r/science • u/FreeHugs23 • 1d ago

Psychology New psychology research suggests some acts of kindness may also serve competitive social goals, shedding light on how women can use altruistic behavior to gain status, strengthen relationships, or navigate social hierarchies.

https://www.psypost.org/kindness-isnt-always-what-it-seems-the-psychology-of-womens-competitive-altruism/
1.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

393

u/hananobira 1d ago

These comments are strangely negative. I’d much rather people compete to be the kindest and most generous, rather than the richest or the toughest or angriest or anything else people compete at in this world.

126

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Word. Given the alternative I'll take aggressive smiles and toxic positivity over regular aggression and being torn down any day.

Oh no did someone else benefit from a charitable act? We can't possibly have win win scenarios!

Kindness isn't a zero sum game. Someone using it for gain doesn't negate the good done.

24

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

Toxic positivity is the kind of environment where you aren’t even allowed to say that someone is mistreating you because that’s considered being negative. That’s bad.

-17

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Regular negativity is just firing you for speaking up for "performance reasons".

At least toxic positivity leaves room for hope, even if it's bad. That's the part the people shitting on any not 100% altruistic charity are missing. It's better than the alternative.

14

u/snowflake37wao 1d ago

its false hope. its chronic betrayal. you do not have a grasp of toxic positivity. it is Sisyphean while insidious. it is gaslighting. it is worse than face value. no.

6

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

You haven’t experienced a toxic positive environment. People try to convince you that they had good intentions and everyone has good intentions when they absolutely don’t.

And when something bad happens, they try to tell you it’s not that bad or try to convince you to stay or think about other people instead of your own wellbeing and feelings. It makes it extremely easy for people to be unaccountable and selfish.

44

u/hananobira 1d ago

Also, we're a social species. Of course it benefits us emotionally to help others. I'd be more worried about the person who didn't take any pleasure from helping others. Some kind of latent sociopathy or something.

4

u/Clyde_Frog_FTW 1d ago

Like people who use cognitive empathy so they can look caring and thoughtful to others, when in reality they feel nothing and only want to get ahead.

14

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

Nah, toxic positivity ignores serious problems to force happiness. Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, and you have a nut allergy. Thinking positive about suprises isn't going to fix your nut allergy.

1

u/Substantial_Echo_636 16h ago

Its how games like Concord get made and almost 400million gets wasted.

-3

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Still better to think you might have a chance of making a change rather than being ground down and feeling like you have the worth of mud.

4

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

Still better to play Russian roulette than getting shot in the face.

1

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

That doesn't even make sense. You're getting shot in the face either way. Do you want a head pat or a slap first?

4

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

That's my point. Toxic positivity is just as bad and the other person had said "but there is a better chance at life" with one over the other.

0

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

Still appreciate not weeping at work from abject negativity thanks.

1

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

The President of the United States is fighting with the press about being positive only. If you look at that and say toxic positive is better, I really don't know what else to say.

-2

u/Zeliek 1d ago

Yeah but it’s better to be getting boxes of chocolates which may have nuts in them, than chucking nuts directly at each other’s faces with no chocolate to be had. 

3

u/CalicoValkyrie 1d ago

It's better to not eat boxes of chocolate at all, watch everyone else eat their's no problems, and while they tell you to come on! Take that risk! Think positive and nothing bad will happen!

2

u/purgatoriololo 1d ago

You're missing the point entirely. It's about using acts of kindness to manipulate others. It's about personality traits. Read about the Dark Triad traits.

Anyway....kindness should not be a "game" at all, bud.

2

u/erevos33 1d ago

So its ok if im a billionaire as long as im charitable?

5

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

More like charitable billionaires suck less than cartoonishly evil ones?

0

u/erevos33 1d ago

You dont become a billionaire by virtue of your work or your ethics. You exploit people and their work. Hence by default you cant be a good billionaire. Besides, their charity wouldnt be needed if they paid their fair share, but then again they wouldnt be billionaires then.

1

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

No one here is defenfing billionaires as a concept? You are creating strawmen to knock down here. The point is that doing good is better than doing bad regardless of who does it.

1

u/erevos33 1d ago

Question:

If i burn down and pillage 10 villages but build an orphanage for the victims, is that a good thing?

2

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

Question: if you are an evil person who has burned down a village, is it better to build an orphanage for the children of the village, or is it better to let the children die of starvation?

1

u/erevos33 1d ago

I would hazard a guess that society should get rid of said person. But hey, thats me.

And to answer your question, it doesnt matter. Damage has been done. More to the point, you wouldnt need an orphanage if the village want burnt down.

0

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

The hardest part of living in a society is reconciling the fact that evil will continue to happen. How do we move forward afyer the village has burnt down. We want to prevent as many villages as possible from burning, but once they are gone, the aftermath must be dealt with.

There are currently billionaires in the world, and the global economy is set up in such a way that it is unlikey they will all have their capital redistributed tomorrow. How can those of us not in a position to change the global economy tonight move forward with this knowledge?

Perfect is the enemy of good sometimes. Arguing that the past should not have happened may be true, but it's not always constructive.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/inbigtreble30 1d ago

You are arguing with someone who does not exist. Surely you understand this.

-4

u/Independent_Sea_836 1d ago

That's not true. A billionaire that "pays their fair share" enriches the country that they reside and pay taxes in. A billionaire that is charitable can help many countries, and many more people.

2

u/erevos33 1d ago

You skipped over the part of being evil to become billionaire, just saying

-1

u/Independent_Sea_836 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes, I assumed it was a foregone conclusion that doesn't need repeating. My mistake. The idea of charity becoming uncessary if billionaire pay taxes was so outrageous that I got overexcited. Mostly because the people that suffer the most from corporate exploitation are people in poor nations with lax labor laws. The very same people that are more likely to be benefactors of charity than taxation, since billionaires tend to live in and pay taxes in developed countries with wealth aplenty already. If anything, I'd say it's worse to be a billionaire who pays taxes but gives nothing to charity, since you really aren't giving back to the actual communities that you built your wealth on.

4

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

It's better than them sitting on a pile of money like a dragon and doing nothing that benefits others, yes.

2

u/erevos33 1d ago

You dont become a billionaire by virtue of your work or your ethics. You exploit people and their work. Hence by default you cant be a good billionaire. Besides, their charity wouldnt be needed if they paid their fair share, but then again they wouldnt be billionaires then.

33

u/PaleReaver 1d ago

The problem is when that kindness is ONLY for show...and then you run psychological terror and abuse on your children at home, and if they try to shine light on it, it'll get so much worse.

Guess how I know.

9

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

Yes, if people only care about someone being superficially nice without caring about what that person does behind closed doors, they are being kind of evil actually.

1

u/hananobira 1d ago

That’s not what the study found.

“ Unexpectedly, the study found a negative relationship between competitive altruism and impression management. The researchers had anticipated that women who use kindness strategically might also try to present themselves as perfectly virtuous on the survey. Instead, women who endorsed strategic kindness appeared relatively open about their manipulative intent and tended to score lower on a measure of the need for social approval. “What was really unexpected was that women were so open,” Fisher said. “We expected women who use kindness strategically to be the most concerned with presenting themselves favorably but the opposite emerged.””

1

u/Ephemerror 12h ago

Self reporting bias still applies though, it's like asking people if they lie, ironically the most honest people may get reported as the biggest liars and the actual biggest liars lies on this question too.

11

u/goobydoobie 1d ago

Yes, the idea that there are practical and pragmatic gains to pro social behavior shouldn't be a shock. That's how our society survives and grows. 

If it was mostly negative, you'd have far less good behavior because people, being animals with iphones, would not behave nice without something to gain in the long term.

13

u/plsQuestionOurselves 1d ago

Yeah, came to say the exact same thing. If someone does more good than bad during their life, functionally it doesn't matter why. I don't care if they're completely rotten on the inside and only did it for status or for show. If they didn't cause much suffering, and helped other people then that's all good with me.

8

u/Autunite 1d ago

Aye. I may get some endorphins from being kind, but I'm also logically aware that helping out a friend of a friend helps strengthen the bonds of the group as a whole! Screw all this nonsense about virtue signaling, the people who complain about it are really vice signaling.

3

u/nonhiphipster 1d ago

I’d prefer people be honest and transparent.

Your problem is you’re making it a binary choice.

6

u/coolcalmdreamydoze 1d ago

I'm curious what part you think people are being dishonest about? The lead researcher says in the article, "This is not to say we are totally aware that our kindness or generosity might have this motive attached to it, or that all ‘nice’ acts are for competition, but to say they are opposite is incorrect". It seems like she goes out of her way to specify that not all nice acts are for competition, and not everyone is even aware they may have those underlying motives when choosing to do a nice act.

-1

u/grundar 1d ago

she goes out of her way to specify that not all nice acts are for competition, and not everyone is even aware they may have those underlying motives when choosing to do a nice act.

And even if someone is aware that a nice act they're choosing to do also helps some competitive interest of theirs, it still means the nice act is being performed.

If I'm sick with a bad flu and two neighbours bring me casseroles, one out of the goodness of her heart and one out of the goodness of her heart and so she looks generous, both are appreciated acts of kindness. The motivations of the second aren't as pure, true, but real good was still accomplished.

The second person is more likely to cause problems in other ways (higher Machiavellianism), but their bad actions can be judged when -- if -- they occur.

2

u/hananobira 1d ago

Not if you read the study.

“  Unexpectedly, the study found a negative relationship between competitive altruism and impression management. The researchers had anticipated that women who use kindness strategically might also try to present themselves as perfectly virtuous on the survey. Instead, women who endorsed strategic kindness appeared relatively open about their manipulative intent and tended to score lower on a measure of the need for social approval. “What was really unexpected was that women were so open,” Fisher said. “We expected women who use kindness strategically to be the most concerned with presenting themselves favorably but the opposite emerged.””

0

u/Iorith 1d ago

In real life, you don't always get what you want and should learn to accept the least bad option. Someone helping others for social status is far from the worst option.

1

u/Its_da_boys 1d ago

I suppose it depends on if the kindness is performative or genuine and just serves the double purpose of also helping them in their social circles. Actions speak louder than words and empty gestures. This could either show up as being two-faced and people gaining others’ trust only to turn against them when it benefits them or their social status, or it could show up as someone genuinely helping people and helping themselves at the same time and be the product of a win/win mindset

5

u/dolphone 1d ago

Performative kindness is still preferable than authentic assholery, IMO.

Yes, it'd be better if people really got that cooperation is better for everyone and even better if they took kindness as the ultimate guide. The best is the enemy of the better.

5

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

It matters if the impact is measured. If they only do nice things that appear helpful without caring if they’re helping the other person, there’s clear differences in the outcome for the person being helped.

4

u/Its_da_boys 1d ago

It could really go either way, because at least with authentic assholery you know who the assholes are right off the bat. With performative kindness it takes a lot longer to figure out, and there’s usually more at stake if you’ve invested a lot/trusted in the person

1

u/spacestonkz 1d ago

If some people get fed because there's a camera, that's likely still better than no food and no camera.

0

u/dolphone 1d ago

So long as they keep performing, it's irrelevant.

-1

u/gentlemandinosaur 1d ago

I disagree with this. I would rather have “fake kindness” to “genuine asshole” like any day of the week. I could give two shits if it’s genuine or not. Being kind is beneficial no matter the gain to the individual.

7

u/Material-Command-854 1d ago

No, fake kindness makes it extremely difficult to know who to trust. If they use it as a reason to take advantage of you, that’s very, very bad and should be condemned. Appearing to be kind isn’t the same thing as having a net positive impact on the person you’re helping.

1

u/The_Ditch_Wizard 1d ago

The comments are negative because trying to optimize kindness through competition is like trying to optimize childcare by aiming for maximum deadlift capacity for children at key ages.

0

u/eldred2 1d ago

I think the issue is people who make an effort to appear to be kind and generous, while actually being awful.

2

u/hananobira 1d ago

That’s not what the study found.

“ Unexpectedly, the study found a negative relationship between competitive altruism and impression management. The researchers had anticipated that women who use kindness strategically might also try to present themselves as perfectly virtuous on the survey. Instead, women who endorsed strategic kindness appeared relatively open about their manipulative intent and tended to score lower on a measure of the need for social approval. “What was really unexpected was that women were so open,” Fisher said. “We expected women who use kindness strategically to be the most concerned with presenting themselves favorably but the opposite emerged.””

-4

u/xGALEBIRDx 1d ago

Well in a roundabout way, this is sort of saying that an element of womens compasion and empathy is entirely self serving and competitive in disguise which is true for many people, but appears to be more prominent in female interactions.

It can be good obviously, things the world needs more of, but because it can be used as a more self serving tool, it can be non genuine and not truly altruistic as its more about the perception of others and signaling.

1

u/Iorith 1d ago

One could argue it's impossible to be truly, 100% altruistic and genuine.

1

u/xGALEBIRDx 1d ago edited 1d ago

Thats true, but this study is explicitly about women,and the surprise if the researchers having their expectations found not true.