Does maximizing good make people look bad?

Despite the potential to significantly increase the impact of donations, people often fail to prioritize the cost-effectiveness of charities. This paper examines an explanation for why people may donate less effectively due to reputational concerns that favor empathizing with donation recipients rather than deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities. Across seven studies, we find that “deliberators” are perceived as less moral and less desirable as social partners than “empathizers.” Moreover, people accurately anticipate the reputational costs of deliberation and are more likely to donate to causes that evoke more empathy but are less cost-effective when reputational concerns are highlighted. Our findings suggest that there are disincentives for selecting charities by deliberating about their cost-effectiveness, as people are more rewarded for signaling socially valued moral traits than for prioritizing charitable impact.