Perceived Physical Vulnerability Promotes Prosocial Behavior

Abstract

Our research examines the association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior. Studies 1 to 4 establish a positive association between individuals’ vulnerability and their prosociality. To increase generality, these studies looked at different behaviors (volunteering vs. monetary donations), various physical harms (e.g., war vs. illness), and different samples (students vs. MTurk workers). Study 4 also provides initial evidence of a partial mediating effect of closeness on the observed association. In Study 5, perceived vulnerability is experimentally manipulated, demonstrating a causal link between vulnerability and willingness to donate. Study 6 further demonstrates that closeness partially mediates the association between vulnerability and donation, while ruling out an alternative explanation of the effect—such as that vulnerable people donate in expectation of future reciprocity. Together, our research demonstrates a consistent positive association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosociality. This effect appears small when considering daily threats and stronger when vulnerability becomes more salient.

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Validity of the Tangram Help/Hurt Task

“…Second, the THHT assesses a relatively milder form of aggressive and prosocial behaviors compared with other established measures such as the Competitive Reaction Time Task for assessing physically aggressive behaviors (Warburton & Bushman, 2019) or assessing high-cost prosocial behaviors such as donating and volunteering behaviors (Motsenok et al, 2022), which have a higher correspondence to real world acts of prosocial behavior.…”

“…Laboratory assessments of aggressive and prosocial behaviors in psychological sciences have a long history in which these constructs have been measured in diverse and creative ways (e.g., Galizzi & Navarro-Martinez, 2019; McCarthy & Elson, 2018; Wispe, 1972). Although many of these measures have been widely used and have provided valuable empirical data (e.g., Burnett Heyes, 2020; Motsenok et al, 2022; Thielmann et al, 2020; Warburton & Bushman, 2019), they are not void of criticisms. Consistent with concerns about experimental research and laboratory paradigms in general (e.g., Lin et al, 2021; Mitchell, 2012), laboratory assessments of aggression and prosocial behavior are frequently criticized based on construct validity (i.e., does it measure what it is supposed to measure in the laboratory context?)…”

“…Unlike laboratory measures of aggressive behavior, which are necessarily constrained by ethical guidelines, measures of prosocial behavior can allow for greater correspondence inside and outside the lab (e.g., donations to charity, helping another person). Although earlier attempts to assess prosocial behaviors occurred in more naturalistic settings (e.g., returning lost wallets: Hornstein et al, 1968 agreeing to donate blood: Anderson, 1983) or in laboratory settings (volunteering to take shock for another person: “Elaine paradigm”: Batson et al, 1981), recent experimental studies assess prosocial behaviors using social dilemma games (Thielmann et al, 2020), willingness to help people inside and outside the lab (research assistant with another study, someone who dropped their pencils, and someone struggling to use crutches: e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2009; Twenge et al, 2007; Van Baaren et al, 2004), and donating money or committing time to a charitable cause (Motsenok et al, 2022).…”

Relations Between Violent Video Game Experiences and Prosocial Behavior

“…We explicitly told participants that the amount of helping time represented the stronger you want to help the victim, the more time you choose, the more time you will spend helping the victim. This self-reported measure of prosocial behavior was proven to be effective and has been widely used (Motsenok et al, 2022), but it needs to be pointed out that the helping time and the willingness to help in the present study both reflect prosocial intention and are not actual behavior (Penner et al, 2005). We used these two indicators (r = 0.315, p < .001) to represent individuals' attitude level of prosocial behavior.…”