Offering more support than we seek

Beck, Lindsey A.; Clark, Margaret S.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.004

Cited by 19 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…People might feel more licensed to take from close others because they anticipate more forgiveness for their selfishness when taking from close others rather than distant others (McCullough et al 1998;McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal 1997), or they might feel more comfortable taking things (e.g., help) from close friends as compared to casual friends because they are less concerned with making a good impression (Beck and Clark 2009). In our next study, we tested these alternative explanations by examining whether people give to, rather than just take from, close others more than from distant others.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research documents "the friendly taking effect" in choosing consumption packages for the self and others, interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting package when this package also offers greater total benefit to the self-other collective (studies 1 and 2). We propose that a friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit) underlies the friendly taking effect; therefore, people both take more from and give more to a close (vs. distant) other when doing so offers greater benefits in total (study 3), and people are cognitively tuned in to (e.g., acquire, remember) information about the total benefit more when choosing a package for themselves and a close (vs. distant) other (study 4). Moreover, the importance people place on the total benefit mediates the impact of closeness on people's preference for self-benefiting packages (study 5). We explore boundary conditions (study 6) and implications for marketers of consumption packages (study 7).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, targets may explicitly solicit the regulator’s intervention to help them regulate their emotions. Notably, people often offer more regulatory support than they seek [46], suggesting that social regulation is often initiated by regulators rather than being solicited by targets. However, little empirical research has examined how regulators define goal states and what motivations guide their regulatory attempts [25].…”

Section: Social Regulation From the Perspective Of The Regulatormentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Regulation of Emotion: An Integrative, Cross-Disciplinary Model

Reeck

Ames

Ochsner

2016

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

237

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in emotion regulation has largely focused on how people manage their own emotions, but there is a growing recognition that the ways in which we regulate the emotions of others also are important. Drawing on work from diverse disciplines, we propose an integrative model of the psychological and neural processes supporting the social regulation of emotion. This organizing framework, the ‘social regulatory cycle’, specifies at multiple levels of description the act of regulating another person’s emotions as well as the experience of being a target of regulation. The cycle describes the processing stages that lead regulators to attempt to change the emotions of a target person, the impact of regulation on the processes that generate emotions in the target, and the underlying neural systems.

show abstract

“…Second, the actions we take to form, strengthen, or repair mutualistic relationships differ by relationship stage (Clark & Beck 2011). To win people over to a cooperative communal relationship, for instance, we begin by offering more benefits than we request, but, if a commitment to a relationship is made, offers and requests even out if needs are even (Beck & Clark 2009). Third, individual differences mattera lot.…”

Section: Ken Binmorementioning

confidence: 99%

A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What makes humans moral beings? This question can be understood either as a proximate "how" question or as an ultimate "why" question. The "how" question is about the mental and social mechanisms that produce moral judgments and interactions, and has been investigated by psychologists and social scientists. The "why" question is about the fitness consequences that explain why humans have morality, and has been discussed by evolutionary biologists in the context of the evolution of cooperation. Our goal here is to contribute to a fruitful articulation of such proximate and ultimate explanations of human morality. We develop an approach to morality as an adaptation to an environment in which individuals were in competition to be chosen and recruited in mutually advantageous cooperative interactions. In this environment, the best strategy is to treat others with impartiality and to share the costs and benefits of cooperation equally. Those who offer less than others will be left out of cooperation; conversely, those who offer more will be exploited by their partners. In line with this mutualistic approach, the study of a range of economic games involving property rights, collective actions, mutual help and punishment shows that participants' distributions aim at sharing the costs and benefits of interactions in an impartial way. In particular, the distribution of resources is influenced by effort and talent, and the perception of each participant's rights on the resources to be distributed. Abstract: What makes humans moral beings? This question can be understood either as a proximate "how" question or as an ultimate "why" question. The "how" question is about the mental and social mechanisms that produce moral judgments and interactions, and has been investigated by psychologists and social scientists. The "why" question is about the fitness consequences that explain why humans have morality, and has been discussed by evolutionary biologists in the context of the evolution of cooperation. Our goal here is to contribute to a fruitful articulation of such proximate and ultimate explanations of human morality. We develop an approach to morality as an adaptation to an environment in which individuals were in competition to be chosen and recruited in mutually advantageous cooperative interactions. In this environment, the best strategy is to treat others with impartiality and to share the costs and benefits of cooperation equally. Those who offer less than others will be left out of cooperation; conversely, those who offer more will be exploited by their partners. In line with this mutualistic approach, the study of a range of economic games involving property rights, collective actions, mutual help and punishment shows that participants' distributions aim at sharing the costs and benefits of interactions in an impartial way. In particular, the distribution of resources is influenced by effort and talent, and the perception of each participant's rights on the resources to be distributed.

show abstract

Offering more support than we seek

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

The Social Regulation of Emotion: An Integrative, Cross-Disciplinary Model

A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About