Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour
Open accessAbstract
Uncertainty about how our choices will affect others infuses social life. Past research suggests uncertainty has a negative effect on prosocial behaviour 1-12 by enabling people to adopt self-serving narratives about their actions 1,13. We show that uncertainty does not always promote selfishness. We introduce a distinction between two types of uncertainty that have opposite effects on prosocial behaviour. Previous work focused on outcome uncertainty (uncertainty about whether or not a decision will lead to a particular outcome). However, as soon as people's decisions might have negative consequences for others, there is also impact uncertainty (uncertainty about how others' well-being will be impacted by the negative outcome). Consistent with past research 1-12, we found decreased prosocial behaviour under outcome uncertainty. In contrast, prosocial behaviour was increased under impact uncertainty in incentivized economic decisions and hypothetical decisions about infectious disease threats. Perceptions of social norms paralleled the behavioural effects. The effect of impact uncertainty on prosocial behaviour did not depend on the individuation of others or the mere mention of harm, and was stronger when impact uncertainty was made more salient. Our findings offer insights into communicating uncertainty, especially in contexts where prosocial behaviour is paramount, such as responding to infectious disease threats.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In hypothetical scenarios about deciding whether to go to work while sick, American and British participants reported they would be less willing to stay home when it was uncertain they would infect a co-worker.
“For instance, in hypothetical scenarios about deciding whether to go to work while sick, American and British participants reported they would be less willing to stay home when it was uncertain they would infect a co-worker.”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [176]
In the paper’s account of the infectious-disease scenario (Abstract; page not provided), participants facing uncertainty about how severely a co-worker might be affected were more likely to stay home than controls, not less. The paper distinguishes that impact uncertainty from uncertainty about whether a co-worker would be infected. Its Study 6 Methods (page not provided) describe recruitment through AMT, but do not establish the claimed American and British participant groups. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhen going to work risked infecting an elderly co-worker who would suffer a serious illness, participants reported they would be more willing to stay home.
“However, when going to work risked infecting an elderly co-worker who would suffer a serious illness, participants reported they would be more willing to stay home 176 .”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [176]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 44,563 · see citing works
Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149 · Cited by 37,615 · see citing works
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422 · Cited by 11,335 · see citing works
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996 · see citing works
Nagel, T. (1974) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2183914 · Cited by 7,440 · see citing works
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767 · see citing works
Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility
Harsanyi, J. C. (1955) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/257678 · Cited by 2,914 · see citing works
The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633 · Cited by 2,875 · see citing works
Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility
Harsanyi, J. C. (1980) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-9327-9_2 · Cited by 2,159 · see citing works
Lindley, D. V., & Savage, L. J. (1973) · The Mathematical Gazette · doi:10.2307/3615588 · Cited by 1,973 · see citing works
Engel, C. (2011) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7 · Cited by 1,823 · see citing works
The Neural Substrate of Human Empathy: Effects of Perspective-taking and Cognitive Appraisal
Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42 · Cited by 1,464 · see citing works
Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness
Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Kuang, J. X. (2007) · Economic Theory · doi:10.1007/s00199-006-0153-z · Cited by 1,445 · see citing works
Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects
(2009) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7384 · Cited by 1,081 · see citing works
Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G. F., & Slovic, P. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers
Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E. S., & Wendler, D. S. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.5.493 · Cited by 981 · see citing works
IDENTIFYING SOCIAL NORMS USING COORDINATION GAMES: WHY DOES DICTATOR GAME SHARING VARY?
Krupka, E. L., & Weber, R. A. (2013) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12006 · Cited by 975 · see citing works
The QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy
Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.528484 · Cited by 961 · see citing works
Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability
Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2003) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1022299422219 · Cited by 860 · see citing works
The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual?
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.492 · Cited by 797 · see citing works
Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty
Platt, M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2008) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn2062 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
Zhou, H., & Ayelet Fishbach, B. (2016) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000056 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Self-Serving Justifications: Doing Wrong and Feeling Moral
Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414553264 · Cited by 422 · see citing works
Shifting the Blame : On Delegation and Responsibility
Bartling, B., & Fischbacher, U. (2012) · KOPS (University of Konstanz) · doi:10.1093/restud/rdr023 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Self-Interest through Delegation: An Additional Rationale for the Principal-Agent Relationship
Hamman, J., Loewenstein, G. F., & Weber, R. A. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.4.1826 · Cited by 385 · see citing works
A fundamental prediction error: Self–others discrepancies in risk preference.
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.1.45 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making
Crockett, M. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z. L., Siegel, J. Z., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1408988111 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Self-citationExcusing Selfishness in Charitable Giving: The Role of Risk
Exley, C. L. (2015) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdv051 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions
Davis, H. L., Hoch, S. J., & Ragsdale, E. K. E. (1986) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209045 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?
Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Dictating the Risk: Experimental Evidence on Giving in Risky Environments
Brock, J., Lange, A., & Ozbay, E. Y. (2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.1.415 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J., Sarr, B., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2006) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00410.x · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior
Haisley, E. C., & Weber, R. A. (2009) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2009.08.002 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Poverty in dictator games: Awakening solidarity
Brañas‐Garza, P. (2005) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2004.10.005 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Why and how they are and should be made
Hammond, P. J. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139172387.008 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Risk Taking in Relationships: Differences in Deciding for Oneself Versus for a Friend
Beisswanger, A. H., Stone, E. R., Hupp, J. M., & Allgaier, L. (2003) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2502_3 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Identifying family members who may struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker*
Majesko, A., Hong, S. Y., Weissfeld, L. A., & White, D. B. (2012) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182533317 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Morality constrains the default representation of what is possible
Phillips, J., & Cushman, F. A. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1619717114 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players
Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., & Suleiman, R. (1990) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200603 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Exploiting moral wiggle room: Illusory preference for fairness? A comment
Larson, T., & Capra, C. M. (2009) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500004009 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
From Blame to Punishment: Disrupting Prefrontal Cortex Activity Reveals Norm Enforcement Mechanisms
Buckholtz, J. W., Martin, J. W., Treadway, M. T., Jan, K., Zald, D. H., Jones, O. D., & Marois, R. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.023 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Truth in giving: Experimental evidence on the welfare effects of informed giving to the poor
Fong, C. M., & Oberholzer‐Gee, F. (2010) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.10.017 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Attitudes toward private and collective risk in individual and strategic choice situations
Brennan, G., González, L. G., Güth, W., & Levati, M. V. (2007) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2007.02.001 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Third-Party Forgiveness: (Not) Forgiving Your Close Other's Betrayer
Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., & Davis, J. L. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167207311534 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Wise deliberation sustains cooperation
Grossmann, I., Brienza, J. P., & Bobocel, D. R. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0061 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Testing models of information avoidance with binary choice dictator games
Feiler, L. (2014) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2014.10.003 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Moral distance in dictator games
Aguiar, F., Brañas‐Garza, P., & Miller, L. (2008) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500000917 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Systematic Review: Individuals' Goals for Surrogate Decision‐Making
Kelly, B. C., Rid, A., & Wendler, D. S. (2012) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03937.x · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Overharvesting of resources of unknown size
Gustafsson, M., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1999) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00024-4 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Larson, T., & Capra, C. M. (2009) · Judgment and Decision Making · Cited by 72 · see citing works
de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van Dijk, E., Wit, A., et al. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167207307490 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF TIME AND RISK PREFERENCES: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Güth, W., Levati, M. V., & Ploner, M. (2007) · Economic Inquiry · doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00067.x · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Memory for flip-flopping: Detection and recollection of political contradictions
Putnam, A. L., Wahlheim, C. N., & Jacoby, L. L. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0419-9 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Risking Other People’s Money: Experimental Evidence on Bonus Schemes, Competition, and AltruismPreprint
Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J., & Wengström, E. (2013) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Who’s been framed? Framing effects are reduced in financial gambles made for others
Ziegler, F. V., & Tunney, R. J. (2015) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-015-0067-2 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
My Mug Is Valuable, But My Partner's Is Even More So: Economic Decisions for Close Others
Greenstein, M. J., & Xu, X. (2015) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1049347 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964 · see citing works
Self-citationWise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & Mobbs, D. (2020) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.200742 · Cited by 734 · see citing works
Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & mobbs, D. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/dz428 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
von Schenk, A., Klockmann, V., & Köbis, N. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231194949 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kappes, A., Nussberger, A.-M., Faber, N. S., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kappes, Andreas
- Crockett, Molly J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2018-07-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 573-580
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6639117
- OpenAlex
- W2851355811
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 19.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (204826/Z/16/Z, 104848/Z/14/Z, 104848, 204826)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Keywords
- outcome uncertainty, prosocial behavior, social norms, infectious disease threats, economic decision-making, uncertainty communication, perceived harm
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
