Reasoning and empathy are not competing but complementary features of altruism.

Kyle Fiore Law, Stylianos Syropoulos, Paige Amormino, Abigail Marsh, Liane Young, Brendan Bo O'Connor

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Mapping the moral architecture of effective and extraordinary altruism.PNAS nexus · 2025
Article

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

6 authors.

Kyle Fiore LawSchool of Sustainability, College of Global Futures, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5911-4772

Stylianos SyropoulosSchool of Sustainability, College of Global Futures, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5622-1417

Paige AmorminoDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2125-1047

Abigail MarshDepartment of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5635-181X

Liane YoungDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.

Brendan Bo O'ConnorDepartment of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5989-1632

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans can care about distant strangers, an adaptive advantage that enables our species to cooperate in increasingly large-scale groups. Theoretical frameworks accounting for an expansive moral circle and altruistic behavior are often framed as a dichotomy between competing pathways of emotion-driven empathy versus logic-driven reasoning. Here, in a pre-registered investigation comparing variations in empathy and reasoning capacities across different exceptionally altruistic populations-effective altruists (EAs) who aim to maximize welfare gains with their charitable contributions (

Indexed as

effective altruismempathyequalityextraordinary altruismreasoning

Identifiers

PMID41675464

DOI10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag015

PMCPMC12887898

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.