IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0165717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Are You More Likely to Help? The Effects of Expected Outcomes and Regulatory Focus on Prosocial Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Fengqiu Xiao
  • Zhiwei Zheng
  • Heyi Zhang
  • Ziqiang Xin
  • Yinghe Chen
  • Yiwei Li

Abstract

Prosocial behavior refers to a broad category of actions that benefit other people or the society. Compared with other factors that affect prosocial performance, prosocial outcomes, consisting of prosocial gains and prosocial non-losses have received less attention up to now. In the current research, we explored the influences of different types of expected outcomes and regulatory focus on prosocial performance. Studies 1a and 1b examined the differences in prosocial performance elicited by prosocial gain (e.g., enhancing others’ access to clean water) and prosocial non-loss outcomes (e.g., protecting others from suffering dirty water). We found that the expected prosocial non-loss outcomes induced greater prosocial performance compared with the expected prosocial gain outcomes. Studies 2a and 2b examined the effects of dispositional and situational regulatory focus on prosocial loss aversion. We found that differences in prosocial performance between two expected prosocial outcomes were reduced when promotion focus was primed; whereas a primed prevention focus did not significantly increase this difference. Additionally, participants displayed a greater prosocial loss aversion in the prevention focus condition than in the promotion focus condition. The reason for the non-significant interaction between regulatory focus and expected prosocial outcome was discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Fengqiu Xiao & Zhiwei Zheng & Heyi Zhang & Ziqiang Xin & Yinghe Chen & Yiwei Li, 2016. "Who Are You More Likely to Help? The Effects of Expected Outcomes and Regulatory Focus on Prosocial Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0165717
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165717
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165717&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0165717?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    2. Christopher J. Boyce & Alex M. Wood & James Banks & Andrew E. Clark & Gordon D. A. Brown, 2013. "Money, Well-Being, and Loss Aversion: Does an Income Loss Have a Greater Effect on Well-Being Than an Equivalent Income Gain?," PSE - Labex "OSE-Ouvrir la Science Economique" halshs-00941907, HAL.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    5. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    6. Holler, Marianne & Hoelzl, Erik & Kirchler, Erich & Leder, Susanne & Mannetti, Lucia, 2008. "Framing of information on the use of public finances, regulatory fit of recipients and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 597-611, August.
    7. Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory, 1997. "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 117-132, February.
    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. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    2. Thomas M. Zellweger & Franz W. Kellermanns & James J. Chrisman & Jess H. Chua, 2012. "Family Control and Family Firm Valuation by Family CEOs: The Importance of Intentions for Transgenerational Control," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 851-868, June.
    3. Sheu, Jiuh-Biing & Choi, Tsan-Ming, 2019. "Extended consumer responsibility: Syncretic value-oriented pricing strategies for trade-in-for-upgrade programs," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 350-367.
    4. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    5. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    6. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.
    7. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    8. Steven Andrew Culpepper & James Joseph Balamuta, 2017. "A Hierarchical Model for Accuracy and Choice on Standardized Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 820-845, September.
    9. Werner G³th & Judit Kovßcs, 2001. "Why do people veto? An experimental analysis of the evaluation and the consequences of varying degrees of veto power," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 277-302.
    10. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Philip E. Graves, 2011. "Appropriate Fiscal Policy over the Business Cycle: Proper Stimulus Policies Can Work," The IUP Journal of Governance and Public Policy, IUP Publications, vol. 0(2), pages 26-32, June.
    12. Zhang, Tao & Zhang, David, 2007. "Agent-based simulation of consumer purchase decision-making and the decoy effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 912-922, August.
    13. Smith, Sandra Susan, 2012. "Why Weak Ties' Help and Strong Ties' Don't: Reconsidering Why Tie Strength Matters," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt15p921r5, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    14. Teck-Hua Ho & Juanjuan Zhang, 2008. "Designing Pricing Contracts for Boundedly Rational Customers: Does the Framing of the Fixed Fee Matter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 686-700, April.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Young, Diana L. & Goodie, Adam S. & Hall, Daniel B. & Wu, Eric, 2012. "Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 179-188.
    17. Chip Heath & Marc Knez & Colin Camerer, 1993. "The strategic management of the entitlement process in the employment relationship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 75-93, December.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    19. De Borger, Bruno & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2007. "Discrete choices and the trade-off between money and time: A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences," MPRA Paper 3904, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
    21. Graves Philip E., 2012. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Biases Understating Net Benefits," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-25, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0165717. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.