*Social Rewards Protection Theory: Why People Morally Derogate Prosocial Actors for Undisclosed Personal Benefits

Sebastian Hafenbrädl

Psychological Science2026https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251398454article
AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Prosocial behavior is common and often socially rewarded (e.g., via liking, status, and trust). Yet prior research has found that if actors themselves also benefit from their prosocial behavior, then they are morally derogated: They are evaluated as worse than purely selfish actors. This tainted-altruism effect has been explained by the use of different counterfactuals for the evaluation of prosocial and selfish actors. Here I propose social rewards protection theory, which explains why evaluators use these different counterfactuals in the first place: Social rewards are treated as being reserved for costly prosocial actions. Claiming such rewards without incurring costs seems like cheating and thus deserves moral derogation. Accordingly, being transparent about the action's costs and benefits prevents such derogation. I conducted six experiments (five preregistered) with Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers in the United States and lab participants in Spain (total N = 4,732 adults). The findings provide support for the proposed functional explanation of tainted altruism, which also sheds light on related phenomena, such as overhead aversion and hypocrisy.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251398454

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sebastian2026,
  title        = {{*Social Rewards Protection Theory: Why People Morally Derogate Prosocial Actors for Undisclosed Personal Benefits}},
  author       = {Sebastian Hafenbrädl},
  journal      = {Psychological Science},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251398454},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

*Social Rewards Protection Theory: Why People Morally Derogate Prosocial Actors for Undisclosed Personal Benefits

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.