Type and amount of help as predictors for impression of helpers

Erlandsson, Arvid; Wingren, Mattias; Andersson, Per

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243808

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the literature highlights several ways in which one might maximize the reputational benefits that flow from moral engagement. In particular, moral engagement tends to be perceived especially positively when it is (i) more costly to the actor (e.g., because it requires a greater investment of time, effort, or resources) [29,35,37,[41][42][43][44][45], (ii) more beneficial to others [43][44][45][46][47] (although observers may be relatively less sensitive to benefits achieved than costs incurred [29,[43][44][45]48]), and (iii) more direct (e.g., cooperating tends to confer larger reputational benefits than punishing non-cooperation in others [26,27]).…”

Section: Reputational Benefits Of Moral Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

When does moral engagement risk triggering a hypocrite penalty?

Jordan

Sommers

2022

Current Opinion in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Reputational Benefits Of Moral Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

When does moral engagement risk triggering a hypocrite penalty?

Jordan

Sommers

2022

Current Opinion in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a reaction to the mentioned contrast between the intention and results, the concept of effective altruism appears. This concept abstracts from factors that cannot be objectively assessed and considers altruism with as rational an approach as possible based on its real impacts (Erlandsson et al, 2020;Gabriel, 2016).…”

Section: Altruism and Religion 21 Altruismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religiosity as a Driving Force of Altruistic Economic Preferences

Konarik*

Melecky

2022

ijbass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes the influence of selected socioeconomic factors on prosocial economic preferences with special attention to religiosity and religion. We examine whether particular socio-economic characteristics (gender, age, income, regular income, education, religion, and religiosity) have a significant effect on prosocial economic preferences, represented by the willingness to donate to a beggar, the amount of the donation, willingness to donate more to a child beggar, the amount of the donation to a child beggar, and participation in charity events. We run a questionnaire survey, and we test individual effects on a sample of 181 observations using graphical analysis and non-parametric tests. We find that both religiosity and religion significantly influence prosocial economic preferences, but the effects of religiosity are broader. The other significant drivers of prosocial economic preferences include socioeconomic characteristics of participants regular income, and to a lesser extent age and gender.

show abstract

“…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).…”

Section: Anticipated Negative Social Consequences Due To Helpingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new typology of psychological mechanisms underlying prosocial decisions

Erlandsson¹,

Moche²,

Dickert³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Type and amount of help as predictors for impression of helpers

Cited by 16 publications

References 102 publications

When does moral engagement risk triggering a hypocrite penalty?

When does moral engagement risk triggering a hypocrite penalty?

Religiosity as a Driving Force of Altruistic Economic Preferences

A new typology of psychological mechanisms underlying prosocial decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About