Figure - available from: PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
Means [and 95% confidence interval of the means] of liking towards helpers in each condition of each vignette in Studies 1a and 1b
Source publication
![Means [and 95% confidence interval of the means] of liking towards...](publication/347312337/figure/tbl2/AS:11431281273969563@1724798501487/Means-and-95-confidence-interval-of-the-means-of-liking-towards-helpers-in-each_Q320.jpg)
![Means [and 95% confidence interval of the means] of liking towards...](publication/347312337/figure/tbl3/AS:11431281273984298@1724798501881/Means-and-95-confidence-interval-of-the-means-of-liking-towards-helpers-in-each_Q320.jpg)
Impression of helpers can vary as a function of the magnitude of helping (amount of help) and of situational and motivational aspects (type of help). Over three studies conducted in Sweden and the US, we manipulated both the amount and the type of help in ten diverse vignettes and measured participants’ impressions of the described helpers. Impress...
Citations
... The efficacy of help is crucial in the helping process, as it depends on the consistency of help from the benefactor and whether the help meets the recipients' needs (Dalal and Sheng, 2019). The types of help reflect the extent to which recipients' needs are fulfilled by the benefactors (Erlandsson et al. 2020). Furthermore, a prior study revealed that recipients report more gratitude when their needs are understood by benefactors (Algoe and Stanton, 2012). ...
Although gratitude has been extensively studied, the combined effects of multiple determinants on gratitude have not been thoroughly examined, particularly within Chinese cultural contexts. Through four studies (N = 992), we explored how contextual factors (helping motive attributions and types of help) and benefactor-recipient relationship (horizontal and vertical relationships) inform interpersonal gratitude. The results revealed that recipients experienced more gratitude when help was attributed to autonomous motivation rather than controlled motivation; autonomy-oriented help elicited more gratitude from recipients than dependency-oriented help. Additionally, the benefactor-recipient relationship had a significant impact on the recipients’ experience of gratitude. Importantly, across both horizontal and vertical relationships, the results provided evidence supporting the interactive effects of different types of help and benefactor-recipient relationships on interpersonal gratitude. Our findings highlight the role of how multiple determinants shaped gratitude, which offer a more nuanced perspective on the formation of gratitude in Chinese cultural contexts.
... Perceptions of another's warmth and competence arise not only from the outcomes of interactive behaviors but also from one's inference about the other's motives [24]. If motivations behind helping behaviors are mixed, extrinsic, or self-centered, help recipients will have a negative impression of the helper [24][25][26]. Research has consistently revealed that inferred altruistic motives from a helper positively predict the recipient's or observer's perception of a helper's warmth [24,27]. However, no direct evidence has indicated that there is a relationship between altruistic motives and perceptions of competence. ...
Intergroup helping is a crucial interaction behavior between groups, which can be classified as either dependency-oriented or autonomy-oriented help. The widely recognized model of intergroup helping relations as status relations proposes that dependency-oriented help enables the helper group to maintain its dominant position. In other words, when a helper group has the motivation to preservation of their intergroup status, it will be more inclined to provide the recipient with dependency-oriented help. However, little research to date has focused on whether members of recipient groups recognize this status maintenance motivation, and how this might influence their inference of altruistic motivations or their perceptions of the helper’s warmth and competence. The results of three experiments involving a total of 677 participants indicated that compared to those receiving autonomy-oriented help, those receiving dependency-oriented help inferred a higher level of status maintenance and a lower level of altruistic motivation of the helper. Furthermore, they also perceived the helpers as having lower levels of warmth and competence. In response, these perceptions led to a reduced willingness to accept offers of help or cooperation. This effect was stronger when the help offered was needed more by the recipients, or when the helpers ignored requests for autonomy-oriented help and provided dependency-oriented help instead. This research complements the existing understandings of autonomy- and dependency-oriented help from the recipient’s perspective, while also outlining potential directions for future research.
... Makov and Newman (2016) studied perceptions of corporate sustainabil ity initiatives, and found that win-win initiatives, i.e., those that have positive effects for company profits as well as for the environment, are rated more negatively than sustainability efforts that do not lead to benefits for the company (and sometimes more negatively than initiatives that benefit the company without any environmental benefits). This can be seen as an example of "tainted altruism" (Newman & Cain, 2014), whereby a prosocial act is seen in a worse light when accompanied by some kind of self ish motivation (Erlandsson et al., 2020). From this set of studies, one would expect a more negative impression of a company communicating a profit motive for a sustainability initiative. ...
As the climate change crisis has become more evident, a growing number of businesses and organizations have gotten involved in sustainability efforts. But not all corporate sustainability efforts are applauded: sometimes the public accuses companies of greenwashing, i.e., overstating the extent to which the company is environmentally friendly. There is little research on the factors that influence perceived greenwashing amongst the public. Here, we report a replication and extension of one of the few studies of this topic, Experiment 2 in de Vries et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1327 ). The original study found that people perceived more greenwashing when an oil company communicated an environmental motive for a sustainability investment (carbon capture and storage), as opposed to a profit motive, d = 0.98 [0.37, 1.59]. The present pre-registered replication ( n = 516) did not find support for this effect, with very little difference in perceived greenwashing depending on communicated motive, d = -0.09 [-0.38, 0.21]. As extensions, we included a condition where a mixed motive (both environment and profits) was communicated, tested the effect using a different type of company than the original, included a measure of general attitudes to the company in addition to perceived greenwashing, and included measures of individual differences in attitudes towards corporate social responsibility and belief in climate change. The most noteworthy exploratory finding was that attitudes were more positive when an environmental or a mixed motive was communicated rather than a profit motive.
... Makov and Newman (2016) studied perceptions of corporate sustainability initiatives, and found that win-win initiatives, i.e., those that have positive effects for company profits as well as for the environment, are rated more negatively than sustainability efforts that do not lead to benefits for the company (and sometimes more negatively than initiatives that benefit the company without any environmental benefits). This can be seen as an example of "tainted altruism" (Newman & Cain, 2014), whereby a prosocial act is seen in a worse light when accompanied by some kind of selfish motivation (Erlandsson et al., 2020). ...
... A possible path for future research would be to focus on impression formation (also known as person perception) and empirically test which types of prosocial decisions are perceived more favourably. We already know that people typically perceive a helper donating a small sum but experiencing the "right" emotions as more moral than an equally affluent helper donating a large sum but with mixed motives (Erlandsson, Wingren & Andersson, 2020;, but an area worth further investigation is whether the perceived morality of helping differs as a function of the beneficiary. For instance, in relation to the gender effect, one could test how people evaluate hypothetical individuals who express preferences in favour of helping male or female patients in a medical dilemma, whilst varying both the number of beneficiaries in the contrasting projects (3 males vs. 3 females, or 6 males vs. 3 females), the gender of the individual expressing the preference (man or woman), and the response mode the preference is expressed in (joint evaluation or forced choice). ...
... As a result, those who are considered more socially competent may then be met with greater generosity, in line with previous results (von Bieberstein et al., 2021). This assumption is supported by studies showing that the motives underlying generous behavior matter for observers (Berman & Silver, 2022) and that observers use a range of cues to infer genuine motives such as decision speed (Critcher et al., 2013), display of positive emotions (Ames & Johar, 2009;Barasch et al., 2014), and empathy (Erlandsson et al., 2020). ...
... The motives underlying one's behavior seem crucial for reputation building (Berman & Silver, 2022). While helping others due to selfinterest is negatively perceived, individuals who show signs of emotions or empathy while doing good deeds are usually seen as more altruistic (Erlandsson et al., 2020), likely because emotions are perceived as a genuine signal of one's concern for others ( Barasch et al., 2014). Similarly, we argue that social signals such as where individuals are looking while listening to other people and contextual cues such as whether they are confided a personal negative story might provide insights into their social affect and social cognition, which are perceived as genuine and reliable signs of their prosocial inclinations. ...
Prosocial behavior is fundamental to societies. But when and toward whom do humans act generously? We investigate the impact of a listeners’ gaze direction and the emotional context of the story heard on (a) perceptions of their social cognition skills and (b) prosocial decisions toward them. In three experiments (two preregistered, N = 486), human participants witnessed prerecorded video encounters between a listener (visible) and a speaker (audible, not visible). The listener either established eye contact, averted gaze, or showed a mixed gaze pattern (gaze direction), while the speaker told a neutral or negatively valenced autobiographic episode (emotional context). Participants rated the listeners’ empathy and perspective-taking after each video and played the trust game (Study 1) or the dictator game (Study 2) with the listener. Replicating previous findings, occasional gaze avoidance, especially during negative narrations, increased attributions of social understanding to the listener. Critically, mediation analyses revealed that listeners perceived as empathic and taking perspective were ultimately treated with more trust and generosity in strategic and nonstrategic economic games, suggesting that social signals and contextual cues can serve as an indication of another’s reputation, thereby promoting indirect reciprocity. Last, in Study 3, we show that emotional context, but not listeners’ gaze behavior, promoted the spread of generosity toward anonymous, previously unobserved individuals in a dictator game, driven by social cognition skills attributed to the listener. We conclude that social signals and contextual cues can be important drivers of cooperation in societies via mechanisms such as indirect reciprocity and social contagion of generosity.
... One robust finding in the existing moral impression formation literature is that helping is not unequivocally perceived in positive lights (Berman & Silver, 2022;Cramwinckel et al., 2015;Critcher & Dunning, 2011). At times, helping is perceived as a sign that the helper is either motivated for "the wrong reasons" or helps in order to put others in a bad light (Erlandsson et al., 2020b;Raihani & Power, 2021). ...
Charitable giving, volunteering, climate-friendly choices, and most recently changing one’s lifestyle to stop the spread of the coronavirus are all examples of prosocial behavior. Prosociality can be investigated from different perspectives including the “who-question” (which people are more likely to help), and the “when-question” (which situational factors stimulate helping?), but in this article we focus primarily on the “why-question” (which emotions and cognitions motivate helping?)Specifically, this article tries to organize and synthesize literature related to emotions, thoughts, and beliefs (i.e. psychological mechanisms) that motivate or demotivate human helping behavior. To do this, we present a new typology including four overarching interrelated categories, each encompassing multiple subcategories.(1) Emotions: (a) emotional reactions elicited by the need situation such as empathic concern/sympathy, (b) positive or negative attitudes toward the beneficiary or the requester, (c) incidental mood. (2) Moral principles: (a) personal responsibility, (b) fairness-concerns, (c) aversion towards causing harm. (3) Anticipated impact: (a) self-efficacy (e.g. “can I make a difference?”) and (b) response-efficacy (e.g., “is this cause/project efficient and worthwhile?”). (4) Anticipated personal consequences: (a) material, (b) social and (c) emotional costs and benefits that the helper expects will follow if she helps or if she does not help. Increased knowledge about the “who” (e.g. individual differences in demography or personality) and “when” (situational antecedents such as characteristic of those in need, or type of solicitation) can surely help predict and even increase prosociality, but we argue that to understand the psychology of helping we need to also consider the psychological mechanisms underlying prosocial decisions (the “why-question”).We compare our typology against related theoretical frameworks, and present the pros and cons with different methodological approaches of testing psychological mechanisms of helping, with the aim to help researchers and practitioners better organize and understand the many psychological factors that influence prosocial decisions.
... According to Hlaváček et al., (1999), there is a correlation between empathy and altruistic behaviour, as well as emphatic concerns are correlated with higher rankings of charity as fair (Niemi, Young, 2017). Empathy leads to higher impressions and contributions among helpers (Bohns, Flynn, 2021;Erlandsson et al., 2020). People are willing to donate more money if visual expressions of suffering individuals are present (Klimecki et al., 2016). ...
We apply behavioural knowledge (anchoring, peer effect) on prosocial economic preferences. For this matter, data from a questionnaire that consists of 3 versions (basic, anchor, peer) are analysed by descriptive statistics and evaluated by using non-parametric statistical tests. The focus is on evaluation of the behavioural effects on the main variables (willingness to donate to the poor, the amount of the donation to a poor, willingness to donate a higher amount of money to a small child, the amount of the donation to a child) that are compared first within all versions and secondly between two selected versions. According to the results, no statistically significant effect of behavioural carries is present. This can be explained by weak setting of reaction to the behavioural stimuli.
... For instance, people who perform prosocial actions but display reluctance or negative emotions while doing so are unlikely to accrue reputation benefits as the negative emotional signal nullifies the positive act (Ames & Johar, 2009;Carlson & Zaki, 2018;Krull et al., 2008). Similarly, people who express mixed motives for helping or who help without expressing empathy are also less positively evaluated by others (Erlandsson et al., 2020). When evaluating the moral consequences of charitable donations, people rate those who donate time as being more praiseworthy than those who donate money (even though people also acknowledge that time donations are often less efficient; Johnson & Park, 2019). ...
Performing costly helpful behaviours can allow individuals to improve their reputation. Those who gain a good reputation are often preferred as interaction partners and are consequently better able to access support through cooperative relationships with others. But investing in prosocial displays can sometimes yield social costs: excessively generous individuals risk losing their good reputation, and even being vilified, ostracised or antisocially punished. As a consequence, people frequently try to downplay their prosocial actions or hide them from others. In this review, we explore when and why investments in prosocial behaviour are likely to yield social costs. We propose two key features of interactions that make it more likely that generous individuals will incur social costs when: (i) observers infer that helpful behaviour is motivated by strategic or selfish motives; and (ii) observers infer that helpful behaviour is detrimental to them. We describe how the cognition required to consider ulterior motives emerges over development and how these tendencies vary across cultures - and discuss how the potential for helpful actions to result in social costs might place boundaries on prosocial behaviour as well as limiting the contexts in which it might occur. We end by outlining the key avenues and priorities for future research.
... Rather, the more a prosocial actor shows positive emotions alongside doing good deeds (e.g. via facial expressions, verbally communicating emotions to others), the more altruistic that actor is perceived to be [12,33,34]. This is because emotions are seen as a direct signal of an actor's underlying feelings about their desire to help [33,35e37]. ...
... But, at least descriptively, this does not seem to be the case. Rather, charitable credit is much more sensitive to how much an actor gains or sacrifices while doing a good deed than how much the act benefits others [11,12,50,51]. 2 Consistent with costly signaling theory, the sacrifices actors endure in the course of helping represent a more trustworthy indicator of underlying character than benefits achieved [11]. ...
... Such explanations draw on cognitive arguments that people are scope insensitive [56,57] or that they lack a frame of reference by which to evaluate how much good should result from any given good deed or donation to charity [53,54]. When benefits are easy to compare, individuals do judge others in accordance with the amount of good deed performed [12,58]. However, even when benefits are comparable, people still prioritize degree of sacrifice over benefits achieved [11]. ...
One reason people engage in prosocial behavior is to reap the reputational benefits associated with being seen as generous. Yet, there isn’t a direct connection between doing good deeds and being seen as a good person. Rather, prosocial actors are often met with suspicion, and sometimes castigated as disingenuous braggarts, empty virtue-signalers, or holier-than-thou hypocrites. In this article, we review recent research on how people evaluate those who engage in prosocial behavior and identify key factors that influence whether observers will praise or denigrate a prosocial actor for doing a good deed.
