Effects of mood states, costs, and benefits on helping.

Abstract

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 &

Mood, self-awareness, and willingness to help.

“…On one side, as mentioned earlier, the negative affect sometimes leads to relatively great helpfulness, as if the unhappy persons are seeking to lessen their unpleasant mood by acting in a socially desirable manner (Cialdini et al, 1973;Kidd & Marshall, 1982). This instrumentally motivated aid is most apt to be given when (a) the behavior is relatively easy to cany out and seems likely to be effective (Weyant, 1978), (b) there is reason to think the bad feelings can change (Mamtcia et al, 1984), and (c) the negative mood is not especially strong (see Manucia et al, 1984, p. 357). But on the other hand, and operating in the opposite direction, relatively intense negative affect tends to evoke anger and aggressive inclinations as well as a desire to escape from the unpleasant situation (Berkowitz, 1983).…”

Contributions from mood research

“…However, there is a group of studies (Berkowitz & Connor, 1966;Fried & Berkowitz, 1979;Isen, 1970;Mischel, Coates, & Raskoff, 1968;Regan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972;Weyant, 1978;Zillmann & Bryant, 1985) that utilize mood-manipulation methods that may have generated irritation rather than dejection. In most of these studies the subjects were led to believe that they had failed in an experimental task.…”

Character Traits, Social Psychology, and Impediments to Helping Behavior

“…Perhaps even more compelling is the 1984 study by Manucia, Baumann and Cialdini. Mood was varied by asking subjects to recall and reminisce 23 See Weiss et al 1973, Cialdini et al 1973, Cialdini and Kenrick 1976, Weyant 1978, Benson 1978, Manucia et al 1984, Cialdini et al 1987, Schaller and Cialdini 1988, Batson, et al 1989, Salovey et al 1991and Taylor 1991. For criticism of the mood management model, see Miller 1987 andMiller andCarlson 1990.…”

“…Concerning the latter, they allow us to formulate conditionals which can offer fairly precise, testable empirical predictions for helping behavior. For example, for moderately good moods we would get conditionals like the following: (a) If Isen and Levin 1972, Levin and Isen 1975, Weyant 1978, and Baron and Thomley 1994 Since as Doris himself notes, "sporadic failures of trait-relevant behavior probably shouldn't be taken to disconfirm attributions " (2002: 19), probabilistic qualifiers are built into the consequents of the conditionals in (a) through (c).…”