The Tangram Help/Hurt Task (THHT) allows participants to help another participant win a prize (by assigning them easy tangrams), to hurt another participant by preventing them from winning the prize (by assigning them difficult tangrams), or to do neither (by assigning them medium tangrams) in offline or online studies. Consistent with calls for continued evidence supporting psychological measurement, we conducted a meta-analytic review of the THHT that included 52 independent studies involving 11,060 participants. THHT scores were associated with helping and hurting outcomes in theoretically predicted ways. Results showed that THHT scores were not only associated with short-term (experimental manipulations, state measures) and long-term (trait measures) helping and hurting outcomes, but also with helping and harming intentions. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the THHT relative to other laboratory measures of prosocial behavior and aggression, discuss unanswered questions about the task, and offer suggestions for the best use of the task.
AndersonC. A. (1983). Motivational and performance deficits in interpersonal settings: The effect of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1136–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1136
2.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (1997). External validity of “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.1.1.19
BaderF.BaumeisterB.BergerR.KeuschniggM. (2021). On the transportability of laboratory results. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(3), 1452–1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119826151
5.
*BarlettC. P.AndersonC. A. (2011). Reappraising the situation and its impact on aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1564–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167211423671
6.
*BarlettC. P.HelmstetterK. M.KowalewskiD. A.PezzilloL. (2017). Piecing together the aggression puzzle: Testing the mediating variables linking early to later aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 43(6), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21710
7.
*BarlettC. P.MadisonC.DeWittC. C.Bailey HeathJ. (2019). The moderating effect of dispositional fear of retaliation on the relationship between provocation and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.008
8.
BaronR.RichardsonD. S. (1994). Human aggression. Plenum Press.
9.
Bar-TalD.RavivA. (1982). A cognitive-learning model of helping behavior development: Possible implications and applications. In EisenbergN. (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior. Academic Press.
10.
BatsonC. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
11.
BatsonC. D.DuncanB. D.AckermanP.BuckleyT.BirchK. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290
12.
*BehlerA. M. C.WallC. S. J.BosA.GreenJ. D. (2020). To help or to harm? Assessing the impact of envy on prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1156–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897660
13.
BernsteinS.RichardsonD.HammockG. (1987). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Taylor and Buss measures of physical aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 13(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1987)13:1<15::AID-AB2480130104>3.0.CO;2-K
14.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
15.
BoyntonM. H.PortnoyD. B.JohnsonB. T. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB, 35(2), 7–13.
16.
*BrownD. (2021). [Unpublished raw data on description of data]. Brigham Young University.
17.
Burnett HeyesS. (2020). Just banter? Friendship, teasing and experimental aggression in adolescent peer networks. Developmental Science, 23(3), e12926. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12926
18.
BushmanB. J.AndersonC. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science, 20, 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x
19.
BushmanB. J.HuesmannL. R. (2010). Aggression. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Ch. 23, pp. 833–863). John Wiley & Sons.
20.
CarlsonM.Marcus-NewhallA.MillerN. (1989). Evidence for a general construct of aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(3), 377–389.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation (pp. 37–94). Houghton Mifflin.
23.
CooperH. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). SAGE.
24.
*CostelloT. H.BowesS. M.StevensS. T.WaldmanI. D.TasimiA.LilienfeldS. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000341
25.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
26.
DensonT. F.AndersonC. A. (in press). Experimental methods. The Cambridge handbook of research methods and statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press.
27.
*DopkoR. L.CapaldiC. A.ZelenskiJ. M. (2019). The psychological and social benefits of a nature experience for children: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.002
28.
DovidioJ. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 361–427.
29.
ElsonM.MohseniM. R.BreuerJ.ScharkowM.QuandtT. (2014). Press CRTT to measure aggressive behavior: The unstandardized use of the competitive reaction time task in aggression research. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035569
GalizziM. M.Navarro-MartinezD. (2019). On the external validity of social preference games: A systematic lab-field study. Management Science, 65(3), 976–1002. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908
32.
*GallucciA.RivaP.Romero LauroL. J.BushmanB. J. (2020). Stimulating the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) modulates frustration-induced aggression: A tDCS experiment. Brain Stimulation, 13(2), 302–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.10.015
*GentileD. A.AndersonC. A.YukawaS.IhoriN.SaleemM.MingL. K.. . .SakamotoA. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 752–763. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167209333045
35.
GiancolaP. R.ChermackS. T. (1998). Construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to Tedeschi and Quigley (1996). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00004-9
36.
GiancolaP. R.ZeichnerA. (1995). Construct validity of a competitive reaction-time aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 21(3), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1995)21:3<199::AID-AB2480210303>3.0.CO;2-Q
37.
*GómezÁ.BélangerJ. J.ChinchillaJ.VazquezA.SchumpeB. M.NisaC. F.ChiclanaS. (2021). Admiration for Islamist groups encourages self-sacrifice through identity fusion. Humanities and Social Science Communications, 8(54). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00734-9
38.
*GotowiecS. (2019). When moral identity harms: The impact of perceived differences in core values on helping and hurting. Personality and Individual Differences, 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.032
39.
GreenwaldA. G.PettigrewT. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036056
40.
*HawkC. E.RidgeR. D. (2021). Is it only the violence? The effects of violent video game content, difficulty, and competition on aggressive behavior. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 33(3), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000291
41.
*HawkinsI.SaleemM.GibsonB.BushmanB. J. (2021). Extensions of the proteus effect on intergroup aggression in the real world. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(4), 478–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000307
42.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
43.
*HodgeS.TaylorJ.McAlaneyJ. (2019). (A)morally demanding game? An exploration of moral decision-making in a purpose-made video game. Media and Communication, 7(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i4.2294
44.
HornsteinH. A.FischE.HolmesM. (1968). Influence of a model’s feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers’ helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026568
45.
HyattC. S.ChesterD. S.ZeichnerA.MillerJ. D. (2019). Analytic flexibility in laboratory aggression paradigms: Relations with personality traits vary (slightly) by operationalization of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 454(4), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21830
46.
*KearnsP. O.TylerJ. M.GrazianoW. G. (2021). More than fantasy: Prosocial daydreams relate to prosocial dispositions and behaviour. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International De Psychologie, 56, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12673
47.
KepesS.BanksG. C.McDanielM. A.WhetzelD. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452760
48.
KepesS.BushmanB. J.AndersonC. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Comment on Hilgard, Engelhardt, and Rouder (2017). Psychological Bulletin, 143, 775–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000112
49.
KepesS.McDanielM. A. (2015). The validity of conscientiousness is overestimated in the prediction of job performance. PLoS One, 10(10), e0141468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141468
50.
KepesS.McDanielM. A.BrannickM. T.BanksG. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2
LinH.WernerK. M.InzlichtM. (2021). Promises and perils of experimentation: The mutual-internal-validity problem. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974773
53.
LutzJ. (2015). The validity of crowdsourcing data in studying anger and aggressive behavior: A comparison of online and laboratory data. Social Psychology, 47(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000256
54.
*MauersbergerH.HessU.HoppeA. (2019). Measuring task conflicts as they occur: A real-time assessment of task conflicts and their immediate affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09640-z
55.
McCarthyR. J.ElsonM. (2018). A conceptual review of lab-based aggression paradigms. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.104
56.
MitchellG. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611432343
57.
MotsenokM.KogutT.RitovI. (2022). Perceived physical vulnerability promotes prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211005879
58.
MurnighanJ. K.WangL. (2016). The social world as an experimental game. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.02.003
59.
*NgH. K. S.HongY.-L.ChowT. S.LeungA. N. M. (2019). Nature does not always give you a helping hand: Comparing the prosocial effects of nature at different resource and security levels. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881417736895
60.
ParrottD. J.GiancolaP. R. (2007). Addressing “the criterion problem” in the assessment of aggressive behavior: Development of a new taxonomic system. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 123(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.08.002
PfattheicherS.NielsenY. A.ThielmannI. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021
63.
ProtS.AndersonC. A. (2013). Research methods, design, and statistics in media psychology. In DillK. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 109–136). Oxford University Press.
64.
*RajchertJ. (2021a). [Unpublished raw data on description of data]. The Maria Grzegorzewska University.
65.
*RajchertJ. (2021b). [Unpublished raw data on description of data]. The Maria Grzegorzewska University.
66.
*RajchertJ.KonopkaK.BoguszewskiP. (2018). Aggression and helping as responses to same-sex and opposite-sex rejection in men and women. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918775253
67.
*RajchertJ.ŻółtakT.SzulawskiM.JasielskaD. (2019). Effects of rejection by a friend for someone else on emotions and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00764
68.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
69.
RitterD.EsleaM. (2005). Hot sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical account of current laboratory aggression paradigms. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 31(5), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20066
70.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86
71.
RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analyses. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168
72.
*SaleemM.AndersonC. A.BarlettC. P. (2015). Assessing helping and hurting behaviors through the tangram help/hurt task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1345–1362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215594348
73.
*SaleemM.AndersonC. A.GentileD. A. (2012). Effects of prosocial, neutral, and violent video games on children’s helpful and hurtful behaviors. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21428
74.
*SaleemM.BarlettC. P.AndersonC. A.HawkinsI. (2017). Helping and hurting others: Person and situation effects on aggressive and prosocial behavior as assessed by the tangram task. Aggressive Behavior, 43(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21669
75.
*SaleemM.ProtS.CikaraM.LamB. C.AndersonC. A.JelicM. (2015). Cutting Gordian knots: Reducing prejudice through attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1560–1574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215601829
76.
*SchadeH. [Unpublished raw data on description of data].
77.
SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (2015). The field of prosocial behavior: An introduction and overview. In SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
SterneJ. A. C.SuttonA. J.IoannidisJ. P. A.TerrinN.JonesD. R.LauJ.. . .HigginsJ. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, 302–307. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002
80.
*TearM. J. (2015). Violent video games and social behaviour [PhD thesis, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland].
81.
*TearM. J.NielsenM. (2014). Video games and prosocial behavior: A study of the effects of non-violent, violent, and ultra-violent gameplay. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.002
82.
TedeschiJ. T.QuigleyB. M. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 1, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/1359-1789(95)00014-3
83.
ThielmannI.SpadaroG.BallietD. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000217
84.
TiptonE. (2013). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with binary dependent effects. Research Synthesis Methods, 4(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1070
85.
TiptonE. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011.supp
86.
TwengeJ. M.BaumeisterR. F.DeWallC. N.CiaroccoN. J.BartelsJ. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
87.
*UskulA. K.CrossS. E.GünsoyC.Gerçek-SwingB.AlözkanC.AtacaB. (2015). A price to pay: Turkish and Northern American retaliation for threats to personal and family honor. Aggressive Behavior, 41(6), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21598
VeveaJ. L.ZelinskyN. A. M.OrwinR. G. (2019). Evaluating coding decisions. InCooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 173–204). Russell Sage Foundation.
91.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
92.
*WarburtonW. (2012). [Unpublished raw data on description of data]. Macquarie University.
93.
WarburtonW. A.BushmanB. J. (2019). The competitive reaction time task: The development and scientific utility of a flexible laboratory aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 45(4), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21829
94.
*WeberR.BehrK. M.FisherJ. T.LonerganC.QuebralC. (2020). Video game violence and interactivity: Effect or equivalence?Journal of Communication, 70(2), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz048
*YangY.YangZ.BaoT.LiuY.PassmoreH. A. (2016). Elicited awe decreases aggression. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2016.8
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.
