The Effect of Reprimanding Transgressions on Subsequent Helping Behavior: Two Field Experiments

Katzev, Richard D.; Edelsack, Leon; Steinmetz, George; Walker, Teresa; Wright, Robin

doi:10.1177/014616727800400233

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether guilt was involved is more difficult to say, however. After the initial studies, subsequent findings questioned the guilt explanation by indicating that transgressions can stimulate altruistic behavior even among uninvolved observers (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Konecni, 1972; Rawlings, 1968) and even toward recipients other than the victim (Darlington & Macker, 1966; Katzev, Edelsack, Steinmetz, Walker, & Wright, 1978; Rawlings, 1968). Some studies failed to find the effect (Noel, 1973; Silverman, 1967).…”

Section: Reviews Of Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Baumeister¹,

Stillwell²,

Heatherton³

1994

Psychological Bulletin

1,665

1,494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple sets of empirical research findings on guilt are reviewed to evaluate the view that guilt should be understood as an essentially social phenomenon that happens between people as much as it happens inside them. Guilt appears to arise from interpersonal transactions (including transgressions and positive inequities) and to vary significantly with the interpersonal context. In particular, guilt patterns appear to be strongest, most common, and most consistent in the context of communal relationships, which are characterized by expectations of mutual concern. Guilt serves various relationship-enhancing functions, including motivating people to treat partners well and avoid transgressions, minimizing inequities and enabling less powerful partners to get their way, and redistributing emotional distress.

show abstract

Section: Reviews Of Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Baumeister¹,

Stillwell²,

Heatherton³

1994

Psychological Bulletin

1,665

1,494

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, during the positive experience provided by the experimenter, the subject may have come to believe that the experimenter was unaware of the transgression (McMillan, 1971;McMillan & Austin, 1971) or had chosen to disregard it (Cialdini et al 1973;Regan, 1971). But transgressions that the subject believed were not public have a substantially reduced impact (Katzev, Edelsack, Steinmetz, Walker, & Wright, 1978;Wallace & Sadalla, 1966). To further add to the interpretational ambiguities, in each study a different cognitive or affective component of the positive manipulation was held responsible for the reduced impact of guilt.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping.

Cunningham

Steinberg²,

Grev³

1980

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

220

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two field experiments were conducted to determine the motivations involved in positive mood and guilt-induced helping behavior. In the first experiment subjects received a positive mood induction or no stimulus followed by a guilt induction, a distraction control, or no stimulus. Both positive mood and guilt inductions were found to produce increases in helping; the distraction control had no effect. Presentation of positive mood prior to guilt produced no increase in helping. The latter result suggested that positive mood and guilt may entail mutually inhibitory motivations. To separate the two motivations, a second experiment was conducted using two different types of charity requests. In this experiment, the positive mood manipulation was found to produce increases in helping only to a request stressing the desirability of helping, while the guilt manipulation was found to produce increases only to a request stressing an obligation to help. The interaction of the positive mood and guilt indications produced no increase in helping to either type of request. Self-report data further supported the affect interpretation of the manipulations.Although it has long been recognized that one's demeanor toward other people is affected by irrelevant emotion, a paradox ap-This report is based on a PhD thesis submitted by the first author to the University of Minnesota. The first author would like to thank his committee members,

show abstract

“…The importance of the research and the cognitive model for social norm explanations of helping behavior and of social-norm-based behaviors, in general, was discussed.Research has shown that in many circumstances, persons help more and/or more often when a transgression of some kind occurs prior to the opportunity to help than when no such prior event occurs. Often persons who are in some way responsible for the transgression help both the victim (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969) and a third party (e.g., Katzev, Edelsack, Steinmetz, Walker, & Wright, 1978). In addition, witnessing someone else's transgression has been found to increase observers' helping (e.g., Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973;Rawlings, 1970).Explanations for this phenomenon have emphasized drive-reduction processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive model of social norms for understanding the transgression–helping effect.

Harvey¹,

Enzle²

1981

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spreading activation theory of semantic memory of Collins and Loftus was adapted for the domain of knowledge called "social norms," and the resulting cognitive model of social norms was examined as a means of understanding the transgression-helping phenomena. Briefly, it was proposed that social norms are represented within a knowledge structure in memory and that these representations are associated with each other in varying degrees. With respect to the transgression-helping effect, it was proposed that observation of a transgression activates the representation of the relevant social norm, which in turn facilitates access to the representation of the helping norm to the extent that the two are closely organized within the cognitive structure. Pilot subjects made paired-comparison similarity judgments of a set of social norm statements, and three of these statements were subsequently chosen for the experiment. In the experiment, one of these social norms was made salient within a transgression or no-transgression context, and subjects then had the opportunity to help. The results showed general support for the cognitive model. More helping occurred when a norm closely related to the helping norm was made salient than when a remotely related norm was made salient, compared with no-norm-salient controls. Transgression versus no-transgression context had no effect on helping. The importance of the research and the cognitive model for social norm explanations of helping behavior and of social-norm-based behaviors, in general, was discussed.Research has shown that in many circumstances, persons help more and/or more often when a transgression of some kind occurs prior to the opportunity to help than when no such prior event occurs. Often persons who are in some way responsible for the transgression help both the victim (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969) and a third party (e.g., Katzev, Edelsack, Steinmetz, Walker, & Wright, 1978). In addition, witnessing someone else's transgression has been found to increase observers' helping (e.g., Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973;Rawlings, 1970).Explanations for this phenomenon have emphasized drive-reduction processes. Hypothetically, a transgression produces in the perpetrator and the witness some type of This research was the first author's PhD dissertation. We would like to thank Allen Dobbs, Brendan Rule, Gary Wells, and Daniel Wegner for their comments on previous drafts of the paper.

show abstract

The Effect of Reprimanding Transgressions on Subsequent Helping Behavior: Two Field Experiments

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping.

A cognitive model of social norms for understanding the transgression–helping effect.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About