New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

How Much Sacrifice Is Your Reputation Worth?

People would rather endure jail, death or a bucket of worms than be viewed as immoral

Would you rather stick your hand in a bowl of superworms than be viewed as racist?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Psychologist Abraham Maslow's famed “hierarchy of needs” says people seek food, shelter and safety before esteem and self-actualization. So what explains foolish dares and violent sports, in which people risk grave injury to pursue respect? New research suggests the hierarchy may be more fluid than we think—many individuals will undergo disgusting or painful ordeals to save their reputations.

Andy Vonasch, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his colleagues conducted an online survey of 111 Americans about the value of reputation. Of the respondents, 40 percent said they would choose a year in jail and a clean reputation over no jail and a criminal reputation. Incarceration is directly harmful, but “reputation is what helps you gain access to all of the things you want in society,” Vonasch says. In similarly sized surveys, 70 percent of respondents told Vonasch's team they would give up their dominant hand to avoid a swastika face tattoo; 53 percent would choose immediate death over a long life as a suspected child molester; and 30 percent would take immediate death over a long and happy life followed by postmortem rumors of child molestation. This study was released online in July by Social Psychological and Personality Science.

But what about the real world? As part of the new study, white college students took a test of implicit racism. Then they chose between having their scores e-mailed widely and putting one hand in a bowl of “superworms” (photograph). People given (falsely) high scores of implicit racism were more likely to choose the superworms (30 versus 4 percent) and were more likely to hold their hands in near-freezing water (63 versus 9 percent)—even though many said they doubted the e-mail threat.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


People make all kinds of sacrifices to preserve their honor, from ritual suicide to settling out of court to ceding subway seats. In an age of social media public shaming, this paper helps explain why sticks and stones may break your bones, but tweets can hurt much worse.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe