This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: People can sometimes make decisions that benefit them but are less advantageous for someone else. In these scenarios, they might convince themselves that their choice causes little harm to others or that an alternative would not make much of a difference.
The same can happen in reverse, as people who act generously may overstate how much good the outcomes of their choices did for others. Researchers at the University of Zurich recently carried out a study investigating the possibility that people could use this ambiguity, particularly when the outcomes of a decision are uncertain, to portray their actions more favorably. Their findings, published in Nature Human Behaviour, suggest that when outcomes are uncertain, people's interpretations can favor what they want to do, regardless of whether their choices prioritize themselves or others.
"In public and private discourse, actions often come with a moral label: taking the train is 'better' than flying, paying extra for fair-trade products is 'better' than buying the cheapest option," Marius C. Vollberg, first author of the paper, told Phys.org. "What struck me is that people often describe the consequences of their actions with great confidence, even though the exact consequences are usually unknown.
Someone who flew may claim it made no difference; someone who took the train may claim it did a lot of good." The team's study originated when Vollberg met his co-author Jörg Gross at a conference held by the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences. At the event, Gross presented work on the idea of "moral wiggle room," which suggests that people can use their ignorance of social consequences to act selfishly. "At the time, the debates about whether to stay on or leave a certain social media platform were everywhere, and, as with so many debates, it seemed like neither side evaluated the consequences objectively," said Vollberg.
"Most research had focused on distortions that excuse selfishness. But I was curious whether the prosocial side distorts too, in what direction, and what these distortions do to the people exposed to them." As part of their new study, Vollberg and Gross carried out nine online experiments involving 8,769 participants, most of whom were living in the U.S. The main task that participants completed was built around one simple choice.
People could choose between a selfish option and one that benefited another at a cost to themselves. If they made the selfish decision, they received seven points and another participant received between one and three points. If they selected the prosocial one, they received five points, while the other received between three and five points.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
