Figure - uploaded by Falk Lieder
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
People’s intentional pursuit of prosocial goals and values (i.e., well-doing) is critical to the
flourishing of humanity in the long run. Understanding and promoting well-doing is a shared goal across many fields inside and outside of social and personality psychology. Several of these fields are (partially) disconnected from each other and could b...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... and fostering socially beneficial behavior is a goal that many fields inside and outside of social and personality psychology share (Lieder & Prentice, in press). As a consequence, well-doing has been studied from many different perspectives (see Table 2). ...Context 2
... accounts assume that an action's moral value depends on its expected consequences in the situation in which it is taken. Deontological accounts construe morality as compliance with a fixed set of inviolable rules (see Table 2). Lastly, virtue ethics defines morality in terms of the nature and quality of people's motives, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2018; see Table 2). ...Context 3
... accounts construe morality as compliance with a fixed set of inviolable rules (see Table 2). Lastly, virtue ethics defines morality in terms of the nature and quality of people's motives, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2018; see Table 2). According to the most influential version of consequentialism (i.e., utilitarianism; see Table 2), people should act so as to bring about the greatest good for as many beings as possible (Driver, 2014). ...Context 4
... virtue ethics defines morality in terms of the nature and quality of people's motives, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2018; see Table 2). According to the most influential version of consequentialism (i.e., utilitarianism; see Table 2), people should act so as to bring about the greatest good for as many beings as possible (Driver, 2014). This ideal combines the idea that the well-being/suffering of all beings counts equally with an imperative for rational decision-making. ...Context 5
... deontological and utilitarian perspectives on morality (see Table 2) correspond to psychological mechanisms that make moral judgments based on emotions/intuitions versus reasoning (Cushman, 2013;Greene et al., 2008). Cushman (2013) argued that the key difference between rational versus intuitive/emotional mechanisms is that the former use reasoning to evaluate actions according to the desirability of their likely consequences in a particular situation whereas the latter exclusively rely on the action's learned value. ...Context 6
... reconceptualization establishes a bridge between moral psychology and research on the computational and neural mechanisms of decision-making and reinforcement learning (Niv, 2009;Dolan & Dayan, 2013;Sutton & Barto, 2018). This connection can be leveraged to develop information-processing models of moral decision-making and moral learning (see Table 2). ...Context 7
... of the drivers of moral development is moral learning (see Table 2). According to Cushman et al. (2017), there are at least three types of moral learning: learning moral values (e.g., ...Context 8
... studying moral development, Kohlberg (1983) noted that adults differ in the extent to which they rely on principled moral reasoning. Since then, how morality differs across people has become an active area of research in personality psychology (see Table 2). Research on moral personality traits seeks to a) identify moral character traits, b) assess which personality traits are relevant for moral behavior, and c) examine to which extent people want and are able to change their moral character. ...Context 9
... authors have proposed evolutionary explanations for the prevalence of ineffective well-doing ( Burum et al., 2020;Jaeger & van Vugt, 2022; see Table 2). Moreover, psychological research has identified three types of obstacles to effective well-doing ( Caviola et al., 2021): conflicting motives and limited altruism, systematic errors in judgment and decision-making, and limited information and inaccurate beliefs (Caviola et al., 2020a). ...Context 10
... but not least, our understanding of well-doing and prosocial development is still not nearly as mechanistic as the current understanding of cognitive and computational mechanisms of more basic forms of decision-making. The emerging connection between cognitive science and research on morality and prosocial behavior (Cushman, 2013;Cushman et al., 2017;Caviola et al., 2021;Lieder & Prentice, in press) creates a great opportunity for leveraging theories, methods, and informationprocessing models that were originally developed in research on decision-making and reinforcement learning (see Table 2) to elucidate the mechanisms of well-doing and prosocial development. ...Context 11
... illustrated in Figure 2, we propose three categories of reactive mechanisms: sociopsychological mechanisms, emotional mechanisms, and moral mechanisms 6 . The sociopsychological and emotional mechanisms of well-doing been extensively studied from the perspective of social interaction and group-level processes (see Table 2) in the context of prosocial behavior (Section 1.2). In a given socio-cultural context, a person may choose to engage in well-doing by imitating another person, responding to another person's need, reacting to a request, complying with a social norm, or reciprocating a favor. ...Context 12
... unlike some moral mechanisms, the intuitive judgments of socio-psychological mechanisms weigh the well-being of the potential beneficiary according to factors such as ingroup versus outgroup membership, perceived similarity to oneself, and perceived competition. The person's broader socio-cultural environment (see Table 2) informs these judgments through social norms, pressure to conform to prevailing customs, demonstrations of prosocial behavior that the person may want to imitate, and favors that the person may want to reciprocate. ...Context 13
... emotional empathy and the socio-psychological mechanisms based on intuitive judgments are biased in ways that interfere with doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people (Bloom, 2017;Caviola et al. 2021;Lewis & Small, 2019). Consistent with evolutionary perspectives (see Table 2), many of those motivational and cognitive biases appear to serve the self-interest of the individual and his or her kin or in-group (DeSteno, 2015;Jaeger & van Vugt, 2022). The resulting biases can cause donors to collectively miss out on opportunities to save millions of lives because the people who can benefit the most from donations are almost always distant others in poor third-world countries (see Section 1.3). ...Context 14
... that some forms of well-doing are more than a thousand times more effective than others (MacAskill, 2015), it is important to understand which behaviors have the greatest positive impact on the long-term flourishing of humanity and which causal mechanisms are most likely to produce them. One approach to identifying such behaviors and their psychological mechanisms could be to apply the methods that scholars of moral personality (see Table 2) have developed to study moral exemplars ( Fleeson et al., 2021;Lawn et al., 2022) to identify which personal and situational characteristics distinguish paragons of effective altruism (MacAskill, 2015;Todd, 2016) from otherwise similar people whose contributions have been more ordinary. Given that some of the greatest contributions to the flourishing of humanity were the fruits of decades of systematic effort (MacAskill, 2015;Todd, 2016), the proactive pursuit of altruistic long-term goals might be an important mechanism of highly effective well-doing (see Section 2.3 and Section 1.2.2-1.2.3). ...Context 15
... the mechanisms through which the underlying psychological changes are achieved are not well understood yet. We therefore see understanding how the development of purpose (see Section 1.2.3), value change (see Section 1.2.2), moral learning (see Table 2), wisdom (Grossman, 2017;Grossmann et al., 2021), and cognitive growth can be fostered as particularly important goals for future research (see Section 3). Such research could, for instance, flesh out concrete, teachable, mental strategies that people can follow to think and act virtuously (cf. ...Similar publications
Personality is a stable set of characteristics and tendencies that specifies similarities and differences of a person's psychological behaviour that is permanent through time and may not be comprehended easily or recognized as immediate or direct situations due to some environmental and social stresses. Personality theory specifies the similarities...
Citations
... Agent-centered theories suggest moral obligations and permissions are tied to the agent's perspective, highlighting personal moral decision-making. The Twelve Gates of Wrong intersects with deontological ethics by focusing on harm avoidance as a moral norm, blending considerations of outcome with deontological commitments [7][20][21] [22]. ...
This paper explores the nuanced relationship between right, wrong, logic, and mentality in ethical decision-making. It argues that ethical judgments are deeply subjective and context-dependent, influenced by individual and collective experiences, cultures, and cognitive frameworks. The paper introduces the metaphor of mentality as the fabric of the mind and logic as Lego pieces, illustrating how cognitive flexibility and logical structure interact to shape our moral understanding. While advocating for a fluid and adaptable approach to morality, the paper asserts the absoluteness of wrongs when actions cause significant harm. The "Twelve Gates of Wrong" framework is proposed to systematically evaluate ethical decisions, emphasizing harm avoidance. This model integrates traditional ethical theoriesvirtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialismwhile addressing the complexities of modern moral dilemmas. By balancing cognitive flexibility with logical integrity, the paper offers a comprehensive roadmap for ethical reflection and decision-making, urging a principled and empathetic approach to minimize harm and foster societal well-being.
... This particular challenge highlights a difference between offering more complex academicoriented definitions rather than having practitioners in organizations define these areas. Given the emerging interest in wisdom as an important value to be operationalized in organizations, it seems especially important for organizational leaders to spend sufficient time looking at how they can best define well-doing, as part of being wise, in a way that is behavioral and also fits their operating environment (Kerns, 2020a;Lieder et al., 2022). Currently, I am working with leaders and their organizations to assist them in defining what they mean by value-added contributions, and being proactive and intentional. ...
Performance, well-being, and well-doing are foundational key results that leaders need to be held accountable for and encouraged to assess, optimize and evaluate. This foundational, interdependent and synergistic triad of vital organizational key results is advanced when leaders effectively execute the practices associated with optimizing these results for positive impact. A practice-oriented approach is offered to help leaders optimize performance, well-being, and well-doing. After presenting a Leader Performance Well-Being Well-Doing Cycle, and some benefits associated with this framework, a five-step process for applying this approach is provided. Some challenges are also offered, including having leaders consider how their Internal Operating System (IOS) positively or negatively impacts their and others’ performance, well-being, and well doing.
... Accordingly, cause prioritisation research involves a variety of methods, including descriptive accounts of how individuals prioritise causes (Berman et al., 2018;Caviola et al., 2020;Lieder et al., 2022;Weathers et al., 2020), collective judgments and forecasts of impactful research topics (Lieder et al., 2021), and cost-effectiveness analysis and philosophical arguments (e.g., Global Priorities Institute, 2022; Nielsen et al., 2021;Ord, 2013;Open Philanthropy, 2022). Notably, Chater and Loewenstein (2022) contribute to prioritisation research by arguing that, all else being equal, s-frame solutions are neglected by behavioural scientists despite their potential scalability and tractability. ...
In a recent contribution to Brain and Behavioral Sciences, Chater and Loewenstein (2022) argue that researchers can increase their societal impact by addressing behavioural research topics relevant to systemic change (i.e., “s-frame”) rather than research on individual change (i.e., “i-frame”). By swinging the pendulum back from overly relying on i-frames, we expect their call to be influential among researchers interested in having a positive societal impact. The present commentary discusses their contributions in the light of the assertion that the cause a researcher addresses is a major determinant of the potential societal impact of research. We argue that large-scale but neglected problems can yield highly effective s- and i-frame research topics, and the distinction between i- and s-frames could yield a helpful complementary heuristic for choosing research topics that address the most pressing societal problems.
... In parallel, within the prosocial organizational behavior literature (a subdomain of prosociality), numerous additional terms have been coined and concepts have emerged that revolve around prosocial behaviors that specifically occur in the work domain. These include, for example, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors [19], Corporate Social Responsivity [20], Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance [21], servant leadership [22], social entrepreneurship [23], well-doing [24], public service motivation [25], corporate philanthropy [26], and others. ...
The scholarly field of organizational prosociality is experiencing a renewed interest, yet despite its long track record, researchers still disagree on the definitions of primary concepts. Two umbrella terms, prosocial behaviors and kindness, are particularly baffling, as they are defined similarly, at times used synonymously, yet the differences between them are unclear. Consequently, the field suffers from conceptual ambiguity, which hampers its development. In this brief critical paper, we provide a review of the definitions of prosocial behavior and kindness, in an attempt to semantically untie the text, unpack the context, and discuss the subtext that underlies these concepts. Our analysis suggests that the two concepts overlap in their emphasis on dispositions and actions that aim to promote the welfare of others. However, acts of kindness and prosocial behaviors differ in actors, their target recipients and scale. Acts of kindness are performed by an individual and directed at a person or a small group, while prosocial behaviors can be performed by a person or an organization, and can be directed at a person or a group, but may also be directed at a much larger entity: an organization, community, nation, or society at large.
People are often confronted with problems whose complexity exceeds their cognitive capacities. To deal with this complexity, individuals and managers can break complex problems down into a series of subgoals. Which subgoals are most effective depends on people's cognitive constraints and the cognitive mechanisms of goal pursuit. This creates an untapped opportunity to derive practical recommendations for which subgoals managers and individuals should set from cognitive models of bounded rationality. To seize this opportunity, we apply the principle of resource-rationality to formulate a mathematically precise normative theory of (self-)management by goal-setting. We leverage this theory to computationally derive optimal subgoals from a resource-rational model of human goal pursuit. Finally, we show that the resulting subgoals improve the problem-solving performance of bounded agents and human participants. This constitutes a first step towards grounding prescriptive theories of management and practical recommendations for goal-setting in computational models of the relevant psychological processes and cognitive limitations.
