruistic behaviors may arise from a genuine concern for the person, leading people to give. Alternatively, altruistic behavior may also arise from one’s attempt to reduce the guilt of not giving, leading people to give in. Is the increased altruism toward an identified (vs. unidentified) charity recipient driven by a genuine concern for the person or by guilt? The current registered report addressed this question in two experiments (N = 3,671), in which participants made allocation decisions in transparent vs. ambiguous settings with a predetermined (versus undetermined; Study 1) or an identified (versus unidentified; Study 2) child in need as the recipient. Consistent with our pre-registered hypothesis, results revealed that participants gave significantly less to undetermined/unidentified children in an ambiguous, compared with a transparent setting. However, in contrast to our predictions, predetermined/identified children did not receive more than undetermined/unidentified children in transparent settings in which they know how their choice impacts the children. Accordingly, the predicted interaction between identification and ambiguity was not significant. Exploratory analyses revealed that participants who willingly resolve the ambiguity surrounding the impact of their choice gave more compared to those who were given transparent information by default. The results suggest that some people give in when making their donation decisions, but the tendency to give in is independent of whether the recipient is identified or not.

Abstract: People sometimes avoid information about the impact of their actions as an excuse to be selfish. Such “willful ignorance” reduces altruistic behavior and has detrimental effects in many consumer and organizational contexts. We report the first meta-analysis on willful ignorance, testing the robustness of its impact on altruistic behavior and examining its underlying motives. We analyze 33,603 decisions made by 6,531 participants in 56 different treatment effects, all employing variations of an experimental paradigm assessing willful ignorance. Meta-analytic results reveal that 40% of participants avoid easily obtainable information about the consequences of their actions on others, leading to a 15.6-percentage-point decrease in altruistic behavior compared to when information is provided. We discuss the motives behind willful ignorance and provide evidence consistent with excuse-seeking behaviors to maintain a positive self-image. We investigated the moderators of willful ignorance and address the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of our findings on who engages in willful ignorance, as well as when and why. 

Abstract: The sharing economy is fueled by trust, which allows strangers to cooperate. To share responsibly, one needs to be aware of the various consequences sharing has on interacting and third parties. When transparency about such consequences is lacking, mutual trust among interacting parties may encourage people to cooperate and share, in turn, creating unintended negative impacts. Psychologists have long studied trust and cooperation, yet few insights from psychological science have been used to understand the sharing economy. Here, we propose that evoking trust may paradoxically increase motivated information processing leading people to share irresponsibly by ignoring the negative consequences sharing has on others. We review three conditions under which evoking trust may lead to irresponsible sharing: ethical blind spots, willful ignorance, and misinformation. We propose that transparent information is key to enable and encourage responsible sharing. More psychological research is needed to better understand how this flourishing, trust-based industry can be shaped to encourage safe, cooperative, and responsible sharing.   

Abstract: ‘Finding the missing millions’ with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease became part of the Department of Health strategy for England in 2010. Targeted case-finding within primary care is one potential pro-active strategy, but currently little is known about the views of healthcare professionals on this approach. In this study, 36 healthcare professionals (12 GPs, 14 nurses, and 10 practice managers) from 34 UK practices participated in semi-structured telephone interviews about targeted case-finding. Interviews followed an interview guide, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using ‘Framework Approach’. Most of those interviewed practiced opportunistic case-finding. The main perceived barriers to wider case-finding programmes were the resource implications associated with running such programmes and identifying more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Financial incentives, support from specialist clinicians, and comprehensive guidance were viewed as facilitators. While targeted case-finding is conceptually accepted by primary care staff, scepticism surrounding (1) the value of identifying those with mild disease and (2) the availability of effective targeted case-finding methods, may lead some to favour an opportunistic approach. Key concerns were a lack of unequivocal evidence for the relative benefits vs. disadvantages of diagnosing patients earlier, and resource constraints in an already over-burdened system. Barriers to practical implementation of case-finding studies may be addressed with financial, human and educational resources, such as additional staff to undertake searches and perform spirometry tests, and practical and educational support from specialist teams.  

Abstract: Defaults are powerful: whereas wisely set defaults increase prosocial choices, poorly set defaults promote self-serving decisions. We propose a distracted-from-doing-good hypothesis: compared with distraction-free environments, distracting environments lead people to rely more on the default options, particularly self-serving ones. In a preregistered experiment, participants made repeated allocation decisions involving monetary trade-offs between personal gain and charity donations. We manipulated the default type (prosocial vs. self-serving), the presence (vs. absence) of distractions and measured individual differences in mind wandering and social value orientation. Results did not support the hypothesis but offered valuable insights: On average, participants were more likely than chance to accept prosocial defaults, and they accept more prosocial than self-serving defaults. We found evidence that some individuals use self-serving defaults to justify selfish decisions, particularly those with a prosocial orientation. Interestingly, the aggregate effects were driven by 60 percent of participants; the remaining 40 percent were uninfluenced by defaults, acting according to their social preferences. Individual differences in mind wandering—how easily one is distracted—further moderate the default effects. We discuss how the results inform our understanding of prosocial behaviors in combination with individual heterogeneity and how defaults are a good tool to promote overall prosociality.

Abstract: Blindfolding—selecting candidates based on objective selection tests while avoiding personal information about their race and gender— is commonly used to mitigate bias in selection. Selection tests, however, often benefit people of a certain race or gender. In such cases, selecting the best candidates requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, the biasing factor. Here, we examine people's preference for avoiding candidates’ race and gender, even when fully aware that these factors bias the selection test. We put forward a novel prediction suggesting that paradoxically, due to their fear of appearing partial, people would choose not to reveal race and gender information, even when doing so means making suboptimal decisions. We test the prediction in three experiments (N = 3,600) in which we have hiring professionals (and laypeople) select the best candidate for a position when they can learn the candidate’s race and gender, and measure how fear for their social image corresponds with their decision. We discuss how support for the prediction would theoretically inform both theories of information avoidance and image concerns. We further discuss the implications for discrimination research and hiring policies, particularly how ignoring the candidate’s race and gender protects one’s social image, but compromises choosing the best candidate.