超越“多多益善”: 利他程度对道德评价的影响及调节机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0935

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

利他行为是一种有利于他人的积极行为, 但利他程度越高会被认为更道德吗?本研究基于社会视角下的利他, 通过7个系列研究(N = 1798)系统探讨了利他程度与道德评价之间的关系, 并深入揭示了其内部机制与边界条件。结果发现, 观察者对高度利他行为的道德评价反而低于中度利他行为, 教化功能感知起中介作用(研究1a、1b); 通过“操纵中介作为调节”的设计, 为教化功能感知的中介作用提供了因果证据(研究2a、2b); 自我不确定性调节了利他程度与教化功能感知之间的关系, 高自我不确定性会降低观察者对高度利他行为的教化功能感知, 进而降低道德评价(研究3、4); 跨实验的内部元分析进一步支持了研究结果的稳健性(研究5)。本研究揭示了新时代背景下利他行为与道德评价之间的复杂关系: 利他行为并非“多多益善”, 高度利他可能适得其反, 深化了对利他行为社会评价的理解, 并为推动社会和谐与道德建设提供了新的理论视角。

关键词: 利他行为, 道德评价, 教化功能, 自我不确定性

Abstract:

Moral evaluation involves assessing the goodness or wrongness of actions and personal qualities. While altruism—defined as actions intended to enhance the well-being of others, often through resource allocation—is generally valued, a societal perspective posits that altruistic actions are also expected to align with prevailing social norms. This study investigates a seemingly paradoxical phenomenon: highly altruistic behavior is occasionally judged as less moral than moderately altruistic behavior. Drawing on the social functionalist perspective, we propose that observers perceive highly altruistic behavior as possessing a weaker teaching function; that is, as being less effective in guiding social life and establishing beneficial behavioral norms, consequently leading to lower moral evaluations. Furthermore, self-uncertainty, which is a negative experience stemming from doubts regarding one’s important traits or the unpredictability of the external environment, can influence social cognition and, consequently, moral evaluations. This research explores the relationship between altruistic behavior and moral evaluation, examining the mediating role of teaching function perception and the moderating role of self-uncertainty, with the aim of fostering a deeper understanding of altruism and moral evaluation to promote societal harmony. Seven studies were conducted to test the hypothesized moderated mediation model. Initial scenario-based designs in Studies 1a (N = 272) and 1b (N = 296) explored the relationships among altruism degree, moral evaluation, and teaching function perception in monetary and temporal altruism contexts. Studies 2a (N = 313) and 2b (N = 377) employed a manipulating-of-mediating-as-a-moderator design to further test these causal relationships. Study 3 (N = 295) and Study 4 (N = 704) then examined the moderating effects of observers’ trait and state self-uncertainty, respectively. Finally, Study 5 (N = 1, 798) conducted an internal meta-analysis across all experiments, which provided robust validation of the overall model. Consistent with our hypotheses, we present converging evidence supporting the following propositions: (1) Highly altruistic behavior, compared to moderately altruistic behavior, consistently received lower moral evaluations, both for the behavior itself and for the actor; (2) Perceived teaching function mediated the relationship between altruism degree and moral evaluation, with highly altruistic behavior diminishing the perception of teaching function and consequently reducing moral evaluation; (3) Observers’ self-uncertainty moderated the relationship between the altruism degree and perceived teaching function, such that high self-uncertainty exacerbated the perception of reduced teaching function for highly altruistic behavior, whereas low self-uncertainty attenuated this effect; (4) The internal meta-analysis substantiated the robustness of the relationships among altruism degree, perceived teaching function, and moral evaluation across both monetary and temporal altruism contexts. Our findings offer several significant contributions to the literature: (1) The study provides novel empirical evidence supporting the societal perspective of altruism, demonstrating that moral evaluations are not only determined by altruistic intent but also shaped by social expectations, which consequently leads to lower evaluations of highly altruistic behavior; (2) The study identifies perceived teaching function as a critical mediator in the relationship between altruism degree and moral evaluation, which underscores the active role of individuals in shaping social norms through their moral judgments; (3) The study reveals the moderating role of self-uncertainty, which illustrates the dynamic interplay between individual characteristics and external social environments in shaping moral evaluations of altruism. These findings offer new avenues for understanding the complexities of altruism and moral evaluation, suggesting future research should explore these nuanced relationships across diverse contexts and behavioral domains.

Key words: altruistic behavior, moral evaluation, teaching function, self-uncertainty

中图分类号:

B849: C91

孙思捷, 赵欢欢, 皮乔, 张和云. (2026). 超越“多多益善”: 利他程度对道德评价的影响及调节机制. 心理学报, 58(5), 935-960.

SUN Sijie, ZHAO Huanhuan, PI Qiao, ZHANG Heyun. (2026). Beyond “The more the better”: The impact of altruism degree on moral evaluation and its moderating mechanism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(5), 935-960.

图/表 19

参考文献 65

[1]	Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 94-107. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94 pmid: 15641892
[2]	Anderson, R. A., Crockett, M. J., & Pizarro, D. A. (2020). A theory of moral praise. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(9), 694-703. doi: S1364-6613(20)30149-2 pmid: 32682732
[3]	Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340-345. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878 pmid: 20017063
[4]	Bai, F., Wu, W., & Bao, S. (2019, July). Moral but dominant: When do-gooders get derogated. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2019, No.1, p. 14563). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510:Academy of Management.
[5]	Berman, J. Z., & Silver, I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and reputation: When does doing good lead to looking good? Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 102-107. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.021 URL
[6]	Berry, Z., & Lucas, B. J. (2024). How much is enough? The relationship between prosocial effort and moral character judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(5), 659-678. doi: 10.1177/01461672221135954 URL
[7]	Bhogal, M. S., Farrelly, D., Galbraith, N., Manktelow, K., & Bradley, H. (2020). The role of altruistic costs in human mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 160, 109939. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109939 URL
[8]	Bocian, K., Baryla, W., Kulesza, W. M., Schnall, S., & Wojciszke, B. (2018). The mere liking effect: Attitudinal influences on attributions of moral character. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 9-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.007 URL
[9]	Bolderdijk, J. W., Brouwer, C., & Cornelissen, G. (2018). When do morally motivated innovators elicit inspiration instead of irritation? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2362. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02362 URL
[10]	Bykov, A. (2017). Altruism: New perspectives of research on a classical theme in sociology of morality. Current Sociology, 65(6), 797-813. doi: 10.1177/0011392116657861 URL
[11]	Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 141-156. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141 URL
[12]	Capraro, V., Jordan, J. J., & Tappin, B. M. (2021). Does observability amplify sensitivity to moral frames? Evaluating a reputation-based account of moral preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 94, 104103. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104103 URL
[13]	Carnes, N. C., Allmon, B., Alva, J., Cousar, K. A., & Varnam, Z. D. (2022). How morality signals, benefits, binds, and teaches. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104313. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104313 URL
[14]	Chen, J., Zhang, R., Yuan, J., & She, S. (2022). Antisocial punishment in the game. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(2), 436-448. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00436
	[陈璟, 张融, 袁佳琦, 佘升翔. (2022). 博弈中的反社会惩罚. 心理科学进展, 30(2), 436-448.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00436
[15]	Choi, E. U., & Hogg, M. A. (2020). Self-uncertainty and group identification: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(4), 483-501.
[16]	Chung, M., & Saini, R. (2022). Consumer self-uncertainty increases price dependency. Journal of Business Research, 140, 40-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.054 URL
[17]	Coombs, C. H., & Avrunin, G. S. (1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review, 84(2), 216-230. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.216 URL
[18]	Curry, O., S. (2016). Morality as cooperation:A problem- centred approach. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 27-51). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[19]	Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as- cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69. doi: 10.1086/701478 URL
[20]	Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smirnov, O. (2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature, 446(7137), 794-796. doi: 10.1038/nature05651
[21]	De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). The whys and whens of personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry, 20(4), 218-220. doi: 10.1080/10478400903333437 URL
[22]	Ellemers, N., Van Der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2019). The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 332-366. doi: 10.1177/1088868318811759 pmid: 30658545
[23]	Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x pmid: 17444920
[24]	Fu, P. (2023). Fu Peirong unscrambles the Analects (Rev. ed.). Beijing: Oriental Press.
	[傅佩荣. (2023). 傅佩荣解读论语 (修订版). 北京: 东方出版社.]
[25]	Ge, X. (2023). Experimentally manipulating mediating processes: Why and how to examine mediation using statistical moderation analyses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 109, 104507. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104507 URL
[26]	Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61-76. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393523 pmid: 26162116
[27]	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
[28]	Hedges, L. V., & Tipton, E. (2010). Meta-analysis. In Steptoe, A. et al. (Ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Medicine: Methods and Applications (pp. 909-921). New York, NY: Springer New York.
[29]	Ho, M. K., Cushman, F., Littman, M. L., & Austerweil, J. L. (2019). People teach with rewards and punishments as communication, not reinforcements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(3), 520-549. doi: 10.1037/xge0000569 URL
[30]	Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 69-126.
[31]	Hogg, M. A. (2009). Managing self-uncertainty through group identification. Psychological Inquiry, 20(4), 221-224. doi: 10.1080/10478400903333452 URL
[32]	Hogg, M. A. (2021). Self-uncertainty and group identification: Consequences for social identity, group behavior, intergroup relations, and society. In B.Gawronski (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 64, pp. 263-316). Academic Press.
[33]	Jiao, L., Xu, Y., Tian, Y., Guo, Z., & Zhao, J. (2022). The hierarchies of good and evil personality traits. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(7), 850-866. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00850
	[焦丽颖, 许燕, 田一, 郭震, 赵锦哲. (2022). 善恶人格的特质差序. 心理学报, 54(7), 850-866.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00850
[34]	Johnson, S. G., & Park, S. Y. (2021). Moral signaling through donations of money and time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 183-196. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.05.004 URL
[35]	Kappes, A., Nussberger, A. M., Faber, N. S., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(8), 573-580. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0372-x pmid: 31209312
[36]	Kawamura, Y., & Kusumi, T. (2020). Altruism does not always lead to a good reputation: A normative explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 104021. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104021 URL
[37]	Kawamura, Y., Ohtsubo, Y., & Kusumi, T. (2021). Effects of cost and benefit of prosocial behavior on reputation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 452-460. doi: 10.1177/1948550620929163 URL
[38]	Klein, N., & Epley, N. (2014). The topography of generosity: Asymmetric evaluations of prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2366-2379. doi: 10.1037/xge0000025 URL
[39]	Macdonnell, R., & White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 551-563.
[40]	Malle, B. F. (2021). Moral judgments. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 293-318. doi: 10.1146/psych.2021.72.issue-1 URL
[41]	Meng, X., & Moriguchi, Y. (2021). Neural basis for egalitarian sharing in five-to six-year-old children. Neuropsychologia, 154, 107787. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107787 URL
[42]	Miller, D. E. (2012). Utilitarianism and consequentialism. In Gaus, G. et al. (Ed.), The Routledge companion to social and political philosophy (pp. 329-341). Routledge.
[43]	Noguti, V., & Bokeyar, A. L. (2014). Who am I? The relationship between self‐concept uncertainty and materialism. International Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 323-333. doi: 10.1002/ijop.2014.49.issue-5 URL
[44]	Pfattheicher, S., & Böhm, R. (2018). Honesty-humility under threat: Self-uncertainty destroys trust among the nice guys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 179-194. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000144 pmid: 28263618
[45]	Pfattheicher, S., Nielsen, Y. A., & Thielmann, I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124-129. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021 URL
[46]	Pleasant, A., & Barclay, P. (2018). Why hate the good guy? Antisocial punishment of high cooperators is greater when people compete to be chosen. Psychological Science, 29(6), 868-876. doi: 10.1177/0956797617752642 pmid: 29708860
[47]	Reed II, A., Kay, A., Finnel, S., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2016). I don’t want the money, I just want your time: How moral identity overcomes the aversion to giving time to prosocial causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 435-457. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000058 URL
[48]	Schwartz, S. A., & Inbar, Y. (2023). Is it good to feel bad about littering? Conflict between moral beliefs and behaviors for everyday transgressions. Cognition, 236, 105437. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105437 URL
[49]	Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology:An introduction. In Csikszentmihalyi, M (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 279-298). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
[50]	Sun, Q. (2022). The effect of distributive fairness on cooperative behavior in social dilemmas: Tradeoffs between fairness and self-benefits [Unpublished doctorial dissertation]. East China Normal University.
	[孙倩. (2022). 分配公平对社会困境中合作行为的影响: 公平与利益的权衡 (博士学位论文). 华东师范大学].
[51]	Sun, S., Zhao, H., Pi, Q., & Zhang, H. (2025). The paradox in moral character judgement of highly altruistic individuals: Investigating the role of predictability and honesty‐humility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 55(4), 624-639. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.v55.4 URL
[52]	Sun, X., Han, L., Wang, M., Liu, S., & Shen, Y. (2023). Social exclusion with antisocial punishment in spatial public goods game. Physics Letters A, 474, 128837. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2023.128837 URL
[53]	Tai, K., Lin, K. J., Lam, C. K., & Liu, W. (2023). Biting the hand that feeds: A status-based model of when and why receiving help motivates social undermining. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 27-52. doi: 10.1037/apl0000580 URL
[54]	Tasimi, A., Dominguez, A., & Wynn, K. (2015). Do-gooder derogation in children: The social costs of generosity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1036. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01036 pmid: 26257688
[55]	Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451-471. pmid: 12088240
[56]	Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.
[57]	Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81. doi: 10.1177/1745691614556679 pmid: 25910382
[58]	Van, den Bos, K. (2009). Making sense of life: The existential self-trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry, 20(4), 197-217. doi: 10.1080/10478400903333411 URL
[59]	Vonasch, A. J., Mofradidoost, R., & Gray, K. (2024). People reject free money and cheap deals because they infer phantom costs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(10), 2050-2067. doi: 10.1177/01461672241235687 URL
[60]	Vosgerau, J., Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2019). 99% impossible: A valid, or falsifiable, internal meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1628-1639. doi: 10.1037/xge0000663 URL
[61]	Wu, S., Wang, Y., & Peng, K. (2024). More utilitarian and less rational? Social change and two types of individualism over the last 40 years in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(7), 911-925. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00911
	[吴胜涛, 王予灵, 彭凯平. (2024). 理性式微、功利扩张?近40年中国社会两种个人主义的变迁. 心理学报, 56(7), 911-925.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00911
[62]	Wu, X., Li, J., & Li, Y. (2022). The impact of uncertainty induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 103, 104397. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104397 URL
[63]	Wu, Y. (2021). How uncertainty impacts on the identity of extreme groups in the global crisis. Sociological Review of China, 9(2), 157-172.
	[吴莹. (2021). 全球危机中不确定性如何影响极端群体认同的形成. 社会学评论, 9(2), 157-172.]
[64]	Yang, Q., Bi, C., Li, L., & Huang, X. (2017). Self-uncertainty: Concepts, structures, and theories. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(6), 1012-1024. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01012 URL
	[杨庆, 毕重增, 李林, 黄希庭. (2017). 自我不确定感:内涵、结构和理论. 心理科学进展, 25(6), 1012-1024.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01012
[65]	Zhao, X., & Biernat, M. (2022). Status of immigrants’ country of origin and Americans’ assimilation expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 443-468. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000370 URL

变量	1	2	3	4	5
1. 性别	—	−0.001	−0.17	−0.26^**	−0.21^*
2. 年龄	0.12	—	0.31^***	0.29^***	0.23^*
3. 教化功能	−0.11	0.07	—	0.79^***	0.73^***
4. 行为道德性	0.20	0.06	0.50^***	—	0.63^***
5. 道德品质	−0.01	0.11	0.56^***	0.70^***	—

变量	1	2	3	4	5
1. 性别	—	−0.001	−0.17	−0.26^**	−0.21^*
2. 年龄	0.12	—	0.31^***	0.29^***	0.23^*
3. 教化功能	−0.11	0.07	—	0.79^***	0.73^***
4. 行为道德性	0.20	0.06	0.50^***	—	0.63^***
5. 道德品质	−0.01	0.11	0.56^***	0.70^***	—

变量	1	2	3	4	5
1. 性别	—	0.04	−0.04	−0.13	−0.10
2. 年龄	−0.09	—	0.16	0.09	0.003
3. 教化功能	0.07	0.23^**	—	0.74^***	0.62^***
4. 行为道德性	0.03	0.12	0.79^***	—	0.86^***
5. 道德品质	0.06	0.12	0.81^***	0.87^***	—

变量	1	2	3	4	5
1. 性别	—	0.04	−0.04	−0.13	−0.10
2. 年龄	−0.09	—	0.16	0.09	0.003
3. 教化功能	0.07	0.23^**	—	0.74^***	0.62^***
4. 行为道德性	0.03	0.12	0.79^***	—	0.86^***
5. 道德品质	0.06	0.12	0.81^***	0.87^***	—

变量	低教化功能组	控制组	高教化功能组	F	η2 p
中度利他组	3.30 ± 1.20	5.65 ± 0.95	5.94 ± 0.69	73.57^***	0.32
高度利他组	3.40 ± 1.49	4.28 ± 1.70	5.52 ± 1.06	38.58^***	0.20
总计	3.35 ± 1.35	4.96 ± 1.53	5.74 ± 0.91	102.70^***	0.40