Two hundred sixty-three college students participated in a factorial experiment designed to test the hypotheses that mood states interact with costs and with benefits in determining helping. Positive and negative mood states were induced by varying the difficulty of a bogus aptitude test; neutral-mood (control) subjects did not take the test. Benefits for helping were manipulated by asking subjects to collect donations for a worthwhile charity '(the American Cancer Society) or a less worthwhile charity (Little League baseball). In the highcosts-for-helping condition, subjects were asked to collect donations by going door to door, whereas in the low-cost condition, subjects were asked to sit at donations desks. Pretests indicated that the manipulations effectively induced the intended mood states, costs, and benefits. The results generally supported the hypotheses. Positive-mood subjects volunteered more than neutral-mood subjects, and whether negative-mood subjects volunteered more or less than neutral-mood subjects depended on the costs and benefits. It is suggested that the seemingly conflicting results of previous investigations of negative mood and helping can be explained by interactions of mood states with costs and mood states with benefits.Despite wide variation in procedures and in subject samples, research has consistently indicated that positive mood states induce helpful behaviors. For example, apparent success at tasks ostensibly requiring problemsolving, creative, or psychomotor abilities has increased the likelihood and/or magnitude of volunteering, working, or self-sacrificing for the benefit of others (Barnett &

In the context of an annual fundraising drive for the American Society, two field experiments were conducted to test the relative effectiveness of suggesting either small or large contributions. In experiment 1, as part of a door‐to‐door campaign 300 people were randomly assigned to: (a) a standard request for contributions (control); (b) the standard request plus the words, “even a penny will help”; or (c) the standard request plus the words, “a generous contribution would really help.” As hypothesized, asking for a generous contribution significantly decreased the percentage of people who donated and failed to increase the average size of contribution by those who gave. Inconsistent with previous findings, the even‐a‐penny condition did not increase donating. In the second experiment conceptually similar requests were made in a mail‐out campaign: 6,000 requests were made—2,000 suggested relatively small amounts (options beginning at $5); 2,000 suggested large amounts (options beginning at $5); and 2,000 were unspecified with regard to recommended amount (control). As expected, compared to the control condition, asking for small amounts increased the proportion of donors to nondonors without decreasing the average size of contributions, while asking for large amounts decreased the proportion of donors to nondonors without increasing the size of contributions. It is suggested that the findings have important implications for charitable fundraising.

The Implicit Association Test was adapted to assess the degree to which people hold, at least at an implicit level, a stereotype that Hispanics are less intelligent than Whites. On the test, a sample of 41 college students at a university in the United States showed significantly faster reaction times when faced with associations consistent with the stereotype than when faced with associations inconsistent with the stereotype. In addition, scores on the Implicit Association Test were positively correlated with scores on a modified Social Distance Scale. Thus, it was concluded that the adaptation of the Implicit Association Test is both sensitive enough to detect the hypothesized stereotypic belief and a valid test.

As part of a door‐to‐door campaign to raise funds for the American Cancer Society, 359 people in a middle‐class neighborhood were randomly assigned to five different versions of a request for contributions. A version of the request similar to that typically used in such charity drives served as a control and the other four versions were modified slightly on the basis of social psychological principles. Three of these manipulations failed to increase donating beyond the level of the standard request. Replicating prior research, it was found that for completed requests (N= 293) adding the words “even a penny will help” to the standard request significantly increased the percentage of people who donated. However, in 66 cases the solicitor was interrupted with a donation or a refusal before delivering the key phrase that differentiated the experimental conditions. An analysis of these incomplete requests suggests that the effectiveness of the even‐a‐penny technique may be at least partially explained by the solicitors' expectations.

As a test of the hypothesis that perspective taking reduces stereotyping of individuals who speak English as a second language, 160 college students participated in a 2 ¥ 2 factorial experiment. Participants heard an audio recording of either a native or non-native speaker of English. Then, they wrote a paragraph about the speaker either with instructions to take the speaker's perspective or with no perspectivetaking instructions. Finally, they rated the speaker on characteristics related to ability and accomplishment. Overall, the participants rated the native speaker of English more highly than the non-native speaker. However, supporting the hypothesis, participants instructed to take the perspective of the non-native speaker rated her more highly than did participants not instructed to take her perspective.