ArticleNature communications2026
Humans are more prosocial in poor foraging environments.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Humans are more prosocial in poor foraging environments.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prosocial behaviours are essential for solving global challenges. Often, these behaviours have been measured using economic games or tasks where people decide between helping or not. However, in everyday life current behaviours are interrupted with alternative opportunities. Across three independent samples (two preregistered, total n = 510), people watched a movie whilst encountering opportunities that benefitted another person or themselves. Crucially, participants decided in different poor and rich foraging environments where the average reward values of opportunities changed. We demonstrate a stronger environmental influence on decisions that benefit others: people were more willing to interrupt their behaviour to help others in poor environments, where the average reward value was lower, compared to richer environments where average reward value was higher. Computational modelling revealed that the opportunity costs of the different foraging environments were valued distinctly for others. Factors of utilitarianism, and empathy/emotional motivation, captured variability in opportunity costs for others. We show that when humans decide to engage in prosocial behaviours depends on the quality of opportunities in one's environment, which is critical as environments change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.