When Sharing Good Deeds Feels Worse Than Staying Silent

Most people expect generosity to spark a quiet lift in the heart, but new research suggests that the moment we consider telling others about a good deed, that warmth can curdle.

In a set of five preregistered experiments led by Cornell University psychologists and published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the team found that people consistently believe they would feel worse if they reported their own acts of kindness, especially on social media. The work reveals a subtle emotional cost embedded in modern altruism.

The research spans a series of studies with 2,840 participants and builds on a simple premise: why does sharing a charitable act feel different from sharing a personal achievement? The researchers discovered that while participants anticipated pride when imagining announcing a promotion, they predicted shame, embarrassment, and discomfort when imagining telling someone about helping a stranger, or posting the story online. The pattern held even though both types of sharing break modesty norms. The missing ingredient was moral judgment: people seemed acutely aware that others might suspect self-interest behind a publicly disclosed good deed.

Good Deeds, Good Intentions, Bad Feelings

The emotional asymmetry revealed in these studies was striking. Participants said they would feel substantially worse after sharing a good deed than after keeping it private, and much worse if they posted online rather than telling a friend. This predicted shame was driven by intuitive worries about how observers interpret moral behavior. When people imagine boasting about an altruistic act, they often envision listeners questioning their motives, which can erode the warm glow that originally accompanied the act.

“Our suspicion is that people are just aware of the fact that, if they talk about these good deeds that they have committed, people might think that they were motivated by the social credit, the reputational boost, that they would get,” Richardson said.

A Surprising Self and Other Asymmetry

One of the most unexpected findings emerged when researchers asked participants to predict how others would feel after sharing their own good deeds. Instead of assuming everyone would feel equally self-conscious, participants believed that others would actually feel better than they themselves would. This pattern flipped early predictions that people would show a self-enhancement bias. Instead, participants appeared to assume others were freer from the anxieties and internal scrutiny that cloud their own self-presentation.

“We think that is because we just do not have access to the inner states of others in that way,” Richardson said. “Our simulations of their minds tend to be a bit shallower than our own.”

Across all experiments, the story was consistent: people believe that publicizing their good deeds will dampen the emotional reward of doing them, especially in the highly visible, highly judged space of social media. The findings highlight what the authors call the do-gooder dilemma: the tension between wanting moral actions to be known and wanting to avoid the reputational risks of sharing them. While spreading news of altruism can inspire others or strengthen prosocial norms, it can also make the sharer feel worse.

As the authors note, the work offers a small corrective to the belief that publicly showcasing generosity is always empowering. For many, it may instead chip away at the emotional benefits of helping. The final takeaway echoes a sentiment Oscar Wilde once expressed: doing good in secret can feel best, especially if someone finds out on their own. The new research suggests that may not be mere wit but a robust psychological truth about how we manage morality, reputation, and emotion in the social world.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104808