The emotional consequences of donation opportunities

Charities often circulate widespread donation appeals, but who is most likely to donate and how do appeals impact the well-being of individual donors and non-donors, as well as the entire group exposed to the campaign? Here, we investigate three factors that may influence donations (recent winnings, the presence of another person, and matched earnings) in addition to the changes in affect reported by individuals who donate in response to a charitable opportunity and those who do not. Critically, we also investigate the change in affect reported by the entire sample to measure the net impact of the donation opportunity. Results reveal that people winning more money donate a smaller percentage to charity, and the presence of another person does not influence giving. In addition, large donors experience hedonic boosts from giving, and the substantial fraction of large donors translates to a net positive influence on well-being for the entire sample.     

Can third-party observers detect the emotional rewards of generous spending?

Can others detect the emotional consequences of our personal choices? Here, we investigate whether third-party observers can detect the emotional benefits of two factors shown to influence self-reported happiness: the speed with which people make decisions and the generosity of spending choices. Participants were randomly assigned to purchase a goody bag either for themselves or for a sick child, and to choose the contents of this goody bag either as quickly as possible, or by taking as much time as needed. Then, participants reported their current emotional state and were rated for happiness by a research assistant blind to their spending condition. Analyses revealed that purchasing a gift for someone else not only improved participants’ self-reported mood, but that observers could detect these affective differences as well. Observers also rated participants who made their spending decision more quickly as happier, although participants did not report these emotional differences.     

Testing the GRIP: An Empirical Examination of the Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality Model

Although men and women help others, there are systematic gender differences in the type of helping they perform. Consistent with traditional gender roles and stereotypes, men typically help in agentic ways, and women typically help in communal ways. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality model predicts that gender stereotypes about gender-inconsistent helping create negative attitudes, restrictive subjective norms, and low self-efficacy that undermine helping intentions, which, in turn, reduce engagement in gender-inconsistent helping contexts. Across three studies (N?=?1,355), we find empirical support for the hypothesized model: When asked to imagine engaging in a gender-inconsistent (vs. gender-consistent) helping scenario, participants anticipated feeling worse, expected others to judge them more negatively, and reported decreased self-efficacy beliefs, and these factors predicted lower intentions to engage in gender-inconsistent helping. Critically, behavioral intentions explained some of the variance in gender-inconsistent helping during the following month. Internal meta-analyses of the differences between gender-consistent and -inconsistent helping on attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions across studies revealed small-to-medium average effect sizes (ds?=?0.16—0.47). These results have the potential to inform interventions aimed at increasing helping in all its forms.

     

Do people turn to visible reminders of group identity under stress?

How do people cope with stress? Research suggests that people have a number of strategies, including turning to the groups to which they belong, increasing feelings of identification and affiliation. We examine a novel extension of this strategy: adopting visible reminders of one's group identity. In two experiments (Ns = 103 and 194), we explore whether students are more likely to use an artifact that displays their university identity in situations of high, compared to low, evaluative stress. In Experiment 1, students were more likely to choose a university‐branded pen (vs. an identical unbranded pen) to complete exam questions when their performance would be evaluated versus not. In Experiment 2, we found the tendency to use a university‐branded pen in the face of evaluative stress emerged only among people who found the evaluation personally relevant. In addition, we present converging results from two observational studies suggesting that students are more likely to wear clothing that signals their university identity on exam days compared to control days. These findings suggest that people may turn to visible reminders of group membership when facing evaluative stress. Although we found no consistent evidence for a psychological mechanism underlying this effect, we speculate about theoretically relevant possibilities.     

Happiness Runs in a Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop between Prosocial Spending and Happiness

We examine whether a positive feedback loop exists between spending money on others (i.e. prosocial spending) and happiness. Participants recalled a previous purchase made for either themselves or someone else and then reported their happiness. Afterward, participants chose whether to spend a monetary windfall on themselves or someone else. Participants assigned to recall a purchase made for someone else reported feeling significantly happier immediately after this recollection; most importantly, the happier participants felt, the more likely they were to choose to spend a windfall on someone else in the near future. Thus, by providing initial evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and well-being, these data offer one potential path to sustainable happiness: prosocial spending increases happiness which in turn encourages prosocial spending.     

Motives matter: The emotional consequences of recalled self- and other- focused prosocial acts

Past research has demonstrated that engaging in and reflecting upon past instances of prosocial behavior promote happiness. Yet, people provide help for a myriad of reasons. Do the motives for giving impact its emotional consequences? In three experiments (N?>?680), we compared the emotional outcomes of recalling a past instance of prosocial behavior motivated by self-focused and other-focused concerns. Using both between and within subjects designs, we find that recalling an instance of other-focused helping leads to higher positive affect than recalling an instance of self-focused helping. This finding was mediated by feelings of morality. The present work suggests that not all acts of kindness offer equivalent well-being benefits and that selfish motives may undermine the emotional rewards that typically follow other-focused prosocial behavior.     

Not all gifts are good: The potential practical costs of motivated gifts

People rely on support from others to accomplish mundane and momentous tasks. When asking for assistance, is it beneficial to incentivize a helper by offering a motivated gift (i.e., a gift with the hope of getting support in return)? Six studies (N > 2,500) examine the frequency and potential costs of motivated gifts. In Study 1, a third of Americans indicated that they had given a motivated gift at least once, while nearly two‐thirds believed they had received one. In Studies 2a–d, most participants who imagined receiving a motivated gift before a favor request reported lower willingness to help and anticipated satisfaction from helping than participants who imagined simply being asked for a favor. Finally, Study 3 replicates these findings with actual help provided among friends in a laboratory setting. Findings suggest that motivated gifts are relatively common but may sometimes undermine the assistance that people hope to receive.