Study finds fatal self-sacrifice can boost moral judgments
Kelley School research found people rated actors more favorably when they died by choice, even when the outcome did not improve.
By Tom Brennan · Health & Medicine Correspondent
3 min read
People tend to judge fatal self-sacrifice as more heroic and morally worthy even when it produces no better result, according to research from Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. The finding matters because it suggests judgments about courage and morality can hinge on the cost someone pays, not only on what their action achieves.
Christopher Olivola, an associate professor of marketing at the Kelley School of Business in Indianapolis, calls the pattern the “martyrdom effect,” according to Indiana University. His study, “The Martyrdom Effect in Judgment: Fatal Self-Sacrifice Boosts Evaluations for Both Beneficial and Harmful Actors,” was published in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
Olivola’s research asked participants in the United States to assess hypothetical situations, according to Indiana University. In one scenario set during World War II, a soldier encounters enemy forces preparing an attack that would kill his fellow soldiers.
One version of the scenario had an American soldier throw grenades from a distance, stop the enemy threat and survive. Another version had the soldier die after detonating grenades strapped to his body, killing himself and the enemy forces.
According to Olivola, participants consistently gave higher ratings for heroism, inspiration and morality to the soldier who died, even though both versions ended with the same military result. Indiana University said the study shows that the sacrifice itself changed how participants evaluated the act.
The effect also appeared when participants were asked to judge a character whose side they opposed, according to Olivola. When a Nazi soldier stopped an American counterattack and survived, participants rated him negatively; when the same Nazi soldier died while killing American soldiers, they judged him more favorably than in the survival version.
Olivola said that response surprised him because participants still reacted more positively to self-sacrifice even when they disliked the actor and the cause. Indiana University said the finding points to a tension in moral judgment: people may admire commitment and suffering even when the goal is harmful.
The study also tested whether intention alone was enough to produce the effect, according to Indiana University. Olivola examined cases in which a person meant to die but survived, and cases in which a person did not intend to die but was killed by accident.
According to Olivola, participants did not give the same boost in evaluations unless the person both meant to sacrifice their life and actually died. A failed attempt at self-sacrifice, or an accidental death without that intent, did not produce the same increase in perceived heroism or morality.
The work extends Olivola’s earlier research on why people value effort and hardship in support of charitable causes, such as marathons and fundraising challenges, according to Indiana University. He said the new study broadens that inquiry from costly effort to fatal sacrifice.
Indiana University said Olivola sees the findings as a way to better understand why certain actions are treated as especially meaningful. He said the research encourages people to look more carefully at what sacrifice accomplishes and how they decide whether an act is worthwhile.
This story draws on original reporting from Phys.org.