“Will I be judged harshly after trying to help but causing more troubles?” A misprediction about help recipients

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00291

Abstract

Abstract:

In many cases, people intend to offer help but unfortunately cause more troubles to help recipients. After doing so, helpers often expect negative evaluations from help recipients and therefore may be reluctant to offer help again. Is this prediction accurate? Across six studies (N = 1763), by comparing helpers’ predictions of help recipients’ reactions with help recipients’ actual reactions, the present research revealed a misprediction: helpers overestimated the negative impacts (underestimated the positive impacts) of their behaviors on help recipients when they tried to help but caused more troubles. The reason for this misprediction was that in contrast to helpers’ predictions about help recipients, help recipients paid more attention to helpers’ warmth and less attention to helpers’ competence.

Key words: misprediction, help, competence, warmth, judgment and decision making

SHANG Xuesong, CHEN Zhuo, LU Jingyi. (2021). “Will I be judged harshly after trying to help but causing more troubles?” A misprediction about help recipients. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(3), 291-305.

Figures/Tables 8

References 32

[1]	Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751-763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751 URL pmid: 17983298
[2]	Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 URL
[3]	Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, J. F. (2010). ‘‘Why didn’t you just ask?” Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 402-409. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.015 URL
[4]	Boothby, E. J., Cooney, G., Sandstrom, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think? Psychological Science, 29, 1742-1756. doi: 10.1177/0956797618783714 URL pmid: 30183512
[5]	Cooney, G., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2017). The novelty penalty: Why do people like talking about new experiences but hearing about old ones? Psychological Science, 28, 380-394. doi: 10.1177/0956797616685870 URL pmid: 28140768
[6]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 URL
[7]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. URL pmid: 12051578
[8]	Flynn, F. J., & Bohns, V. K. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 128-143. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128 URL pmid: 18605856
[9]	Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., & Chen, P. (2019). The status signals paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 690-696. doi: 10.1177/1948550618783712 URL
[10]	Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own action and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.211 URL pmid: 10707330
[11]	Goodman, J. K., & Lim, S. (2018). When consumers prefer to give material gifts instead of experiences: The role of social distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 365-382. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy010 URL
[12]	Hsee, C. K., & Tang, J. N. (2007). Sun and water: On a modulus-based measurement of happiness. Emotion, 7, 213-218. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.213 URL pmid: 17352577
[13]	Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461-474. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.461 URL pmid: 17470000
[14]	Jung, M. H., Moon, A., & Nelson, L. D. (2020). Overestimating the valuations and preference of others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1193-1214. doi: 10.1037/xge0000700 URL
[15]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. doi: 10.2307/1914185 URL
[16]	Krueger, J., & Clement, R. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 596-610.
[17]	Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29, 1423-1435. doi: 10.1177/0956797618772506 URL pmid: 29949445
[18]	Kupor, D., Flynn, F., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Half a gift is not half-hearted: A giver-receiver asymmetry in the thoughtfulness of partial gifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1-9.
[19]	Levine, E. E., & Cohen, T. R. (2018). You can handle the truth: Mispredicting the consequences of honest communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1400-1429. doi: 10.1037/xge0000488 URL
[20]	Lu, J., & Xie, X. (2014). To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 47-55. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.001 URL
[21]	Newark, D. A., Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. (2017). A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 18-29. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.001 URL
[22]	Reit, E. S., & Critcher, C. R. (2020). The commonness fallacy: Commonly chosen options have less choice appeal than people think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 1-21. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000172 URL pmid: 31464482
[23]	Schroeder, J., Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2017). Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 146, 1106-1125. doi: 10.1037/xge0000320 URL pmid: 28557510
[24]	Scopelliti, I., Loewenstein, G., & Vosgerau, J. (2015). You call it “self-exuberance”; I call it “bragging”: Miscalibrated predictions of emotional responses to self-promotion. Psychological Science, 26, 903-914. doi: 10.1177/0956797615573516 URL pmid: 25953948
[25]	Spitzmuller, M., & van Dyne, L. (2013). Proactive and reactive helping: Contrasting the positive consequences of different forms of helping. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 560-580. doi: 10.1002/job.1848 URL
[26]	Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 151-162. doi: 10.1037/a0028232 URL
[27]	Wang, Y., & Xie, X. (2019). Prediction errors in helping and helping-seeking: Causes and coping. Advances in Psychological Science, 22, 571-579. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00571 URL
[28]	Wang, Z., Mao, H., Li, Y. J., & Liu, F. (2017). Smile big or not? Effects of smile intensity on perceptions of warmth and competence. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 787-805.
[29]	Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 7, 222-232. doi: 10.1037/h0021218 URL pmid: 6035318
[30]	Wojciszke, B. (2005). Morality and competence in person and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155-188. doi: 10.1080/10463280500229619 URL
[31]	Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264. doi: 10.5465/amr.1987.4307820 URL
[32]	Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 796-810. doi: 10.1037/a0016233 URL pmid: 19857002

Dependent variable	Predicted M (SD)	Actual M (SD)	Statistical value
Gratitude
Success	5.41 (1.61)	6.12 (1.05)	F(1, 137) = 9.23, p = 0.003
Failure	-0.14 (2.83)	2.01 (2.67)	F(1, 140) = 21.86, p < 0.001
Satisfaction
Success	5.31 (1.52)	6.26 (0.97)	F(1, 137) = 19.18, p < 0.001
Failure	-0.44 (3.14)	2.10 (2.67)	F(1, 140) = 26.85, p < 0.001
Willingness to ask for a help again
Success	6.14 (0.80)	6.35 (0.61)	F(1, 137) = 2.85, p = 0.094
Failure	4.61 (1.10)	5.38 (1.34)	F(1, 140) = 14.22, p < 0.001
Willingness to make recommendations
Success	5.89 (0.94)	5.93 (0.93)	F(1, 137) = 0.07, p = 0.792
Failure	4.52 (1.12)	5.15 (1.09)	F(1, 140) = 11.67, p < 0.001

Dependent variable	Predicted M (SD)	Actual M (SD)	Statistical value
Gratitude
Success	5.41 (1.61)	6.12 (1.05)	F(1, 137) = 9.23, p = 0.003
Failure	-0.14 (2.83)	2.01 (2.67)	F(1, 140) = 21.86, p < 0.001
Satisfaction
Success	5.31 (1.52)	6.26 (0.97)	F(1, 137) = 19.18, p < 0.001
Failure	-0.44 (3.14)	2.10 (2.67)	F(1, 140) = 26.85, p < 0.001
Willingness to ask for a help again
Success	6.14 (0.80)	6.35 (0.61)	F(1, 137) = 2.85, p = 0.094
Failure	4.61 (1.10)	5.38 (1.34)	F(1, 140) = 14.22, p < 0.001
Willingness to make recommendations
Success	5.89 (0.94)	5.93 (0.93)	F(1, 137) = 0.07, p = 0.792
Failure	4.52 (1.12)	5.15 (1.09)	F(1, 140) = 11.67, p < 0.001

Dependent variable	Predicted M (SD)	Actual M (SD)	Statistical value
Gratitude
Success	4.80 (1.71)	5.64 (1.42)	F(1, 252) = 17.99, p < 0.001
Failure	-2.34 (2.02)	-0.44 (2.34)	F(1, 273) = 51.74, p < 0.001
Satisfaction
Success	5.01 (1.61)	5.60 (1.62)	F(1, 252) = 8.37, p = 0.004
Failure	-2.26 (2.23)	-0.76 (2.44)	F(1, 273) = 28.34, p < 0.001
Willingness to ask for a help again
Success	5.77 (0.90)	5.79 (0.94)	F(1, 252) = 0.01, p = 0.915
Failure	3.31 (1.28)	3.94 (1.49)	F(1, 273) = 14.15, p < 0.001
Willingness to make recommendations
Success	5.45 (1.06)	5.56 (1.00)	F(1, 252) = 0.73, p = 0.395
Failure	3.59 (0.94)	4.25 (0.98)	F(1, 273) = 32.56, p < 0.001
Average rating
Success	0.72 (0.43)	0.84 (0.39)	F(1, 252) = 4.83, p = 0.029
Failure	-0.92 (0.50)	-0.48 (0.56)	F(1, 273) = 47.42, p < 0.001

Dependent variable	Predicted M (SD)	Actual M (SD)	Statistical value
Gratitude
Success	4.80 (1.71)	5.64 (1.42)	F(1, 252) = 17.99, p < 0.001
Failure	-2.34 (2.02)	-0.44 (2.34)	F(1, 273) = 51.74, p < 0.001
Satisfaction
Success	5.01 (1.61)	5.60 (1.62)	F(1, 252) = 8.37, p = 0.004
Failure	-2.26 (2.23)	-0.76 (2.44)	F(1, 273) = 28.34, p < 0.001
Willingness to ask for a help again
Success	5.77 (0.90)	5.79 (0.94)	F(1, 252) = 0.01, p = 0.915
Failure	3.31 (1.28)	3.94 (1.49)	F(1, 273) = 14.15, p < 0.001
Willingness to make recommendations
Success	5.45 (1.06)	5.56 (1.00)	F(1, 252) = 0.73, p = 0.395
Failure	3.59 (0.94)	4.25 (0.98)	F(1, 273) = 32.56, p < 0.001
Average rating
Success	0.72 (0.43)	0.84 (0.39)	F(1, 252) = 4.83, p = 0.029
Failure	-0.92 (0.50)	-0.48 (0.56)	F(1, 273) = 47.42, p < 0.001

Dependent variable	Predicted M (SD)	Actual M (SD)	Statistical values
Gratitude
Success	5.23 (2.00)	6.11 (1.10)	F(1, 141) = 10.82, p = 0.001
Failure	-0.68 (2.56)	2.04 (3.16)	F(1, 140) = 31.81, p < 0.001
Satisfaction
Success	4.90 (1.99)	5.60 (1.72)	F(1, 141) = 5.03, p = 0.027
Failure	-0.51 (2.62)	1.56 (3.15)	F(1, 140) = 18.13, p < 0.001
Willingness to ask for a help again
Success	6.28 (0.80)	6.24 (0.91)	F(1, 141) = 0.10, p = 0.751
Failure	3.83 (1.32)	4.66 (1.60)	F(1, 140) = 11.37, p = 0.001
Willingness to make recommendations
Success	5.89 (0.96)	5.93 (0.92)	F(1, 141) = 0.08, p = 0.785
Failure	4.15 (1.22)	4.93 (1.19)	F(1, 140) = 14.77, p < 0.001
Average rating
Success	0.57 (0.41)	0.69 (0.39)	F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.091
Failure	-0.95 (0.67)	-0.33 (0.81)	F(1, 140) = 24.64, p < 0.001
Competence
Success	5.76 (0.85)	6.00 (0.81)	F(1, 141) = 2.90, p = 0.086
Failure	3.37 (1.10)	4.11 (1.29)	F(1, 140) = 13.74, p < 0.001
Warmth
Success	6.44 (0.71)	6.56 (0.73)	F(1, 141) = 0.97, p = 0.325
Failure	5.28 (1.21)	6.08 (1.01)	F(1, 140) = 18.42, p < 0.001