Verified by 
Key points
- Our economic system is rooted in the idea that the primary human motivation is selfish. But is it?
- New research shows that in consequential real-world situations, humans are substantially generous.
- Handed $10,000 with no strings attached, people spent more on others than on themselves.
If someone gave you $10,000 tomorrow, no strings attached, how would you spend it? How much of it would you spend on yourself?
Our economic system is rooted in the idea that the primary human motivation is selfishness. This notion is embodied by the Standard Economic Model, a fundamental framework in economics, which assumes that “individuals are rational, self-interested, and utility-maximizing agents.”
Psychological research, however, has long been critical of this basic assumption, noting that people often act counter to their self-interests. Moreover, research has documented the human tendency toward generosity across cultures. Yet, much of the empirical evidence regarding people’s financial generosity comes from lab experiments using economic “games.” While useful, these types of studies lack ecological validity since they poorly resemble real-world situations where decisions have real consequences.
Recently (2023), Ryan Dwyer of British Columbia University and colleagues conducted an experiment that attempted to transcend those limitations. The researchers examined generosity in a diverse sample of 200 adults from six different countries, each of whom received a gift of $10,000 from a pair of wealthy donors, no strings attached. Participants then completed extensive surveys about their spendings one, two, three, and six months after the cash transfer.
On average, “participants spent over $6,400 on purchases that benefited others, including nearly $1,700 on donations to charity, suggesting that humans exhibit remarkable generosity even when the stakes are high.”
Regardless of whether the researchers defined prosocial giving broadly (purchases benefitting others) or narrowly (contributions to charity), participants still “exhibited a level of generosity that was inconsistent with the standard economic model.” Moreover, the researchers found that participants from wealthier and poorer nations did not differ in overall prosocial spending, although those from wealthier countries contributed more to charity.
The researchers took steps to control for several confounding variables. First, to examine whether generosity was motivated by concerns for social standing and reputation, participants were randomly assigned into one of two groups: One group reported their windfall publicly, while the other kept it private. The authors found that “Generous spending was similar between the groups.”
Second, they took steps to mask the study’s goal from participants. After the experiment was over, the researchers found that only 15 percent of the participants correctly guessed that the study was about generosity. Results were largely unchanged even when these participants were excluded from the analysis.
The researchers note that their findings align with past research showing that people all over the world find spending money on others—particularly others who are close (family, local organizations)—inherently rewarding. The researchers conclude: “Taken together, our findings… suggest that even in consequential real-world situations, humans are not narrowly self-interested but substantially generous.”
It is useful to be reminded of that fact, particularly in these times.
