Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-19T23:21:52.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On cooperative libertines and wicked puritans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2023

Roger Giner-Sorolla Open the ORCID record for Roger Giner-Sorolla [Opens in a new window]  and
Simon Myers
Roger Giner-Sorolla
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK. [email protected] [email protected]; https://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/people/227/giner-sorolla-roger
Simon Myers
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK. [email protected] [email protected]; https://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/people/227/giner-sorolla-roger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Fitouchi et al. that self-denial is sometimes moralized to signal capacity for cooperation, but propose that a person's cooperative character is more precisely judged by willingness to follow cultural, group, and interpersonal goals, for which many rules can serve as proxies, including rules about abstention. But asceticism is not a moral signal if its aims are destructive, while indulging impulses in a culturally approved way can also signal cooperation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e306
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bago, B., Bonnefon, J.-F., & De Neys, W. (2021). Intuition rather than deliberation determines selfish and prosocial choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(6), 1081–1094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckholtz, J. W. (2015). Social norms, self-control, and the value of antisocial behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, D. M., Dana, J., & Newman, G. E. (2014). Giving versus giving in. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 505–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakroff, A., Russell, P. S., Piazza, J., & Young, L. (2017). From impure to harmful: Asymmetric expectations about immoral agents. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gai, P. J., & Bhattacharjee, A. (2022). Willpower as moral ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(8), 1999–2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2013). Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyle, B. G. (2017). Courage, cowardice, and Maher's misstep. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47(4), 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, M. L., & Haws, K. L. (2014). (Im) moral support: The social outcomes of parallel self-control decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathes, E. W., Lane, D. J., Helmers, B. R., Jamnik, M. R., Hendrickson, M., & Aleshire, B. (2017). The dark side of self-control: High self-control leads to better outcomes when engaging in bad behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 326–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitschke, J. P., Forbes, P. A., & Lamm, C. (2022). Does stress make us more – or less – prosocial? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute stress on prosocial behaviours using economic games. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 142, 104905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). People use self-control to risk personal harm: An intra-interpersonal dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 267–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Röseler, L., Ebert, J., Schütz, A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2021). The upsides and downsides of high self-control: Evidence for effects of similarity and situation dependency. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 17(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speer, S. P., Smidts, A., & Boksem, M. A. (2022). Cognitive control and dishonesty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(9), 796–808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uziel, L. (2018). The intricacies of the pursuit of higher self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uziel, L., & Hefetz, U. (2014). The selfish side of self-control. European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar