The OT And Trump threads are actual promoting cooperation and pro social behavior!
The threat of free-riding makes the marshalling of cooperation from group members a fundamental challenge of social life. Where classical social science theory saw the enforcement of moral boundaries as a critical way by which group members regulate one another’s self-interest and build cooperation, moral judgments have most often been studied as processes internal to individuals. Here we investigate how the interpersonal expression of positive and negative moral judgments encourages cooperation in groups and prosocial behavior between group members. ...
The “cooperation problem” refers to the challenge groups face in motivating their members to set aside narrow self-interest to make costly contributions to collective efforts. Following early sociological claims and anthropological accounts moral psychology views morality as critical to social order, but overwhelmingly moral reasoning and judgment are studied as internal psychological processes, as noted in a review of the literature. As a consequence, we know comparatively little about the communication of interpersonal moral judgments to others and how expressed moral judgments may impact individual behavior and group processes.
Here we show that the communication of interpersonal moral judgments is an important means through which groups solve cooperation problems. Because individuals deeply value moral praise and fear moral condemnation, the prospect of interpersonal moral judgments can serve as a powerful tool for maintaining social order and motivating actions that benefit groups or group members. This view contrasts with dominant explanations of the impact of peer sanctions, which focus on how material sanctions lead would-be free-riders to contribute their share to group efforts. In these accounts, sanctions from fellow group members matter because they bring cooperation in line with individual self-interest, and moral praise or condemnation is largely “cheap talk” that does not affect contributions. Accordingly, the literature operationalizes sanctions as monetary fines or rewards deployed at a material cost by other group members. A few prior studies, however, have looked at costless, or non-monetary, expressions of approval or liking, and these have yielded mixed evidence for their effectiveness in promoting contributions to collective action. While suggestive that non-monetary sanctions can impact cooperative behavior, these studies did not allow group members to communicate moral judgments of one another’s behaviors. We argue below that moral judgments are likely to promote cooperation. Just as importantly, prior work has not yet studied other key consequences of monetary sanctions versus social or moral judgments, though these may have very different downstream effects. Here we show that, unlike material sanctions, moral judgments do not result in cycles of recrimination and tend to “crowd in” interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and generosity.