Nobody likes a do-gooder: Study confirms selfless behaviour is 'alienating'

[Svein Olav Nyberg]

Interesting study, but isn't using it as a credibility witness for 
egoism a bit like "Proof by Peer Pressure"?


Best regards,
		Svein Olav


At 14:52 +0200 26-08-10, David McDivitt wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1305716/Nobody-likes-gooder-Study-confirms-selfless-behaviour-alienating.html#ixzz0xbmhK0QL
>
>Nobody likes a do-gooder: Study confirms selfless behaviour is 'alienating'
>By Daily Mail Reporter
>Last updated at 1:31 AM on 25th August 2010
>
>
>They probably think their selfless behaviour makes them popular but the
>truth about 'do-gooders' is nobody really likes them, according to new
>research.
>
>A series of studies found that those who volunteer to take on unwanted tasks
>or who hand out gifts without being prompted, quickly alienate themselves.
>
>Psychologists believe this is because it makes the rest of us feel guilty
>and puts pressure on us to behave in an equally selfless fashion.
>
>Researchers say do-gooders come to be resented because they 'raise the bar'
>for what is expected of everyone.
>
>It suggests that people might want to think twice before waxing lyrical
>about their charity work or volunteering to put in extra hours at the
>office.
>
>Social psychologist Professor Craig Parks said: 'The fear is that this new
>standard will make everyone else look bad.
>
>'It doesn't matter that the overall welfare of the group is better served by
>someone's unselfish behaviour.
>
>'What is objectively good, we see as subjectively bad.
>
>'The do-gooders are also seen as deviant rule breakers. It's as if they're
>giving away Monopoly money so someone can stay in the game, irking other
>players no end.'
>
>Professor Parks, of Washington State University, carried out a series of
>four tests with groups of people which showed that do-gooders got people's
>backs up.
>
>In each case others reacted by wanting them thrown out of the group.
>
>Prof Parks added: 'It's perhaps not hard to think of examples of this but we
>were the first to show this happens and have explanations for why.'
>
>Parks led the research entitled 'The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members from
>the Group.'
>
>During the research, participants were handed an allocation of points they
>could keep or give up for an immediate reward of meal service vouchers.
>
>They were also told that giving up points would improve the group's chance
>of receiving a monetary reward to be shared between them.
>
>Generally those within the group would make seemingly fair swaps of one
>point for each voucher.
>
>However, in each group one was briefed to make lopsided exchanges - greedily
>giving up no points and taking a lot of vouchers or unselfishly giving up a
>lot of points and taking few vouchers.
>
>As expected, most participants later said they would not want to work with
>the greedy colleague again.
>
>But a majority of participants also said they would not want to work with
>the unselfish colleague again.
>
>Prof Parks added: 'They frequently said 'the person is making me look bad'
>or is breaking the rules.
>
>'Occasionally, they would suspect the person had ulterior motives.'  Further
>research is planned to look at how do-gooders themselves react to being
>rejected.
>
>While some may indeed have ulterior motives, Prof Parks said it's more
>likely they actually are working for the good of the wider group.
>
>He speculated that, once excluded from the group, they may simply give up.
>
>'But it's also possible,' he added, 'that they may actually try even
>harder.'
>
>The research is published in the current Journal of Personality and Social
>Psychology.
>
>--
>dgm
>_______________________________________________
>nonserviam mailing list
>nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
>http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam

-- 

Svein Olav Nyberg
http://i-studies.com/i/

   "Did you ever contribute anything to the
    happiness of Mankind?"

   "Yes, I myself have been happy!"

                 - John Henry Mackay