A prosocial action typically provides a more sizable benefit when directed at those who have less as opposed to those who have more. However, not all prosocial acts have a direct bearing on socioeconomic disadvantage, nor does disadvantage necessarily imply a greater need for the prosocial outcome. Of interest here, welfare impact may depend on the number of beneficiaries but not on their socioeconomic status. Across four preregistered studies of life-saving decisions, we demonstrate that when allocating resources, many people are benevolently partial. That is, they choose to help the disadvantaged even when this transparently implies sacrificing lives. We suggest that people construct prosocial aid as an opportunity to correct morally aversive inequalities, thusmaking relativelymore disadvantaged recipients amore justifiable target of help. Benevolent partiality is reduced when people reflect beforehand on what aspects they will prioritize in their donation decision.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Altruism, Consequentialism, Distributive justice, Inequality, Prosocial preferences
Persistent URL hdl.handle.net/1765/126676
Journal Judgment and Decision Making
Citation
Paolacci, G, & Yalcin, G. (Gizem). (2020). Fewer but poorer: Benevolent partiality in prosocial preferences. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 173–181. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/126676