Everyday helping is associated with enhanced mood but greater stress when it is more effortful.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 10 2024
15 10 2024
Historique:
received:
23
05
2023
accepted:
03
10
2024
medline:
16
10
2024
pubmed:
16
10
2024
entrez:
15
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Our affective states can influence whether we help others and after helping we often experience improved affect. One important factor determining whether we help, is the amount of effort involved. Using an ecological momentary assessment approach across two measurement bursts (N = 803; N = 303), we investigated the affective antecedents and consequences of everyday helping in terms of participants' self-reported momentary stress and mood valence, with a specific focus on the perceived amount of effort involved. Regardless of the amount of effort involved in helping, participants reported more positive mood valence after helping across both measurement bursts. In burst 2, this mood boosting effect of helping was strongest in those reporting lower mood prior to helping. In burst 1, we found a bidirectional relationship between stress and helping effort: the greater the effort involved in helping, the greater the perceived stress both before and after helping. Contrary to our preregistered hypotheses, changes in stress or mood valence did not precede helping regardless of the amount of effort involved. Our results support previous work linking helping to enhanced mood but suggest that when helping is more effortful it is both preceded and followed by greater stress. These findings have important implications for fostering and sustaining prosocial behaviours, especially when effort is involved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39407032
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-75261-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-75261-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24120Subventions
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund (Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung)
ID : I3381
Organisme : Universität Wien (University of Vienna)
ID : Uni:Docs scholarship 2019
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Carlson, M., Charlin, V. & Miller, N. Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.55, 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.211 (1988).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.211
pubmed: 3050025
Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G. & Wall, M. Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Pers. Psychol.64, 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01206.x (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01206.x
Isen, A. M. Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (ed. Isen, A. M.) 203–253 (Elsevier, 1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60415-3 .
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60415-3
Veitch, R., de Wood, R. & Bosko, K. Radio news broadcasts: Their effects on interpersonal helping. Sociometry40, 383–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033489 (1977).
doi: 10.2307/3033489
Baumsteiger, R. Looking forward to helping: The effects of prospection on prosocial intentions and behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.47, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12456 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12456
Levin, P. F. & Isen, A. M. Further studies on the effect of feeling good on helping. Sociometry38, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786238 (1975).
doi: 10.2307/2786238
Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U. & Burghart, D. R. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science316, 1622–1625. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140738 (2007).
doi: 10.1126/science.1140738
pubmed: 17569866
Ferguson, E., Taylor, M., Keatley, D., Flynn, N. & Lawrence, C. Blood donors’ helping behavior is driven by warm glow: More evidence for the blood donor benevolence hypothesis. Transfusion (Paris)52, 2189–2200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03557.x (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03557.x
Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W. & Norton, M. I. Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. J. Happiness Stud.13, 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5
Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E. & De Witte, H. Feel good, do good online? Spillover and crossover effects of happiness on adolescents’ online prosocial behavior. J. Happiness Stud.20, 1241–1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0003-2 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s10902-018-0003-2
Hui, B. P. & Kogan, A. Daily ups and downs: An event-sampling study of the mediated moderation of prosocial engagement on well-being. Soc. Psychol. Personal Sci.9, 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722197 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/1948550617722197
Snippe, E. et al. The reciprocity of prosocial behavior and positive affect in daily life. J. Pers.86, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12299 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/jopy.12299
pubmed: 28093772
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A. & Hufford, M. R. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.4, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415 (2008).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
pubmed: 18509902
Taquet, M., Quoidbach, J., De Montjoye, Y.-A., Desseilles, M. & Gross, J. J. Hedonism and the choice of everyday activities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.113, 9769–9773. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519998113 (2016).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1519998113
pubmed: 27528666
pmcid: 5024602
Taylor, S. E. et al. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychol. Rev.107, 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411 (2002).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411
Tomova, L. et al. Increased neural responses to empathy for pain might explain how acute stress increases prosociality. Soc. Cogn. Affect Neurosci.12, 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw146 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw146
pubmed: 27798249
Von Dawans, B., Fischbacher, U., Kirschbaum, C., Fehr, E. & Heinrichs, M. The social dimension of stress reactivity: Acute stress increases prosocial behavior in humans. Psychol. Sci.23, 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611431576 (2012).
doi: 10.1177/0956797611431576
Nitschke, J. P., Forbes, P. A. G. & Lamm, C. Does stress make us more—or less—prosocial? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute stress on prosocial behaviours using economic games. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.142, 104905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104905 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104905
pubmed: 36228924
Inagaki, T. K. & Eisenberger, N. I. Giving support to others reduces sympathetic nervous system-related responses to stress. Psychophysiology53, 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12578 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.12578
pubmed: 26575283
Raposa, E. B., Laws, H. B. & Ansell, E. B. Prosocial behavior mitigates the negative effects of stress in everyday life. Clin. Psychol. Sci.4, 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702615611073 (2016).
doi: 10.1177/2167702615611073
pubmed: 27500075
Lockwood, P. L. et al. Prosocial apathy for helping others when effort is required. Nat. Hum. Behav.1, 0131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0131 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0131
pubmed: 28819649
pmcid: 5555390
Bartlett, M. Y. & DeSteno, D. Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychol. Sci.17, 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x (2006).
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x
pubmed: 16623689
Forest, D., Clark, M. S., Mills, J. & Isen, A. M. Helping as a function of feeling state and nature of the helping behavior. Motiv. Emot.3, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01650601 (1979).
doi: 10.1007/BF01650601
Isen, A. M. & Simmonds, S. F. The effect of feeling good on a helping task that is incompatible with good mood. Soc. Psychol.41, 346–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033588 (1978).
doi: 10.2307/3033588
Garbarino, E. C. & Edell, J. A. Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. J. Consum. Res.24, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/209500 (1997).
doi: 10.1086/209500
Isen, A. M. & Means, B. The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy. Soc. Cogn.2, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1983.2.1.18 (1983).
doi: 10.1521/soco.1983.2.1.18
Morsella, E., Feinberg, G. H., Cigarchi, S., Newton, J. W. & Williams, L. E. Sources of avoidance motivation: Valence effects from physical effort and mental rotation. Motiv. Emot.35, 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9172-y (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s11031-010-9172-y
pubmed: 21957322
Cameron, C. D. et al. Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.148, 962–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000595 (2019).
doi: 10.1037/xge0000595
pubmed: 30998038
Forbes, P. A. et al. Acute stress reduces effortful prosocial behaviour. Elife12, RP87271. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.87271.3 (2024).
doi: 10.7554/eLife.87271.3
pubmed: 38180785
pmcid: 10942768
Bogdanov, M., Nitschke, J. P., LoParco, S., Bartz, J. A. & Otto, A. R. Acute psychosocial stress increases cognitive-effort avoidance. Psychol. Sci.32, 1463–1475. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211005465 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/09567976211005465
pubmed: 34464216
Bryce, C. A. & Floresco, S. B. Perturbations in effort-related decision-making driven by acute stress and corticotropin-releasing factor. Neuropsychopharmacology41, 2147–2159. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.15 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/npp.2016.15
pubmed: 26830960
pmcid: 4908645
Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz. Coronavirus - Aktuelle Maßnahmen. https://web.archive.org/web/20200416000545/https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Coronavirus---Aktuelle-Ma%25C3%259Fnahmen.html . (2020).
Mawson, A. R. Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry68, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2023.2289814 (2005).
doi: 10.1080/00332747.2023.2289814
pubmed: 16247853
Ding, W. et al. How can prosocial behavior be motivated? The different roles of moral judgment, moral elevation, and moral identity among the young Chinese. Front. Psychol.9, 814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00814 (2018).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00814
pubmed: 29892249
pmcid: 5985326
Dunfield, K. A. & Kuhlmeier, V. A. Classifying prosocial behavior: Children’s responses to instrumental need, emotional distress, and material desire. Child Dev.84, 1766–1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12075 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/cdev.12075
pubmed: 23461793
Dunfield, K. A. A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Front. Psychol.5, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958 (2014).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958
Peetz, J. & Milyavskaya, M. A self-determination theory approach to predicting daily prosocial behavior. Motiv. Emot.45, 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09902-5 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s11031-021-09902-5
Keltner, D., Kogan, A., Piff, P. K. & Saturn, S. R. The sociocultural appraisals, values, and emotions (SAVE) framework of prosociality: Core processes from gene to meme. Annu. Rev. Psychol.65, 425–460. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115054 (2014).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115054
pubmed: 24405363
Long JA. jtools: Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific. Data R Package Version 22. (2022).
Pavlíčková, K. et al. Acute stress promotes effort mobilization for safety-related goals. Commun. Psychol.2, 50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00103-7 (2024).
doi: 10.1038/s44271-024-00103-7
pubmed: 39242906
pmcid: 11332123
Yinon, Y. & Landau, M. O. On the reinforcing value of helping behavior in a positive mood. Motiv. Emot.11, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992215 (1987).
doi: 10.1007/bf00992215
Brown, R. M. & Brown, S. L. Informal caregiving: A reappraisal of effects on caregivers. Soc. Issues Policy Rev.8, 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12002 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/sipr.12002
Alden, L. E. & Trew, J. L. If it makes you happy: engaging in kind acts increases positive affect in socially anxious individuals. Emotion13, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027761 (2013).
doi: 10.1037/a0027761
pubmed: 22642341
Doré, B. P., Morris, R. R., Burr, D. A., Picard, R. W. & Ochsner, K. N. Helping others regulate emotion predicts increased regulation of one’s own emotions and decreased symptoms of depression. Pers. Soc. Psychol Bull.43, 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695558 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/0146167217695558
pubmed: 28903637
Varma, M. M. & Hu, X. Prosocial behaviour reduces unwanted intrusions of experimental traumatic memories. Behav. Res. Ther.148, 103998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2021.103998 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2021.103998
pubmed: 34864480
Varma, M. M., Chen, D., Lin, X., Aknin, L. B. & Hu, X. Prosocial behavior promotes positive emotion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emotion23, 538–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001077 (2023).
doi: 10.1037/emo0001077
pubmed: 35298223
Shaw, L. L., Batson, C. D. & Todd, R. M. Empathy avoidance: Forestalling feeling for another in order to escape the motivational consequences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.67, 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.879 (1994).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.879
Cnaan, R. A. et al. You thought that this would be easy? Seeking an understanding of episodic volunteering. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit. Organ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00329-7 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s11266-021-00329-7
Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A. & Olivola, C. Y. The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends Cogn. Sci.22, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007
pubmed: 29477776
pmcid: 6172040
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D. & Ariely, D. The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. J. Consum. Psychol.22, 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002
Stebbins, R. A. Would you volunteer?. Soc Sci Public Policy.46, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-008-9186-1 (2009).
doi: 10.1007/s12115-008-9186-1
Aydinli, A., Bender, M. & Chasiotis, A. Helping and volunteering across cultures: Determinants of prosocial behavior. Online Read. Psychol. Cult.5, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1118 (2013).
doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1118
Berry, D. R., Wall, C. S. J., Tubbs, J. D., Zeidan, F. & Brown, K. W. Short-term training in mindfulness predicts helping behavior toward racial ingroup and outgroup members. Soc. Psychol. Personal Sci.14, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211053095 (2023).
doi: 10.1177/19485506211053095
Fridman, A., Gershon, R. & Gneezy, A. Increased generosity under COVID-19 threat. Sci. Rep.12, 4886. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08748-2 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08748-2
pubmed: 35361800
pmcid: 8971415
Jonas, E., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J. & Pyszczynski, T. The Scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.28, 1342–1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702236834 (2002).
doi: 10.1177/014616702236834
Radley, K., King, N. & Wager, N. A thematic analysis investigating the impact of COVID-19 on the way people think and talk about death and dying. Mortality29, 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2023.2169824 (2024).
doi: 10.1080/13576275.2023.2169824
Peng, Y., Li, Y. & Wei, L. Positive sentiment and the donation amount: Social norms in crowdfunding donations during the COVID-19 PANDEMIC. Front. Psychol.13, 818510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818510 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818510
pubmed: 35265015
pmcid: 8901185
Martínez-Álvarez, R. P., Rodriguez-Silva, D., Costas-Rodríguez, S. & Gonzalez-Castano, F. J. Low Cost Remote Effort Monitoring with Wearable Accelerometers 1–2 (IEEE, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ccnc.2009.4785018 .
doi: 10.1109/ccnc.2009.4785018
Moissa, B., Bonnin, G. & Boyer, A. Exploiting wearable technologies to measure and predict students’ effort. Perspect. Wearable Enhanc. Learn. WELL Curr. Trends Res. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64301-4_19 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-64301-4_19
Feneberg, A. C. et al. Diurnal dynamics of stress and mood during COVID-19 lockdown: A large multinational ecological momentary assessment study. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.289, 20212480. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2480 (2022).
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.2480
Forbes, P. A. et al. The effects of social interactions on momentary stress and mood during COVID-19 lockdowns. Br. J. Health Psychol.28, 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12626 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12626
pubmed: 36251581
Feneberg, A. C. et al. Perceptions of stress and mood associated with listening to music in daily life during the COVID-19 lockdown. JAMA Netw. Open6, e2250382–e2250382. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50382 (2023).
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50382
pubmed: 36626171
pmcid: 9857599
Stijovic, A. et al. Homeostatic regulation of energetic arousal during acute social isolation: Evidence from the lab and the field. Psychol. Sci.34, 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231156413 (2023).
doi: 10.1177/09567976231156413
pubmed: 36976885
Bock, O., Baetge, I. & Nicklisch, A. hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. Eur. Econ. Rev.71, 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.07.003 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.07.003
Steyer R, Schwenkmezger P, Notz P, Eid M. Der Mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen MDBF [multidimensional mood questionnaire]. Gött Ger Hogrefe. (1997).
Wilhelm, P. & Schoebi, D. Assessing mood in daily life. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.23, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.258 (2007).
doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.258
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2014).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Team RC. RA language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical. Computing. (2020).
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J.9, 378–400. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2017-066 (2017).
doi: 10.32614/rj-2017-066
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang.68, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Enders, C. K. & Tofighi, D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychol. Methods12, 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121 (2007).
doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121
pubmed: 17563168
Long JA, Long MJA. Package ‘interactions.’ See Httpsinteractions Jacob-Long Com. (2019).
de Vries, L. P., Baselmans, B. M. L. & Bartels, M. Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment of well-being: A systematic review and recommendations for future studies. J. Happiness Stud.22, 2361–2408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00324-7 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s10902-020-00324-7
pubmed: 34720691
Myin-Germeys I, Kuppens P. The open handbook of experience sampling methodology: A step-by-step guide to designing, conducting, and analyzing ESM studies. (2022).