When being asked for help, people sometimes can only offer part of what is requested (i.e., partial help). The present research investigates whether helpers can accurately forecast how much help-seekers appreciate this understudied form of assistance. From multiple helping scenarios and a face-to-face interaction, we demonstrate an asymmetry in helpers’ and help-seeker’s appraisals of partial help: Helpers anticipated less appreciation for partial help than help-seekers felt in receiving it. This asymmetry arose from helpers’ greater valuation of helping outcomes over intentions to be helpful than help-seekers’. Accordingly, when helpers’ intentions were discounted, this asymmetry no longer persisted. Another account—helpers feel worse for breaking norms of helping than help-seekers—was not supported. We discuss several directions for future research on the psychology of partial prosocial behaviors.
AbeleA. E.BruckmüllerS. (2011). The bigger one of the “big two”? Preferential processing of communal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 935–948.
2.
AbeleA. E.BruckmüllerS.WojciszkeB. (2014). You are so kind—and I am kind and smart: Actor—observer differences in the interpretation of on-going behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(4), 394–401.
3.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763.
4.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). Academic Press.
5.
AkninL. B.DunnE. W.AshleyV.Whillans GrantA. M.NortonM. I. (2013). Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 88, 90–95.
6.
AmesD. R.FlynnF. J.WeberE. U. (2004). It’s the thought that counts: On perceiving how helpers decide to lend a hand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 461–474.
7.
AndersonS. E.WilliamsL. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282–296.
8.
BacharachS. B.BambergerP. A.VashdiD. (2005). Diversity and homophily at work: Supportive relations among white and African-American peers. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 619–644.
9.
BaronJ.HersheyJ. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579.
10.
BlundenH.LoggJ. M.BrooksA. W.JohnL. K.GinoF. (2019). Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 83–100.
11.
BohnsV. K. (2016). (Mis)understanding our influence over others: A review of the underestimation-of-compliance effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(2), 119–123.
12.
BohnsV. K.FlynnF. J. (2010). “Why didn’t you just ask?” Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 402–409.
BohnsV. K.HandgraafM. J.SunJ.AalderingH.MaoC.LoggJ. (2011). Are social prediction errors universal? Predicting compliance with a direct request across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 676–680.
15.
BohnsV. K.NewarkD. A.XuA. Z. (2016). For a dollar, would you . . . ? How (we think) money affects compliance with our requests. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 134, 45–62.
16.
Booth-KewleyS.EdwardsJ. E.RosenfeldP. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference?Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 562–566.
17.
ChouS. Y.StaufferJ. M. (2016). A theoretical classification of helping behavior and helping motives. Personnel Review, 45(5), 871–888.
18.
ConverseB. A.FishbachA. (2012). Instrumentality boosts appreciation: Helpers are more appreciated while they are useful. Psychological Science, 23(6), 560–566.
19.
CrockerJ.CanevelloA.BrownA. A. (2017). Social motivation: Costs and benefits of selfishness and otherishness. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 299–325.
20.
DeriS.SteinD. H.BohnsV. K. (2019). With a little help from my friends (and strangers): Closeness as a moderator of the underestimation-of-compliance effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 6–15.
21.
DunnE. W.AkninL. B.NortonM. I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 41–47.
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
23.
FlynnF. J.AdamsG. S. (2009). Money can’t buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 404–409.
24.
FlynnF. J.BrocknerJ. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers’ and receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1034–1045.
25.
FlynnF. J.LakeV. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 128–143.
26.
GellerD.BambergerP. (2009). Bringing avoidance and anxiety to the job: Attachment style and instrumental helping behavior among co-workers. Human Relations, 62(12), 1803–1827.
27.
GrantA. M.AshfordS. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
28.
GrantA. M.CampbellE. M.ChenG.CottoneK.LapedisD.LeeK. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53–67.
29.
GrantA. M.GinoF. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946–955.
30.
GrantA. M.SonnentagS. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 13–22.
31.
KleinN.EpleyN. (2014). The topography of generosity: Asymmetric evaluations of prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2366–2379.
32.
KrugerJ.GilovichT. (2004). Actions, intentions, and self-assessment: The road to self-enhancement is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 328–339.
33.
KumarA.EpleyN. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1423–1435.
34.
KuporD.FlynnF.NortonM. 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(12), 1686–1695.
35.
LanajK.JohnsonR. E.WangM. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1097–1110.
36.
LautenschlagerG. J.FlahertyV. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability?Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 310–314.
37.
NadlerA. (1997). Personality and help seeking: Autonomous versus dependent seeking of help. In PierceG. R. (Ed.), Sourcebook of social support and personality (pp. 379–407). Plenum Press.
38.
NadlerA. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487–502.
39.
NewarkD. A.BohnsV. K.FlynnF. J. (2017). A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 18–29.
40.
NewarkD. A.FlynnF. J.BohnsV. K. (2014). Once bitten, twice shy: The effect of a past refusal on expectations of future compliance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(2), 218–225.
41.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–60). Academic Press.
42.
PengC.NelissenR. M. A.ZeelenbergM. (2018). Reconsidering the roles of gratitude and indebtedness in social exchange. Cognition and Emotion, 32(4), 760–772.
43.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
44.
QiuL.ZhengX.WangY. F. (2008). Revision of the positive affect and negative affect scale. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 249–254.
45.
SchroederJ.WaytzA.EpleyN. (2017). Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(8), 1106–1125.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.
49.
SmithK. D.KeatingJ. P.StotlandE. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The effect of denying feedback on a victim’s status to empathic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 641–650.
50.
WojciszkeB. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence or morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 222–232.
51.
ZhangY.EpleyN. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 796–810.
52.
ZhangY.EpleyN. (2012). Exaggerated, mispredicted, and misplaced: When “it’s the thought that counts” in gift exchanges. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 667–681.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
