Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40577264›Full record

ArticlePsychological science2025

Protecting Public Goods or Helping Free Riders? A Real-Life Moral Dilemma in Interethnic and Intraethnic Encounters.

Kasper Otten, Vincent Buskens, Wojtek Przepiorka, Naomi Ellemers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kasper OttenDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University.ORCID 0000-0002-9456-7280
Vincent BuskensDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University.ORCID 0000-0002-4483-7238
Wojtek PrzepiorkaDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University.ORCID 0000-0001-9432-8696
Naomi EllemersDepartment of Psychology, Utrecht University.ORCID 0000-0001-9810-1165

Funding

Non-US Government Research Support type
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People often protect public goods by sanctioning free riders. This occurs in simple situations in which protecting the public good does not conflict with other moral considerations. How do people navigate situations in which protecting the public good comes at the expense of helping someone? We theorized that people would prioritize the needs of the public or another individual on the basis of the individual's group membership. To test this theory, we conducted a field experiment with male confederates approaching adult male travelers passing through check-in gates at Dutch train stations. The confederates requested to follow the travelers without checking in themselves. We observed whether travelers sanctioned the free rider by rejecting and disapproving of this request or helped by opening the gates. At three train stations, 801 travelers were approached by 10 different confederates. Group membership was varied by having five native-majority and five ethnic-minority confederates. Robust evidence was found for travelers being more likely to help native-majority free riders and to sanction ethnic-minority free riders.

Indexed as

EthnicityHelping BehaviorInterpersonal RelationsMoralsAdultEthical DilemmasHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsYoung Adultdiscriminationethnic groupsfield experimentfree ridershelpinginformal sanctionsmoral dilemmanorm enforcementnormspublic goods

Identifiers

PMID40577264
PMCPMC13428867

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.