Why mood affects help giving, but not moral courage: Comparing two types of prosocial behaviour

Abstract

A long tradition in the help giving literature assumes that mood states determine the level of prosocial behaviour shown by individuals. Most research in this area has been conducted in the context of low cost prosocial behaviour, whereas research has been neglected in which participants were confronted with situations involving potential severe and dangerous negative consequences (i.e., high cost situations) with the help-giver risking his moral integrity and social disapproval (i.e., moral courage). To address this gap in the literature, the present studies investigate differential effects of positive and negative compared with neutral mood states on help giving versus moral courage. Study 1 shows that in situations requiring low cost helping, participants were more likely to help in positive and negative moods than those in a neutral mood, whereas in situations requiring moral courage (high cost), participants were comparably likely to help in each of the three mood conditions. In Study 2, we find that salience of moral norms mediates the interaction between type of prosocial behaviour and mood. Finally, Study 3 investigates whether the apparent discrepancy between help giving and moral courage as established by the differential impact of mood states can be determined still differently. It reveals that justice sensibility, civil disobedience, resistance to group pressure, moral mandates, and anger lead to moral courage, but not to help giving. Differences between these two types of prosocial behaviour are discussed. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The largest part of research on prosocial behaviour has focused on cases of need that imply no or low costs for the help giver when getting involved (e.g., reading a number of statements, collecting donations, assembling a pile of papers). There is, however, a growing body of evidence pertaining to the costs and moral aspects of prosocial behaviour, particularly for the case of moral courage, a more costly type of prosocial behaviour. For instance, a person who supports a colleague who presses for investigation into possible corporate corruption may do so despite the risk to lose his job.

Dual-Processing Altruism

“…This view would refine previous suggestions by Kayser et al (2010) who argue that the specific emotion of anger leads to moral courage. Indeed, anger directed toward the offender should support the moral position and encourage to stand up for one’s beliefs.…”

“…Therefore, a behavioral conflict can result especially in prosocial individuals who tend to react more emotionally: on the one hand, they feel like withdrawing from the intimidating situation (e.g., Sekerka and Bagozzi, 2007), on the other hand, their anger fuels them into taking action (e.g., anger, Kayser et al, 2010). The net result of this fight-or-flight conflict may result in very little, while individuals with relatively high need for cognition may either experience much less of this conflict or find sufficient self-discipline or self-regulation in order to override such impulses, and act in line with their reasoning and moral standards.…”

“…She was given a flyer and told that this was about volunteering as a discussion group leader in a project aimed at teaching tolerance toward foreigners to young delinquents found guilty of racist crimes. The information given was meant to make volunteering intimidating; facing the young criminals in such a situation and trying to make them more tolerant would require moral courage (Kayser et al, 2010). Directly after the participant had made her decision, she was thoroughly debriefed and asked to rate (five-point Likert-scale) how threatening and uncomfortable leading the discussion group would have been.…”

“…Justice sensibility, moral mandates, and anger seem to be among the promoters of moral courage (Kayser et al, 2010). Previous studies have suggested that anticipated emotions and self-conscious emotions – such as guilt, shame, and pride – mediate the willingness to engage in this type of potentially costly act against injustice (Sekerka and Bagozzi, 2007; Sekerka et al, 2009).…”

Individual differences in social control: Who ‘speaks up’ when witnessing uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours?

“…Likewise, Baumert et al . () and Niesta Kayser, Greitemeyer, Fischer, and Frey () found that empathy was not reliably associated with helping in high‐cost situations, whereas the experience of anger has been identified as a significant predictor (Halmburger, Baumert, & Schmitt, ). Speaking up against uncivil and immoral behaviours is not about helping someone who is suffering.…”