IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v108y2020icp307-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How recipient group membership affects the effect of power states on prosocial behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Jin, Fei
  • Zhu, Huawei
  • Tu, Ping

Abstract

Understanding and encouraging motivation for prosocial behavior is an important issue. This research shows that recipient group membership moderates the effect of power on prosocial behavior. Across four studies using different manipulations of power, different samples, and various scenarios, we find that consumers in high-power states show a similar tendency to assist in-group and out-group recipients. However, consumers in low-power states are more likely to help in-group recipients (Study 2 & 4). We further find that consumers in low-power states help others to meet their reciprocity motive, and helping in-group rather than out-group members can satisfy this motive. This difference is less salient for high-power consumers because they help others to satisfy their self-enhancement motive (Study 1 & 3). The findings are helpful to understand people’s distinctions in prosocial conduct.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin, Fei & Zhu, Huawei & Tu, Ping, 2020. "How recipient group membership affects the effect of power states on prosocial behaviors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 307-315.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:108:y:2020:i:c:p:307-315
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319306411
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.052?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Praveen K. Kopalle & Donald R. Lehmann & John U. Farley, 2010. "Consumer Expectations and Culture: The Effect of Belief in Karma in India," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 251-263, August.
    2. Kevyn Yong & Nathan C. Pettit & Sandra E. Spataro, 2010. "Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses," Post-Print hal-00528416, HAL.
    3. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Esther Duflo, 2007. "The Economic Lives of the Poor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 141-168, Winter.
    4. Saerom Lee & Karen Page Winterich & William T. Ross Jr., 2014. "I'm Moral, but I Won't Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 678-696.
    5. Gary E. Bolton & Rami Zwick & Elena Katok, 1998. "Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 27(2), pages 269-299.
    6. Karen Page Winterich & Yinlong Zhang, 2014. "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 274-293.
    7. Garbinsky, Emily N. & Klesse, Anne-Kathrin & Aaker, Jennifer, 2014. "Money in the Bank: Feeling Powerful Increases Saving," Research Papers 2146, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Karen Page Winterich & Vikas Mittal & William T. Ross Jr., 2009. "Donation Behavior toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 199-214.
    9. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    10. Emily N. Garbinsky & Anne-Kathrin Klesse & Jennifer Aaker, 2014. "Money in the Bank: Feeling Powerful Increases Saving," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 610-623.
    11. Katina Kulow & Thomas Kramer, 2016. "In Pursuit of Good Karma: When Charitable Appeals to Do Right Go Wrong," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(2), pages 334-353.
    12. Derek D. Rucker & Adam D. Galinsky & David Dubois, 2012. "Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value," Post-Print hal-00724231, HAL.
    13. Zhu, Huawei & Wong, Nancy & Huang, Minxue, 2019. "Does relationship matter? How social distance influences perceptions of responsibility on anthropomorphized environmental objects and conservation intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 62-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yong Zhang & Chuling Lin & Jialing Yang, 2019. "Time or Money? The Influence of Warm and Competent Appeals on Donation Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Bullard, Olya & Penner, Sara, 2017. "A regulatory-focused perspective on philanthropy: Promotion focus motivates giving to prevention-framed causes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 173-180.
    3. Wei, Chuang & Liu, Maggie Wenjing & Keh, Hean Tat, 2020. "The road to consumer forgiveness is paved with money or apology? The roles of empathy and power in service recovery," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 321-334.
    4. Wang, Lili & Kim, Sara & Zhou, Xinyue, 2023. "Money in a “Safe” place: Money anthropomorphism increases saving behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 88-108.
    5. Michael J. Barone & T. J. Bae & Shanshan Qian & Jason d’Mello, 2017. "Power and the appeal of the deal: how consumers value the control provided by Pay What You Want (PWYW) pricing," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 437-447, September.
    6. Choi, Woo Jin & Park, JaeHong & Yoon, Ho-Jung, 2018. "Your gift choice for your boss versus your subordinate would not be the same: The interplay of power and giver-receiver role on consumers' gift preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-7.
    7. Wang, Jessie J. & Lalwani, Ashok K. & DelVecchio, Devon, 2022. "The Impact of Power Distance Belief on Consumers' Brand Preferences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 804-823.
    8. Wang, Yajin, 2022. "A conceptual framework of contemporary luxury consumption," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 788-803.
    9. Terri Friedline & Stacia West, 2016. "Financial Education is not Enough: Millennials May Need Financial Capability to Demonstrate Healthier Financial Behaviors," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 649-671, December.
    10. Park, Sehoon & Kim, Chaeyeong & Park, Jane, 2023. "How power distance belief, self-construal, and relationship norms impact conspicuous consumption," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Katarzyna Sekścińska & Joanna Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, 2021. "How Power Influences Decision-Makers’ Investment Behavior in the Domains of Loss and Gain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Sudipta Mukherjee, 2022. "Consumer altruism and risk taking: why do altruistic consumers take more risks?," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 19(4), pages 781-803, December.
    13. Mukherjee, Ashesh & Lee, Seung Yun & Burnham, Thomas, 2020. "The effect of others’ participation on charitable behavior: Moderating role of recipient resource scarcity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 213-228.
    14. Wang, Xia & Tong, Luqiong, 2015. "Hide the light or let it shine? Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’ happiness," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 418-424.
    15. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    16. Joanna Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, 2017. "If you want to save, focus on the forest rather than on trees. The effects of shifts in levels of construal on saving decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Ma, Jingjing & Lin, Yu (Anna) & Ein-Gar, Danit, 2023. "Charitable maximizers: The impact of the maximizing mindset on donations to human recipients," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 417-434.
    18. D. M. Sachinthanee Dissanayake & Ananda K. L. Jayawardana, 2023. "The impact of personal sense of power on unethical decision-making: a moderated mediation model of love of money motive and power distance orientation," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 50(1), pages 19-34, March.
    19. Lu Yang & Yuhuang Zheng & Rui Chen, 2021. "Who has a cushion? The interactive effect of social exclusion and gender on fixed savings," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 1398-1415, December.
    20. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:108:y:2020:i:c:p:307-315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.