Do people still endorse prosocial others when they put them at risk?

Humans like prosocial others who invest in the greater good, who decrease inequality and increase overall welfare. But to what degree do people endorse such prosocial others when their acts for the greater good puts a risk to their own position? We modelled this question in a triadic social dilemma paradigm where a decision-maker’s prosocial act towards one party entailed risk for another. In five pre-registered, incentivised behavioural experiments (total N=3,700, US and British samples), we measured judgemental and behavioural endorsement of others who invested in the greater good (i.e., decreased inequality, increased overall welfare) while putting participants under (financial) risk. We found that 1) endorsements were lower when investing in the greater good entailed risk for participants, 2) participants were sensitive to degrees of risk, and 3) anchored endorsement in their personal outcomes rather than general principles. At the same time, however, participants 4) endorsed others who invested in the greater good more compared to those keeping the (participant benefitting) status quo. And 5) existing impressions of others improved after investing towards the greater good, even at medium risk. Hence, even though people are sensitive to risk to their own outcomes, they endorse others who work towards collective welfare and reduce inequality – even at their own costs.