Back to feed
Product
More
Legal
© 2026Daily24.All rights reserved.
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."
Testing people's choices when outcomes are uncertainAs 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.
"So, their own payoff was certain, but the other person's was only known as a range," explained Vollberg. "After choosing, participants estimated what the other person had received, and what they would have received under the other option, with a bonus for accurate guesses. The key feature of this design is that systematic deviations from the middle of the range can be interpreted as a distortion."
The researchers carried out several variants of this online experiment. Collectively, these versions allowed them not only to document distortions in the participants' estimates but also to shed some light on the psychological processes behind the observed patterns.
"We tested whether distortions appear before a choice is made, whether they persist when people are assigned a choice rather than making it freely, and whether people distort in the same way when they themselves are on the receiving end of an uncertain payoff," said Vollberg.
"In further experiments, we showed the distorted estimates to observers, who rated how trustworthy the chooser seemed, and to new participants, who saw a previous participant's estimates before making their own choice. That last step let us measure whether distortions influence other people."
Vollberg and Gross found that both selfish and prosocial choosers tended to describe the outcome of their decision in ways that made them look better. People who made the selfish choice inflated its benefit to the other person while downplaying the benefit of the alternative, making the two options seem more similar and their choice appear less costly to others.
On the other hand, people who made the prosocial choice tended to exaggerate how much better their decision was for the other person. In some cases, they also inflated their prediction of what the other person would have received under the choice they had rejected, making their relative sacrifice seem larger.
"You might think that we are just documenting how people justify the choices they already made," said Vollberg. "However, the distortions also appeared before people chose, and under forced choice they tracked what people would have chosen freely rather than what they were forced to choose."
The researchers also found that when the uncertain payoff was that of the participants, rather than someone else's, their choices did not reflect the distortions they had reported for others. This hints at a double standard. In a separate experiment, the observed distortion patterns appeared to make choosers appear more trustworthy to observers who were told the participants' estimates were the true outcomes of the experiment.
"Only the selfish-serving distortion was contagious: people who saw it adopted it and chose the selfish option more often, whereas the prosocial-serving distortion did not sway others," said Vollberg. "Fewer than one in 10 participants produced the selfish-serving pattern. But if that pattern spreads more readily than the prosocial one, a small minority can shift how a whole group behaves."
Possible implications for understanding people's behaviorThis study offers insights that could guide behavioral science interventions. For instance, the team's findings suggest that disagreements about climate action, consumption, foreign aid or social welfare may arise not only from different values but also from people's interpretations of an issue's consequences.
"These disagreements could arise not only in how people value different outcomes, but in what they interpret the outcome to be," said Vollberg. "As our experiments are deliberately abstract and our participants were mostly U.S.-based, how exactly these distortions play out in specific domains and other cultures remains to be seen. One of the key open questions is why only the selfish-serving distortion spreads."
One possible explanation for why selfish-serving distortion spreads is that people find it easier to accept explanations that support what they already want to do than those encouraging them to change their behavior. For instance, an explanation such as "taking a flight has no impact" does not require a listener to change their behavior. This could be easier to accept than "your donation does a lot of good," which implicitly suggests that donating is the right thing to do. This hypothesis could be tested in future studies.
"From this perspective, it is less about how convincing each kind of distortion is than about what it would cost to follow it," added Vollberg.
"Beyond that, we would like to test distortions and their contagion in applied settings such as consumption and charitable giving, with more diverse samples, and to look at social judgments beyond trustworthiness. Critically, understanding why the asymmetry exists is also what would tell us where to intervene."
Written for you by our author Ingrid Fadelli, edited by Sadie Harley, and fact-checked and reviewed by Robert Egan—this article is the result of careful human work. We rely on readers like you to keep independent science journalism alive. If this reporting matters to you, please consider a donation (especially monthly). You'll get an ad-free account as a thank-you.
Publication detailsMarius C. Vollberg et al., Selfish and prosocial individuals both distort their actions' impact, but selfish distortions can be more contagious, Nature Human Behaviour (2026). DOI: 10.1038/s41562-026-02585-3.
Who's behind this story?
Ingrid FadelliFreelance journalist with BSc Psychology and MA International Journalism. Covers AI, robotics, neuroscience, and astrophysics since 2018. Full profile →
Sadie HarleyBSc Life Sciences & Ecology. Microbiology lab background with pharmaceutical news experience in oil, gas, and renewable industries. Full profile →
Robert EganBachelor's in mathematical biology, Master's in creative writing. Well-traveled with unique perspectives on science and language. Full profile →
© 2026 Science X Network
Citation: Both selfishness and generosity distort how we see our impact, but the selfish view is more contagious (2026, October 26) retrieved 26 October 2026 from https://phys.org/news/2026-10-selfishness-generosity-distort-impact-selfish.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.