Cognitive abstraction increases prosociality when loyalty is valued lowly, but decreases prosociality when loyalty is valued highly.

IF 3.8 2区综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

Scientific Reports Pub Date : 2025-07-04 DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-09158-w

Gijs van Houwelingen, Marius van Dijke

{"title":"Cognitive abstraction increases prosociality when loyalty is valued lowly, but decreases prosociality when loyalty is valued highly.","authors":"Gijs van Houwelingen, Marius van Dijke","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-09158-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many studies show that people donate more to charitable causes that are presented in concrete (vs. abstract) terms; yet other research suggests that cognitive abstraction (vs. concreteness) encourages prosocial behavior. We propose that abstract cognition facilitates prosocial behavior among people who lowly value loyalty (i.e., those who value impartiality); concrete cognition should facilitate prosocial behaviors among people who highly value loyalty. Across three experiments and one cross-sectional survey in which we operationalize cognitive abstraction (vs. concreteness), valuing loyalty, and prosocial behavior in different ways, we consistently find that abstraction facilitates prosocial behaviors among people who lowly value loyalty. In two of the four studies, we also find that concreteness facilitates prosocial behavior among people who highly value loyalty. These findings help resolve theoretical ambiguity about the cognitive underpinnings of prosociality, and they have important practical implications for optimal framing of charity appeals to potential donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"23869"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09158-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many studies show that people donate more to charitable causes that are presented in concrete (vs. abstract) terms; yet other research suggests that cognitive abstraction (vs. concreteness) encourages prosocial behavior. We propose that abstract cognition facilitates prosocial behavior among people who lowly value loyalty (i.e., those who value impartiality); concrete cognition should facilitate prosocial behaviors among people who highly value loyalty. Across three experiments and one cross-sectional survey in which we operationalize cognitive abstraction (vs. concreteness), valuing loyalty, and prosocial behavior in different ways, we consistently find that abstraction facilitates prosocial behaviors among people who lowly value loyalty. In two of the four studies, we also find that concreteness facilitates prosocial behavior among people who highly value loyalty. These findings help resolve theoretical ambiguity about the cognitive underpinnings of prosociality, and they have important practical implications for optimal framing of charity appeals to potential donors.

查看原文本刊更多论文

当忠诚被低估时，认知抽象会增加亲社会性，而当忠诚被高估时，认知抽象会降低亲社会性。

许多研究表明，人们更多地捐赠给具体（相对于抽象）的慈善事业；然而，其他研究表明，认知抽象（相对于具体）会鼓励亲社会行为。我们认为，抽象认知促进了忠诚度较低的人（即重视公正的人）的亲社会行为；具体认知应促进高度重视忠诚的人的亲社会行为。在三个实验和一个横断面调查中，我们以不同的方式操作认知抽象（相对于具体），重视忠诚和亲社会行为，我们一致发现抽象促进了低价值忠诚的人的亲社会行为。在四项研究中的两项中，我们还发现具体性促进了高度重视忠诚的人的亲社会行为。这些发现有助于解决亲社会性认知基础的理论歧义，并对潜在捐赠者的慈善诉求的最佳框架具有重要的实际意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

4.30%

发文量

19567

审稿时长

3.9 months

期刊介绍： We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.