Prosocial Gains and Losses: Modulations of Human Social Decision-Making by Loss-Gain Context

Abstract

The role of the loss-gain context in human social decision-making remains heavily debated, with mixed evidence showing that losses (vs. gains) boost both selfish and prosocial motivations. Herein, we propose that the loss context, compared to the gain context, exacerbates intuitive reactions in response to the conflict between self-interest and prosocial preferences, regardless of whether those dominant responses are selfish or altruistic. We then synthesize evidence from three lines of research to support the account, which indicates that losses may either enhance or inhibit altruistic behaviors depending on the dominant responses in the employed interactive economic games, prosocial/proself traits, and the explicit engagement of deliberative processes. The current perspective contributes to the ongoing debate on the association between loss-gain context and human prosociality by putting forward a theoretical framework to integrate previous conflicting perspectives.

Loss context enhances preferences for generosity but reduces preferences for honesty: Evidence from a combined behavioural‐computational approach

“…Taken together, the current findings, complementing several lines of previous research, provide support to the idea that the modulation of loss context on human prosociality might be implemented through facilitating intuitive responses in the task at hand, regardless of whether these reactions are prosocial or proself (Feng et al., 2021). This hypothesis provides a reconciliation for the apparently mixed evidence on the relationship between losses and human prosocial preferences as well as previous accounts of the do‐no‐harm principle and the prospect theory.…”

“…Taken together, the current findings, complementing several lines of previous research, provide support to the idea that the modulation of loss context on human prosociality might be implemented through facilitating intuitive responses in the task at hand, regardless of whether these reactions are prosocial or proself (Feng et al, 2021).…”

“…In this regard, the current findings provide evidence showing that loss context (vs. gain context) could have differential effects for different prosocial preferences. These findings support a new account under the framework of the dual process model, which holds that losses facilitate intuitive responses independent of whether they are prosocial or prosocial (Feng et al, 2021). That is, people might be predisposed towards self-interest in some tasks but are intuitively prosocial in other tasks, and the loss context facilitates those dominant or intuitive reactions regardless of whether they are prosocial or proself.…”

“…In light of the dual process framework, the apparently discrepant relationship between losses and prosociality could be attributed to different intuitive (i.e., either proself or prosocial) responses in the interactive games utilized for measuring distinct social preferences, given that loss‐induced bias in decision‐making is relevant to intuitive and emotional processes (Slovic et al., 2007; Sokol‐Hessner et al., 2009, 2013). That is, people might be predisposed towards self‐interests in some games but are intuitively prosocial in other games, and the loss context facilitates those reflexive reactions regardless of whether they are proself or prosocial (Feng et al., 2021). In this regard, it was expected that loss context compared to gain context would enhance generosity but reduce honesty, given previous evidence showing that generosity is intuitive while honesty requires deliberation (Bereby‐Meyer & Shalvi, 2015; Zaki & Mitchell, 2013).…”

Common and distinct equity preferences in children and adults

“…Moreover, fairness-related behaviors are modulated by loss-gain frame, such that individuals frequently show higher levels of fairness preferences in the loss frame than gain frame ( Feng et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2023 ). In particular, individuals propose more generous offers ( Neumann et al, 2017 ; Yin et al, 2017 ; Thunström, 2019 ; Cochard et al, 2020 ), demand more equal offers from others, and are more likely to reject unfair offers ( Camerer et al, 1993 ; Zhou and Wu, 2011 ; Guo et al, 2013 ) in the loss frame than in the gain frame.…”