Replication and extension of Carlson and Zaki (2018): Do lay theories of altruism apply equally to all actors?

Observers rely on perceived motives when evaluating prosocial behavior. Carlson and Zaki (2018) demonstrate that helping typically earns actors altruistic “credit” compared to neutral activities—but helping for self-interested reasons produces penalties, leading actors to be judged as less altruistic than those who do not help at all. Here we ask whether these patterns operate similarly across actors who differ by race (in our study, Black or White) and gender (male or female)—social categories that carry well-documented expectations and stereotypes regarding communality, trustworthiness, and moral character. Across two high-powered studies using the vignettes and key measures from Carlson and Zaki (2018) , 3185 participants evaluated actors who engaged in neutral acts or helpful acts with or without self-interested motives for helping. We replicate Carlson and Zaki's key findings: actors who help are perceived as more altruistic than those who engage in neutral acts, while those who help with self-interested motives are seen as less altruistic than those who do not help at all. Extending this framework, we find no substantively meaningful differences in either credit for helping or penalties for self-interested helping by the actor's race, gender, or their interaction. Our findings suggest that, despite gendered and racialized stereotypes about communality and morality, observers rely primarily on inferred motives—rather than social category membership—when translating helping behavior into moral reputation.