Perceived Physical Vulnerability Promotes Prosocial Behavior

Abstract

Our research examines the association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior. Studies 1 to 4 establish a positive association between individuals’ vulnerability and their prosociality. To increase generality, these studies looked at different behaviors (volunteering vs. monetary donations), various physical harms (e.g., war vs. illness), and different samples (students vs. MTurk workers). Study 4 also provides initial evidence of a partial mediating effect of closeness on the observed association. In Study 5, perceived vulnerability is experimentally manipulated, demonstrating a causal link between vulnerability and willingness to donate. Study 6 further demonstrates that closeness partially mediates the association between vulnerability and donation, while ruling out an alternative explanation of the effect—such as that vulnerable people donate in expectation of future reciprocity. Together, our research demonstrates a consistent positive association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosociality. This effect appears small when considering daily threats and stronger when vulnerability becomes more salient.

Keywords

prosocial behavior donation vulnerability altruism generosity

Prosocial behavior represents a broad category of acts that are generally perceived as beneficial to others (Penner et al., 2005), such as helping, sharing, and comforting (Eisenberg et al., 1997). Some individuals tend to be more or less prosocial (e.g., Murphy et al., 2011) and various psychological and contextual drivers affect individuals’ willingness to help others (e.g., Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Dickert et al., 2016; Kogut & Ritov, 2005; Loewenstein & Small, 2007). Although prosocial acts are usually other-oriented, and often driven by empathy toward others (e.g., Batson et al., 1981), they are beneficial for the self, as well. These benefits can be material (e.g., Andreoni & Petrie, 2004; Buraschi & Cornelli, 2002), reputational (e.g., Clark, 2002; Wiepking, 2008), or psychological—an increase of positive emotions and well-being (e.g., Aknin et al., 2012; Andreoni & Payne, 2003; Dorfman et al., 2014) and a decrease in negative emotions (e.g., Cialdini, & Kenrick, 1976; Cryder, Springer, & Morewedge, 2012).

Many researchers describe the relation between well-being and prosocial behavior as a positive loop, suggesting that people with greater well-being engage more in prosocial behaviors, and that doing good deeds further enhances their well-being (e.g., Aknin et al., 2012). However, several studies have found significant relations between suffering or adverse life experiences and prosociality (Lim & DeSteno, 2016; Vollhardt & Staub, 2011). According to this line of research, past suffering predicts increased empathy, which is linked to greater compassion for others in need, thereby increasing the tendency to help them.

Although, in these studies, the prospective helper’s adversity occurred in the past and does not take place at the time of the decision, several studies show that, in some cases, prospective helpers’ current inferiority may be motivating them to help others (e.g., Motsenok & Ritov, 2021; Piff et al., 2010). These studies demonstrate a positive link between financial vulnerability and helping behavior. Individuals’ economic situation (actual or perceived) is often linked to their status and power. Research suggests that low-status individuals (chronically possessed or temporarily manipulated) show more communal and prosocial behavior and endorse more egalitarian life goals and values compared with high-status individuals (Fiske et al., 2016; Guinote et al., 2015). Such tendencies appear already at young ages (4–5 years of age; Guinote et al., 2015). However, the extent to which perceived vulnerability in other (nonfinancial) contexts is related to prosocial behavior is yet to be examined. In the present research, we aim to examine this link in the context of physical vulnerability, focusing on how perception of oneself as physically vulnerable affects one’s helping behavior toward others.

Vulnerability is broadly defined as the potential for harm, or loss of life. The term may refer to individual potential for, or sensitivity to, harm; or it may refer to social vulnerability—the susceptibility of social groups to potential losses (Cutter, 1996). In either case, vulnerability involves risk of exposure to potential harm, the risk of inadequate capacity to cope with harm, and a risk of severe consequences (Bohle et al., 1994). In this article, we use the term perceived physical vulnerability to describe the extent to which one feels threatened by a particular danger that may affect one’s physical well-being (such as war or disease).

Cooperation is a decisive organizing principle of human society (Nowak, 2006) and, from an evolutionary standpoint, stressful situations spur humans to form groups to provide, and receive, joint protection (Taylor, 2006). The need to maintain an adequate level of protective and rewarding social relationships is regulated by purposeful tending-behavior toward others, which is vital to group survival (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Goetz et al., 2010; Taylor, 2006). Evolutionary theorists have defined prosocial behavior in terms of consequences (Penner et al., 2005), and evolutionary success as the survival of one’s genes in subsequent generations. Therefore, prosocial tendencies exist in humans because of genetically based predispositions to act for the benefit of others and are due to the evolutionary success of people who displayed such predispositions (see Barrett et al., 2002; Buss, 2003; Dawkins, 1989).

A recent theoretical model has described the compensatory relations between personal agency and social assistance (Milyavsky et al., 2020). It states that an increase in one’s sense of agency diminishes one’s tendency to value the sources of social assistance and to rely on and to commit to them—whereas a decrease in one’s sense of agency enhances such tendencies. Therefore, scarcity of personal resources (physical strength, competence, finances, power, status, or control) encourages individuals to behave more prosocially (e.g., Lee & Tiedens, 2001; Piff & Robinson, 2017; Rucker et al., 2018).

Research on social class has demonstrated that, under stressful circumstances, socially vulnerable individuals (i.e., of lower social class) engage more in communal coping strategies than less socially vulnerable individuals (of higher social class), such as turning to relationships with others in one’s social environment for support (Piff et al., 2012). Financial vulnerability and comparative financial disadvantage have also been found to increase prosocial behavior (Motsenok & Ritov, 2021; Piff et al., 2010).

In the present research, we asked whether the effect of subjective vulnerability on prosocial behavior is limited to financial vulnerability or whether it extends to other aspects of vulnerability, as well.

Research suggests that people’s perceptions of their vulnerability to physical harm is based on both objective information (e.g., knowledge about their genetics or regarding the environmental risks in their area, for example, Perloff & Fetzer, 1986) and personality traits (optimistic vs. pessimistic tendencies or self-esteem, for example, Smith et al., 1997). In addition, we all use defense mechanisms to reduce our sense of vulnerability to feel more protected (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2000). Thus, individuals may resist information about their vulnerability to harm and tend to perceive themselves as less prone to risks relative to others—a phenomenon known as the “unrealistic optimism,” “optimistic bias,” or “relative invulnerability” (Hoorens, 1996; Schwarzer, 1994; Weinstein, 1989). However, such defense mechanisms are attenuated in the face of actual immediate threats, like war or natural disasters (Weinstein et al., 2000), or even by situational accessibility to imagined negative scenarios, which may increase perceived likelihood to these outcomes (Johnson & Tversky, 1983). Perceptions of physical vulnerability affect individuals’ behaviors (consciously or unconsciously) in many contexts, such as health behavior, driving, alcohol consumption, and leisure activities (e.g., Beyth-Marom et al., 1993; Reyna & Farley, 2006). In this article, we theorize that perception of oneself as physically vulnerable would promote prosocial behavior.

The literature offers several directions in support of this claim. Several studies have found a link between the experience of physical distress, or a threat to one’s physical well-being, and prosociality. Harel and Kogut (2014) demonstrated that the experience of an ongoing visceral need increased willingness to help others who were actively experiencing the same need. In a study exploring the effect of natural disasters on volunteerism in the United States, Kalish (2014) found that states that experienced a natural disaster in a given year experienced a significant and positive increase in volunteering rates the following year.

Based on the evolutionary reciprocal altruism theory (Trivers, 1971), prosocial acts toward others when one feels vulnerable serve as a defense mechanism: by acting prosocially, one protects oneself by ensuring reciprocity from others. A similar approach is described by Batson and Powell (2003), suggesting that promoting group welfare is an expression of “enlightened self-interest”: Individuals realize that a narrow, short-term focus on self-interest may hurt them in the long run and therefore act prosocially to benefit the group as a means of maximizing overall self-benefit.

Some charitable donations may be viewed as a generalized exchange: Individuals may perceive their donations as contributions that maintain services that they might use in future (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). Individuals’ decisions to act prosocially may be influenced by the notion of reciprocity—either for past benefits or as a kind of insurance against future need. In a focus group study, Burgoyne et al. (2005) found that donors perceived donations to medical research as a way of addressing their own future health needs and preferred causes that benefit their peer group.

An alternative explanation may be that feeling physically vulnerable to a certain danger makes one feel closer to others who are similarly vulnerable. It has been shown that affiliative tendencies increase in anxiety-evoking situations (Schachter, 1959), such that individuals seek physical proximity to others and their social support when facing potential physical harm.

Social closeness to the target of one’s prosocial behavior, and perceptions of shared group belonging, tend to increase the incidence of giving, and individuals are more willing to help others when they feel that they share similar characteristics or beliefs (Kogut & Ritov, 2017). According to Sturmer et al. (2006), when individuals recognize aspects of themselves in the other, the other’s welfare becomes immediately self-relevant, which in turn increases the likelihood of prosocial behavior toward that individual. In line with this approach, Small and Simonsohn (2008) found that a close relationship with a victim increases one’s prosocial behavior toward them, and extends to other, similar victims—as knowing a victim increases feelings of closeness toward victims of similar misfortunes.

In the following six studies, we examine the association between perceived personal physical vulnerability and prosocial decisions and examine whether this may be explained by individuals’ expectations of future reciprocity, or rather by an emotional account of feeling greater closeness to vulnerable others. Studies 1 to 3 sought to establish the association between individuals’ sense of physical vulnerability and their prosociality. To enhance their generality, they involved different prosocial behaviors (volunteering vs. monetary donations), various physical harms (war, illness), and different samples (students or MTurk workers). Study 4 examined this link further in the context of actual donations. In addition, Study 4 examined the role played by perceived closeness to prospective recipients in mediating this link. In Study 5, perceived vulnerability was manipulated (rather than measured), thereby examining the causal relationship between perceived vulnerability and individuals’ willingness to act prosocially. Finally, Study 6 further examined whether perceived closeness to victims of a relevant misfortune mediates the association between perceived physical vulnerability and donations, or whether physically vulnerable individuals donate in a bid to enjoy the fruits of their own donation in the future. In all studies, we expect a significant positive link between perceived vulnerability and prosocial behavior. However, we expect this link to be stronger when the threat is more dominant, allowing less defense mechanisms, such as in times of war (Study 1) or when vulnerability is directly manipulated (Study 5). All sample sizes were determined by the guidelines proposed by Simmons et al. (2011), with the aim of at least 50 participants per condition.

Study 1: Physical Vulnerability During an Armed Conflict

In wartime, people may feel especially vulnerable, given the potential life-threatening dangers and their concern for the safety of their family members and property. Such feelings of threat and vulnerability may enhance people’s willingness to help and support related causes, such as sending food, personal supplies, and support to soldiers or civilians who are in immediate danger. We examined this prediction in a study conducted in July 2014, during the Israel–Gaza armed conflict.

The armed conflict involved 7 weeks of Israeli bombardment of Gaza, Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, and fighting on the ground. During the conflict, approximately 5,000 rockets and mortars were fired at a broad range of locations in Israel, including the city of Tel Aviv. During this period, considerable volunteering took place in Israel, aimed primarily at helping soldiers and providing aid to citizens living in Israel’s southern region, which was most heavily bombarded. We seized this opportunity to examine whether a sense of physical vulnerability would increase willingness to participate in such volunteering activities.

Method

Three weeks into the conflict, we invited students on the lab’s mailing list to complete an online questionnaire in return for a chance to win New Israeli Shekel (NIS) 50 (~US$15) in a lottery. On the first screen, participants were asked to indicate which of the following activities, if any, they had taken part in since the beginning of the military operation: collecting supplies for soldiers, supporting businesses in the south of the country, hosting families from the south, political activities, or other volunteer activities related to the military operation. Next, they were asked to rate the likelihood that they felt that they, or people close to them, might be physically injured in the hostilities. Both ratings were completed on a scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely). On the next screen, participants were introduced to a campaign organized by the local students’ association to recruit volunteers for various activities, such as hosting families from the southern region (the area most heavily attacked), establishing activities for children in those areas, visiting the wounded in hospitals, and so on. They were asked whether they would like to volunteer for one or more of the listed activities and were provided a link to the student association’s website where they could sign up.

At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked whether they, or someone close to them, had been injured in the hostilities. They were also asked to indicate their political leanings, on a scale ranging from 1 (right wing) to 5 (left wing); their degree of support for the military operation, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); and their area of residence.

One hundred thirty students (57% of them women) responded to the questionnaire. Sensitivity power analysis, conducted with G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) for correlation analysis, indicated that, given N = 130, α = .05, and power of .8, statistical significance would be detected with a medium effect size (r = .22).

Results

Fifty-one percent of participants reported engaging in at least one of the listed prosocial activities: 17.5% of them reported currently living in the southern region, and 10.2% reported that they or someone close to them had been hurt in the war. As individuals consider the vulnerability of a specific target (such as a close friend or a sibling) and themselves as being equal (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986), for the perceived physical vulnerability measure we averaged the two ratings: the likelihood of being injured oneself and the likelihood of someone close being injured (α = 62). Participants’ perceived physical vulnerability did not correlate with them or someone close to them being previously hurt in the war (r = .14, p = .12).

The number of volunteering activities that participants engaged in ranged from 0 to 3 (with one exception—by a respondent who marked all options). We considered the number of different reported volunteering activities as an indicator of the extent of the participant’s volunteering activity. As we surmised, perceived physical vulnerability positively correlated with the number of reported volunteering activities (r = .25, p = .005). Linear regression analyses of the number of volunteering activities by perceived physical vulnerability, age, gender, political view, support of the operation, being hurt in the war, and residency in the southern region, yielded a significant effect of perceived physical vulnerability, b = 0.11, t(117) = 2.52, p = .013, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.023, 0.191]; see Table 1. The model explained a significant proportion of variance in volunteering: R² = .22, F(7, 117) = 4.64, p < .001.

Table 1.

Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Number of Prosocial Activities.

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Age	0.008	0.013	.054	0.647	.519	−0.017	0.034
Female	0.158	0.156	.084	1.010	.314	−0.152	0.467
Harmed in war	0.909	0.255	.296	3.569	.001	0.404	1.413
Political left view	−0.190	0.073	−.283	−2.595	.011	−0.335	−0.045
Support of operation	−0.195	0.085	−.250	−2.297	.023	−0.364	−0.027
Residence in the south	−0.052	0.207	−.021	−0.252	.801	−0.462	0.358
Perceived vulnerability	0.107	0.043	.215	2.517	.013	0.023	0.191

Note. CI = confidence interval.

As for the second volunteering measurement—the willingness to volunteer for activities organized by the Hebrew University Student Association—we used data from participants who reported having attended the Hebrew University (N = 89) as these activities were not available to students at other universities. Just over half (50.6%) of the participants replied that they would like to volunteer for one or more activities organized by the students’ association. As in previous findings, perceived physical vulnerability positively correlated with willingness to volunteer (r = .31, p = .009). Logistic regression analyses of willingness to volunteer by perceived physical vulnerability, age, gender, political views, support for the military operation, being hurt in the war, and residence, yielded a significant effect of perceived physical vulnerability, b = 1.908, Wald χ²(1, N = 70) = 8.07, p = .005, 95% CI = [1.222, 2.980]; see Table 2. Thus, the association between physical vulnerability and volunteering appeared to hold, irrespective of the participant’s political leanings.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Willingness to Volunteer.

Predictor	B	SE	Wald	p	Exp(B)	95% CI
Predictor	B	SE	Wald	p	Exp(B)	Lower bound	Upper bound
Age	0.094	0.093	1.032	.310	1.099	0.916	1.318
Female	−2.616	0.741	12.475	.000	0.073	0.017	0.312
Harmed in war	−0.475	0.882	0.290	.590	0.622	0.110	3.501
Political left view	−0.167	0.311	0.288	.591	0.846	0.460	1.558
Support of operation	0.092	0.377	0.060	.807	1.096	0.524	2.296
Residence in the south	1.761	1.594	1.220	.269	5.819	0.256	132.449
Perceived vulnerability	0.646	0.227	8.068	.005	1.908	1.222	2.980

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Study 2: Overall Physical Vulnerability

Study 1 examined the role of subjective vulnerability in an unusual situation. There are various aspects to the experience of living in the midst of an armed conflict that are not typically present in other stressful situations that invoke a sense of vulnerability. Given that the reality of military conflicts differs from peacetime reality in many ways, we wanted to examine the association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosocial decisions in other circumstances. This study therefore examined the association between self-perceived physical vulnerability and prosocial decisions in peacetime settings. We hypothesized that individuals who perceive themselves to be physically vulnerable in various situations would be more willing to help others who are physically vulnerable.

Method

To test our hypothesis, we invited students on the lab’s mailing list to complete an online questionnaire in return for course credit or a chance to win NIS 50 (~US$15) in a lottery. In the questionnaire, participants were told about “Friends for Health”—a local charity that provides medical treatment to people who cannot afford it. They were then asked whether they would like to donate money to the organization, or volunteer for it, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Next, they were asked how much money they would like to donate (responses did not result in actual donations).

On the following screen, the participants were asked to rate the likelihood that they might be harmed by each of the following causes, on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 10 (highly likely): serious illness, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a natural disaster, war or terrorist attack, a road accident, and personal accident (such as a fall or slip). We predicted that the perception of one’s own physical vulnerability would positively correlate with willingness to volunteer for, or to donate to, a related charitable cause.

One hundred fifty-four students (native Hebrew speakers, 56.5% female) responded to the questionnaire. Sensitivity power analysis for correlation analysis indicated that, given N = 154, α = .05, and power of .8, statistical significance would be detected with a small effect size (r = .13).

Results

We averaged the participants’ perceived vulnerability—assessments of their likelihood of getting hurt by each cause (α = 88)—to obtain an overall measure. As surmised, perceived vulnerability positively correlated with willingness to volunteer for, or donate to, the “Friends for Health” organization (r = .17, p = .038), and with the hypothetical donation amount to the organization¹ (r = .17, p = .032).

Study 3: Increasing the Generalizability of the Findings

For sake of generality, Study 3 was conducted in the United States. We measured participants’ perception of their physical vulnerability, and then their willingness to donate to a non-health-related charitable organization in the United States. The design of this study also had another purpose: Because, in Study 2, the description of the charitable organization might have affected participants’ perceptions of their own vulnerability, in this study, we first measured the participants’ perception of their own physical vulnerability, and then their willingness to donate.

Method

Data were collected through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform (MTurk; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Each participant was paid US$0.60 for taking part. As in Study 2, participants were asked to rate their overall vulnerability by assessing the likelihood of their being harmed by each of the following causes, on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 10 (highly likely): serious illness, natural disaster, war or terrorist attack, road accident, or as the victim of a violent crime.

On the next screen, participants were asked to what extent they would like to volunteer for, or donate to, “The National Center for Victims of Crime”—a charity that provides psychological assistance and support, and financial aid, to victims of crime in the United States, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much). Next, they were asked how much money they would donate to the National Center for Victims of Crime if it appealed to them for a donation. We predicted that a higher perception of one’s personal physical vulnerability would positively correlate with the willingness to volunteer and donate to the organization. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were given an instructional manipulation check (IMC) question (Oppenheimer et al., 2009), which gauges whether or not participants have read the instructions. This consists of a question embedded within the questionnaire, which asks participants to ignore it, thus providing a confirmation that they have read the instructions (Oppenheimer et al., 2009).

One hundred thirty-eight MTurk workers (43.5% female) took part in the survey. Five participants were removed from data analysis upon failing the IMC question. Sensitivity power analysis for correlation analysis indicated that, given N = 138, α = .05, and power of .8, statistical significance would be detected with a small effect size (r = .14).

Results

To measure overall perceived physical vulnerability, as in Study 2, we averaged participants’ assessments of the likelihood that they would be hurt by each cause (α = .87). As predicted, perceived vulnerability positively correlated with the willingness to volunteer for, or to donate to, “The National Center for Victims of Crime” (r = .39, p < .001), and with the hypothetical donation to the organization (r = .26, p = .002).²

Study 4: The Mediating Role of Perceived Closeness to Prospective Recipients

In Study 1, we measured the participants’ self-reported participation in prosocial activities and their willingness to volunteer. In Studies 2 and 3, we measured their willingness to volunteer and donate to charity, and their hypothetical donation. As findings of past research of the differences in individuals’ hypothetical and actual donations have been mixed (e.g., Brown et al., 1996; Carlsson & Martinsson, 2001; Macmillan et al., 1999), in Study 4, we measured the participants’ actual donation to the Israel Cancer Association. Another aim of Study 4 was to examine the role of perceived closeness to the prospective recipients in mediating the association between perceived vulnerability and donations.

Method

Participants were told that in exchange for their participation, five of them would win NIS 100 (~US$30) in a lottery. They were then asked whether they would donate some of their winnings to the Israel Cancer Association if they were one of the lucky winners. Next, they were asked to assess their chances of getting cancer in the next year, in the next 10 years, or at some point in their lifetime, on a scale ranging from 0 (no chance at all) to 100 (definitely). Next, participants were asked to indicate how close they feel to the cancer patients who receive help from the Israel Cancer Association, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

Two hundred twenty-two participants (59.5% female) responded to the online questionnaire. Sensitivity power analysis for correlation analysis indicated that, given N = 222, α = .05, and power of .8, statistical significance would be detected with a small effect size (r = .17).

Results

For data analysis, we averaged participants’ assessments of their likelihood of getting cancer over time (α = .86). As predicted, perceived vulnerability to cancer positively correlated with the amount the participants were willing to donate to the Israel Cancer Association (r = .24, p < .001). Participants’ ratings of closeness to cancer patients correlated with the amount they were willing to donate (r = .27, p < .001). Mediation analyses (using Hayes, 2018, PROCESS Model 4, 5,000 bootstrap samples), with perceived vulnerability as the independent variable, donation amount as the dependent variable, and feeling close to the target as mediator, indicated a partial mediation effect (B = 0.36, SE = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.129, 0.596]). As the direct effect remained significant (see Figure 1), it appears that feeling close to victims of a misfortune explains at least part of the association between perceived vulnerability and donation.

Figure 1.

The mediating role of feelings of closeness on the effect of perceived physical vulnerability on donation amount.

Study 5: Manipulated Perceived Personal Vulnerability

While the results of Studies 1 to 4established consistent correlational links between personal physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior, they do not allow for assessment of a causal relation. To gain some insight into the causal link between individuals’ sense of physical vulnerability and their willingness to donate, we examined the association between personal physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior in experimental settings that allow for random allocation to varying conditions of personal physical vulnerability.

Method

We asked participants to imagine they had been informed by a physician of their chances of contracting skin cancer. They were then randomly allocated to either a high- or a low-risk condition and were asked to imagine being told that they had a very high or a very low probability to develop skin cancer in the near future.

Participants were asked to indicate to what extent, in this scenario, they would feel physically vulnerable compared with others in their age group, on a scale ranging from 1 (not vulnerable at all) to 5 (extremely vulnerable). Next, they were asked how likely they were to donate to the “Health Well Foundation,” on a scale ranging from 1 (not likely at all) to 10 (extremely likely), and how much they would like to donate, up to US$100.

One hundred twenty-nine participants (40.3% female) were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, for a fee of US$0.60. Sensitivity power analyses for an independent t test indicated that, given N = 129, α = .05, and power of .8, statistical significance would be detected with a large effect size (d = 0.5, critical t = 1.98).

Results

First we examined the effectiveness of our manipulation. Our results confirmed that participants in the high-risk condition perceived their vulnerability to be higher than others (M = 3.92, SD = 1.17)—more so than participants in the low-risk condition, M = 1.59, SD = 0.84, t(127) = −12.74, p < .001, d = 2.29, 95% CI = [−2.69, −1.97]. Next, we examined participants’ willingness to donate. Participants in the high-risk condition were more willing to donate to the Health Well Foundation (see Figures 2 and 3; M = 5.75,SD = 2.85) than those in the low-risk condition, M = 4.43, SD = 2.83, t(127) = −2.62, p = .01, d = 0.46, 95% CI = [−2.31, −0.32], and the amount that all high-risk participants were willing to donate was marginally higher than their low-risk counterparts, M = US$30.01, SD = 32.27 versus M = US$19.48, SD = 28.35, t(127) = −2.62, p = .054, d = 0.35, 95% CI = [−21.24, 0.18].

Figure 2.

The mediating role of perceived physical vulnerability on the effect of experimental condition on willingness to donate.

Figure 3.

The mediating role of perceived physical vulnerability on the effect of experimental condition on donation amount.

Mediation analyses (using Hayes, 2018 PROCESS Model 4, 5,000 bootstrap samples)—with condition as the independent variable, willingness to donate as the dependent variable, and perceived vulnerability as the mediator—indicated a full mediation effect of perceived physical vulnerability (B = 0.71, SE = 0.24, p = .003, 95% CI = [0.239, 1.175]). The direct effect was not significant (B = −0.33, SE = 0.74, p = .65, 95% CI = [−0.787, 1.125]). A similar mediation analysis—with condition as the independent variable, amount of donation as the dependent variable, and perceived vulnerability as the mediator—also indicated a full mediation effect of perceived physical vulnerability (B = 5.81,SE = 2.58, p = .026, 95% CI = [0.703, 10.933]). The direct effect was not significant (B = −3.02, SE = 8.04, p = .708, 95% CI = [−18.927, 12.888]).

Study 6: Perceived Financial Vulnerability and Donation to Local Versus Distant Charity

This study sought to gain insight into the possible manifestations of the association between perceived vulnerability and willingness to help others. When individuals perceive their chances of needing help in the future to be higher, they might be more prosocial, as a kind of “insurance” against this future need (e.g., Burgoyne et al., 2005). This may be especially true for physically vulnerable individuals. For example, donating to a nonprofit that finances medical equipment for people hospitalized at home may spur donations from people who feel vulnerable to such a medical need as they themselves may well need such equipment in the future. A donation prompted by such a motivation may be particularly relevant when the nonprofit in question is local, rather than in another country (where it would be inapplicable to the donor).

Therefore, in this study, we sought to examine whether the relation between perceived vulnerability and willingness to donate would be stronger when the nonprofit in question is a local organization (and therefore of possible relevance to the participant in the future), than when it is based in a distant land (where it could not possibly be of future help to the participant). If willingness to help stems from the expectation that one might be helped by the organization one has donated to, should one need it in future, the link between vulnerability and donation should be especially strong in the case of a local organization (as opposed to a distant one). However, if increased vulnerability engenders feelings of closeness to people who are experiencing the same misfortune, the link between vulnerability and donations should be evident in the case of any organization (local or distant) that helps such victims, given one’s perceived closeness to them. To test whether such feelings could account for greater willingness to help among those feeling more vulnerable, we gauged the participants’ perceived closeness with the prospective beneficiaries of the donation, irrespective of the nonprofit’s location.

Method

Accordingly, we invited students on the lab’s mailing list to complete an online questionnaire in return for course credit or a chance to win NIS 50 (~US$15) in a lottery. As in Study 3, we first asked participants to rate the likelihood of their being harmed by each of the following causes, on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 10 (highly likely): serious illness, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a natural disaster, war or terrorist attack, a road accident, and a personal accident.

On the following screen, participants were randomly assigned to either a local or a distant condition. In the local condition, participants were told about an Israeli organization named “Latet” (Hebrew, “To give”), which strives to reduce food insecurity among families and individuals in severe poverty. In the distant condition, participants were presented with an almost identical description of a charitable organization called “Aid for Africa,” which helps individuals and families suffering from food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa (see Motsenok & Ritov, 2021, for a similar procedure). All participants were then asked whether or not they would like to donate money to the organization presented to them, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Next, participants were asked to report how much money they would donate to the organization.

On the next screen, we measured participants’ feelings of closeness to individuals suffering from food insecurity in Israel (in the local condition) or in Africa (in the distant condition). They were asked to rate their relationship with individuals who suffer from food insecurity (in Israel or in Africa) on the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992)—a single-item, pictorial measure of closeness, comprising two identically sized circles, one representing oneself and the other representing the other person (in this instance, victims of food insecurity), on a scale ranging from 1 (no overlap) to 7 (complete overlap).

Three hundred nine students (native Hebrew speakers, 58.9% women) responded to the questionnaire. Sensitivity power analysis for multiple regression with two main effects and an interaction indicated that, given N = 309, α = .05, and power of .8, statistical significance would be detected with a small effect size (f² = 0.04, critical F = 2.63).

Results

As in previous studies, we averaged participants’ assessments of the likelihood that they would be hurt by each cause (α = .79). Across the two experimental conditions (a local or a distant organization), overall vulnerability was significantly associated with willingness to contribute (r = .16, p = .005) and with donation amount³ (r = .16, p = .006). Participants were more willing to donate to victims of food insecurity in Israel than to victims of food insecurity in Africa, M = 3.09, SD = 1.14 vs. M = 2.68, SD = 1.14, t(307) = −3.23, p = .001, d = 0.202, 95% CI = [−0.675, −0.164]. However, there was no difference in the amount they were willing to donate, t(303) = −1.02, p = .30.

Next, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression analysis of willingness to donate by experimental condition,⁴ perceived vulnerability, and the interaction between the two. Model 1 revealed a main effect of condition, b = −0.42, t(305) = 3.24, p = .001, 95% CI = [0.163, 0.668], and a main effect of perceived physical vulnerability, b = 0.14, t(305) = 2.82, p = .005, 95% CI = [0.044, 0.245], R² = .06, F(2, 306) = 9.32, p < .001; see Table 3. However, Model 2 indicated no significant interaction between the two factors, b = −0.09, t(305) = −.86, p = .39, 95% CI = [−0.289, 0.113], R² = .06, F(3, 305) = 6.46, p < .001; see Table 3, suggesting that perceived vulnerability does not have a different effect on the willingness to help when the targets of help are fellow Israelis or Africans.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Willingness to Donate.

Predictor	Model 1							Model 2
	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI		B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Condition	0.416	0.128	.180	3.242	.001	0.163	0.668	0.746	0.405	.323	1.841	.067	−0.051	1.543
Perceived vulnerability	0.144	0.051	.156	2.819	.005	0.044	0.245	0.275	0.160	.298	1.712	.088	−0.041	0.590
Interaction (Condition × Vulnerability)								−0.088	0.102	−.208	−0.858	.391	−0.289	0.113

Note. CI = confidence interval.

A somewhat similar pattern was found with regard to the donation amount: Although Model 1 did not reveal a main effect of condition, b = 0.23, t(302) = 1.01, p = .31, 95% CI = [−0.220, 0.688], we found a main effect of perceived physical vulnerability, b = 0.25, t(302) = 2.77, p = .006, 95% CI = [0.073, 0.434], R² = .03, F(2, 302) = 4.36, p < .014; see Table 4. Model 2 revealed no significant interaction between the two factors, b = 0.15, t(301) = 0.83, p = .41, 95% CI = [−0.209, 0.512], R² = .03, F(3, 301) = 3.13, p = .026; see Table 4.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Donation Amount.

Predictor	Model 1							Model 2
	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI		B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Condition	0.234	0.231	.058	1.014	.311	−0.220	0.688	−0.334	0.726	−.082	−0.461	.645	−1.763	1.094
Perceived vulnerability	0.254	0.092	.157	2.768	.006	0.073	0.434	0.029	0.287	.018	0.100	.920	−0.536	0.594
Interaction (Condition * Vulnerability)								0.151	0.183	.203	0.826	.409	−0.209	0.512

Note. CI = confidence interval.

The lack of a significant interaction between perceived vulnerability and the experimental conditions suggests that perceived vulnerability predicts donations regardless of the localness of the association. However, future research is needed to further establish this null effect, with larger samples and various contexts.

Perceived vulnerability was positively associated with feelings of closeness (IOS, r = .18, p = .001). Participants did not feel closer to victims of food insecurity in Israel, compared with victims of food insecurity in Africa, t(307) = −0.30, p = .77. A hierarchical linear regression analysis of feelings of closeness by experimental condition, perceived vulnerability, and the interaction between the two, revealed no main effect of condition in Model 1, b = 0.05, t(306) = 0.27, p = .79, 95% CI = [−0.285, 0.375], but a main effect of perceived physical vulnerability, b = 0.22, t(306) = 3.26, p = .001, 95% CI = [0.086, 0.349], R² = .03, F(2, 306) = 5.35, p = .005; see Table 5. Model 2 offered no significant interaction between the two factors, b = 0.07, t(305) = 0.51, p = .61, 95% CI = [−0.196, 0.331], R² = .04, F(3, 305) = 3.64, p = .013; see Table 5, suggesting that perceived vulnerability does not appear to affect feelings of closeness differently when participants consider victims of food insecurity in their own country, or in Africa.

Table 5.

Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Feelings of Closeness.

Predictor	Model 1							Model 2
	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI		B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound	B	SE	β	t	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
Condition	0.045	0.168	.015	0.268	.789	−0.285	0.375	−0.209	0.530	−.070	−0.395	.693	−1.251	0.833
Perceived vulnerability	0.217	0.067	.183	3.257	.001	0.086	0.349	0.117	0.210	.098	0.558	.577	−0.295	0.529
Interaction (Condition × Vulnerability)								0.068	0.134	.124	0.506	.614	−0.196	0.331

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Mediation analyses (using Hayes, 2018 PROCESS Model 4, 5,000 bootstrap samples)—with perceived vulnerability as the independent variable, willingness to donate as the dependent variable, and feelings of closeness with the target as the mediator—indicated a partial mediation effect of closeness on the link between vulnerability and willingness to donate (B = 0.10, SE = 0.05, p = .044, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.205]). The direct effect remained significant (see Figure 4). A similar mediation analysis—with perceived vulnerability as the independent variable, donation amount as the dependent variable, and feelings of closeness with the target as the mediator—also indicated a partial mediation effect of closeness on the amount of donation (B = 0.20,SE = 0.09, p = .027, 95% CI = [0.023, 0.385]). The direct effect remained significant (see Figure 5). Thus, it seems that feeling close to victims of a misfortune partially mediates the effect of perceived physical vulnerability on prosocial behavior. This result is consistent with the partial mediation found in Study 4.

Figure 4.

The mediating role of feelings of closeness on the effect of perceived physical vulnerability on willingness to donate.

Figure 5.

The mediating role of feelings of closeness on the effect of perceived physical vulnerability on donation amount.

Within-Paper Meta-Analysis

A single-paper meta-analysis (McShane & Böckenholt, 2017) estimates the size of an effect across multiple studies, accounting for heterogeneity between studies. We used this method to further examine the effect of perceived physical vulnerability on prosocial behavior and to document the comprehensive effect size. We meta-analyzed Studies 2 to 3 and 6 in which perceived vulnerability and the prosocial decisions were measured in similar ways (see supplementary materials). The within-paper meta-analysis indicated an overall significant correlation between perceived physical vulnerability and willingness to donate or volunteer to charity (r = .22, 95% CI = [0.138, 0.291], z = 5.33, p > .001; Q = 5.95, p = .051;I² = 66.4%), and an overall significant correlation between perceived physical vulnerability and the donation amount (r = .19, 95% CI = [0.107, 0.262], z = 4.57, p > .001; Q = 1.08, p = .058; I² = 0.00%), supporting our finding of a small, consistent effect, when perceived vulnerability is measured with respect to daily threats (e.g., road accident). As noted earlier, we expected and found that the link between physical vulnerability and prosociality is stronger when vulnerability becomes more salient, as demonstrated in Study 1 (during a war) and in Study 5, where sense of vulnerability was made salient by the study’s manipulation.

General Discussion

We examined the association between physical vulnerability and prosocial decisions. Our findings demonstrate that a subjective feeling of physical vulnerability affects the willingness to act prosocially and actual prosocial behavior. In Studies 1 to 4, we established a positive correlation between individuals’ sense of physical vulnerability and their prosociality. In Study 1, we found that self-assessment of higher likelihood of physical injury during an armed conflict is associated with a greater participation in related volunteering activities and a greater willingness to volunteer. The results of Study 2 indicate that participants who perceive themselves to be physically vulnerable are more willing to volunteer for, or donate to, a health-related organization. While Studies 1 and 2 were conducted in Israel, Study 3 was conducted in the United States, revealing a similar pattern, namely, that participants who perceived themselves to be physically vulnerable were more willing to donate to a local charity. Study 4 further demonstrated this link in relation to actual donations. In addition, Study 4 provides initial evidence for the role played by perceived closeness to prospective recipients in mediating this association.

In Study 5, perceived physical vulnerability was manipulated to reveal any causal relationship between vulnerability and individuals’ prosocial behavior. As surmised, participants who were experimentally manipulated to perceive themselves as physically vulnerable were more willing to donate to charity and were willing to donate higher amounts. Finally, Study 6 examined whether the causal relationship between physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior can be explained by individuals’ expectations of future reciprocity or by an emotional sense of feeling greater closeness to vulnerable others. The results suggested the latter, rather than that individuals may be motivated by an “enlightened self-interest” (Batson & Powell, 2003). Together, the results demonstrate a positive and causal relationship between a sense of physical vulnerability and prosociality.

Trying to explore the mechanism underlying this relationship, we found that individuals’ sense of closeness to others suffering a similar misfortune partially mediates this link. This finding is in line with the idea that anxiety-evoking situations tend to increase affiliative tendencies (Schachter, 1959). However, future research is needed to examine other possible variables that may shed light on this relationship. One possibility may be the prospective helper’s emotions when encountering a needy other. Specifically, research suggests two forms of empathy that may encourage helping behaviors: empathic concern and personal distress (Cristea et al., 2014). Empathic concern describes one’s feelings of sympathy and compassion for a distressed target (Davis et al., 1999) and promotes other-oriented prosocial behavior, which is motivated by the concern for the welfare of another person (Batson, 1994; Batson et al., 1987). Personal distress is self-oriented (Davis et al., 1999; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990), and includes feelings of personal anxiety and discomfort (e.g., upset, worried, and disturbed; Batson et al., 1987). Therefore, feelings of personal distress promote prosocial behavior to relieve one’s own discomfort (Cristea et al., 2014). People with a high sense of vulnerability may feel greater empathic concern toward needy others as they may find it easier to take their perspective. It is also possible that vulnerable people are motivated to help by their own distress, if the situation evokes and increases their own sense of vulnerability.

Our findings are in line with the empathy–altruism hypothesis (e.g., Batson & Powell, 2003), which suggests that individuals are motivated by an other-oriented emotional response in seeking to help others, such as sympathy, compassion, or tenderness. Because, in our study, physically vulnerable participants were more likely to donate than their non-vulnerable counterparts—irrespective of whether the donation was to a local or a distant charity—it is unlikely that they were primarily motivated by self-interest in doing so, in the hope of personally benefiting from the said charity’s services in future (e.g., Dawes et al., 1988). Therefore, it appears that a sense of physical vulnerability at least partially promotes altruistically motivated prosociality.

Another possible mediator may be magical thinking, namely, the idea that not extending help to victims of misfortune may increase one’s own vulnerability to that misfortune. This magical belief may encourage individuals to act prosocially, especially when the prospective beneficiary victim has similar vulnerabilities to one’s own (Kogut & Ritov, 2011). When individuals face important life events whose outcomes are beyond their control, they may act as if they can favor with Fate by doing good, as though they were “investing in karma” (Converse et al., 2012). A similar effect has been found in insurance decisions, whereby having an insurance policy reduces the perceived probability of coming to harm, whereas not insuring against a particular misfortune may make oneself more susceptible to it (Tykocinski, 2008). Future research should further examine such possible mechanisms for the observed effect.

In our six studies, we found a consistent and positive effect of perceived physical vulnerability on willingness to engage in prosocial activity. The effect sizes varied across the studies: In Study 1, which was conducted during a war, we measured a medium effect. In Study 5, in which perceived vulnerability was experimentally manipulated, the effect was large. However, in studies in which we measured vulnerability to routine threats (Studies 2 to 4 and 6), that is, threats that individuals are aware of on daily basis, the effect was consistently small. A within-paper meta-analysis of Studies 2, 3, and 6 indicated an overall significant effect. Although we expected the effects to be stronger when the threat was more dominant, such as in times of war (Study 1) or when vulnerability was directly manipulated (Study 5), future research in needed to directly examine this idea.⁵

Our research has several limitations. First, our studies focused on subjective assessments of one’s own vulnerability. Although we believe that subjective feeling of vulnerability is the main driver of the effect we uncovered, future research might examine whether an objective disadvantage in the physical domain yields a similar pattern of prosocial decisions, beyond its effect on subjective feelings. Second, our research mainly focused on the participants’ intentions to act prosocially, that is, their willingness to volunteer and donate to charity, and their self-reported participation in prosocial activities. Although we measured participants’ actual donations in Study 4, future research should examine actual participation in long-term activities.

Third, in all the studies we presented, participants engaged with a single charitable organization they could donate to. It is unclear, therefore, whether perceived physical vulnerability is related to the willingness to help in general or to an inclination to helping the specific charities in question. Perhaps a sense of physical vulnerability promotes prosociality, particularly when the charity in question is related to the health domain, or the willingness to act prosocially would be even higher if the charity were engaged in helping individuals in a similar plight as oneself. If prosocial behavior of vulnerable individuals is prompted by feelings of kinship to the victim in question, perhaps the degree of the effect is related to the perceived similarity between the victim and oneself.

Fourth, all our studies were conducted online. Studies 1, 2, and 6 were conducted with a sample of Israeli university students who were recruited from the lab’s mailing list and Studies 3 and 5 were conducted with a diverse sample of American MTurk workers. Previous research has found consistent results in laboratory settings and in online experiments (e.g., Coppock, 2019; Dandurand et al., 2008); however, concerns have been raised about the data quality in online-based research, which relies on participants’ honesty (Chandler et al., 2020; Chandler & Shapiro, 2016). Moreover, participants were self-selected to participate in the studies and to register to either the mailing list or for the MTurk platform. While our results were consistent across the samples, future research should examine the causal relationship between physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior in laboratory settings and, perhaps, in the field. Future work could also benefit from employing probabilistic, representative samples.

Finally, our results suggest only partial mediation of feelings of closeness. Closeness was measured prior to perceived physical vulnerability in Study 4, while it was measured after perceived vulnerability in Study 6. Future research should further explore the role of closeness in mediating the relationship between physical vulnerability and prosociality, in addition to examining alternative explanatory mechanisms. Furthermore, as we measured expectations of reciprocity indirectly, future research could benefit from direct examination of pro-self and pro-other motivations for vulnerability-related prosocial behavior.

Besides its theoretical contribution to the literature on the mechanisms underpinning prosocial behaviors, our research may offer practical tips for increasing people’s prosociality. First, it suggests that contrary to our intuition, appealing to people in times of stress and instability may actually result in increased responsiveness. Second, to elicit a greater positive response, nonprofits might consider invoking a sense of vulnerability among potential donors. For example, when appealing for donations to fight cancer, they might point out that cancer is the deadliest disease today. Similarly, when soliciting for donations for seismic upgrades of buildings, they might mention that there is a significant risk of an earthquake in the area where the potential donor resides.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672211005879 – Supplemental material for Perceived Physical Vulnerability Promotes Prosocial Behavior

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672211005879 for Perceived Physical Vulnerability Promotes Prosocial Behavior by Marina Motsenok, Tehila Kogut and Ilana Ritov in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF), grant no. 1068/15, and by the I-CORE program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and the Israel Science Foundation, grant no. 1821/12.

ORCID iDs

Marina Motsenok

Tehila Kogut

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Aknin

L. B.

Dunn

E. W.

Norton

M. I.

(2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 347–355.

Andreoni

Payne

(2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising? American Economic Review, 93, 792–812.

Andreoni

Petrie

(2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1605–1623.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.

Barrett

Dunbar

Lycett

(2002). Human evolutionary psychology. Princeton University Press.

Batson

C. D.

Duncan

B. D.

Ackerman

Buckley

Birch

(1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290.

Batson

C. D.

Powell

A. A.

(2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In Millon

Lerner

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 463–484). John Wiley.

Batson

C. D.

Fultz

Schoenrade

P. A.

(1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39.

Batson

C. D.

(1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 603–610.

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

11.

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973.

12.

Beyth-Marom

Austin

Fischhoff

Palmgren

Jacobs-Quadrel

(1993). Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 549.

13.

Bohle

H. G.

Downing

T. E.

Watts

M. J.

(1994). Climate change and social vulnerability: Toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change, 4, 37–48.

14.

Brown

T. C.

Champ

P. A.

Bishop

R. C.

McCollum

D. W.

(1996). Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics, 72, 152–166.

15.

Buraschi

Cornelli

(2002). Donations (CEPR discussion paper 3488). https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/3488.html

16.

Burgoyne

C. B.

Young

Walker

C. M.

(2005). Deciding to give to charity: A focus group study in the context of the household economy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 383–405.

17.

Buss

(2003). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Allyn Bacon.

18.

Carlsson

Martinsson

(2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179–192.

19.

Chandler

Shapiro

(2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53–81.

20.

Chandler

Sisso

Shapiro

(2020). Participant carelessness and fraud: Consequences for clinical research and potential solutions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 129, 49.

21.

Cialdini

R. B.

Kenrick

D. T.

(1976). Altruism as hedonism: A social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 907.

22.

Clark

(2002). Recognizing large donations to public goods: An experimental test. Managerial and Decision Economics, 23, 33–44.

23.

Converse

B. A.

Risen

J. L.

Carter

T. J.

(2012). Investing in karma: When wanting promotes helping. Psychological Science, 23, 923–930.

24.

Coppock

(2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7, 613–628.

25.

Cristea

I. A.

Legge

Prosperi

Guazzelli

David

Gentili

(2014). Moderating effects of empathic concern and personal distress on the emotional reactions of disaster volunteers. Disasters, 38, 740–752.

26.

Cryder

C. E.

Springer

Morewedge

C. K.

(2012). Guilty feelings, targeted actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 607–618.

27.

Cutter

S. L.

(1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20, 529–539.

28.

Dandurand

Shultz

T. R.

Onishi

K. H.

(2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 428–434.

29.

Davis

M. H.

Mitchell

K. V.

Hall

J. A.

Lothert

Snapp

Meyer

(1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: Personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. Journal of Personality, 67, 469–503.

30.

Dawes

R. M.

Van De Kragt

A. J.

Orbell

J. M.

(1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting cooperation in dilemma situations: Experimental manipulations. Acta Psychologica, 68, 83–97.

31.

Dawkins

(1989). The selfish gene (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

32.

Dickert

Kleber

Västfjäll

Slovic

(2016). Mental imagery, impact, and affect: A mediation model for charitable giving. PLOS ONE, 11, Article e0148274.

33.

Dorfman

Eyal

Bereby-Meyer

(2014). Proud to cooperate: The consideration of pride promotes cooperation in a social dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 105–109.

34.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

(1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131–149.

35.

Eisenberg

Losoya

Guthrie

I. K.

(1997). Social cognition and prosocial development. The Development of Social Cognition, 329–363.

36.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

37.

Fiske

S. T.

Dupree

C. H.

Nicolas

Swencionis

J. K.

(2016). Status, power, and intergroup relations: The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 44–48.

38.

Goetz

Keltner

Simon-Thomas

(2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351–374.

39.

Guinote

Cotzia

Sandhu

Siwa

(2015). Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. PNAS, 112, 731–736.

40.

Harel

Kogut

(2014). Visceral needs and donation decisions: Do people identify with suffering or with relief? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 24–29.

41.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

42.

Hoorens

(1996). Self-favoring biases for positive and negative characteristics: Independent phenomena. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 53–67.

43.

Johnson

Tversky

(1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20–31.

44.

Kalish

A. P.

(2014). The effect of natural disasters on volunteerism [Thesis, Claremont McKenna College].

45.

Kogut

Ritov

(2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167.

46.

Kogut

Ritov

(2011). “Protective donation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1059–1069.

47.

Kogut

Ritov

(2017). Psychological determinants of charitable giving. In Ranyard

(Ed.), Economic psychology (pp. 387–404). John Wiley.

48.

Lee

Tiedens

L. Z.

(2001). Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43–91.

49.

Lim

DeSteno

(2016). Suffering and compassion: The links among adverse life experiences, empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Emotion, 16, 175.

50.

Loewenstein

Small

D. A.

(2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112–126.

51.

Macmillan

D. C.

Smart

T. S.

Thorburn

A. P.

(1999). A field experiment involving cash and hypothetical charitable donations. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, 399–412.

52.

McShane

B. B.

Böckenholt

(2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 1048–1063.

53.

Milyavsky

Kruglanski

A. W.

Gelfand

Chernikova

Pierro

(2020, June 3). People who need people (and some who think they don’t): On compensatory personal and social means of goal pursuit. Stanford University Press.

54.

Motsenok

Ritov

(2021). The effect of perceived financial vulnerability on prosocial activity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34, 35–46.

55.

Murphy

R. O.

Ackermann

K. A.

Handgraaf

(2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771–781.

56.

Nowak

M. A.

(2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314, 1560–1563.

57.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Meyvis

Davidenko

(2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.

58.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188.

59.

Penner

L. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Piliavin

J. A.

Schroeder

D. A.

(2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.

60.

Perloff

Fetzer

(1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502–510.

61.

Piff

P. K.

Kraus

M. W.

Côté

Cheng

B. H.

Keltner

(2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 771–784.

62.

Piff

P. K.

Robinson

A. R.

(2017). Social class and prosocial behavior: Current evidence, caveats, and questions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 6–10.

63.

Piff

P. K.

Stancato

D. M.

Martinez

A. G.

Kraus

M. W.

Keltner

(2012). Class, chaos, and the construction of community. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 949–962.

64.

Reyna

V. F.

Farley

(2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 1–44.

65.

Rucker

D. D.

Galinsky

A. D.

Magee

J. C.

(2018). The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 71–125.

66.

Schachter

(1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Tavistock.

67.

Schwarzer

(1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and Health, 9, 161–180.

68.

Simmons

J. P.

Nelson

L. D.

Simonsohn

(2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.

69.

Small

Simonsohn

(2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 532–542.

70.

Smith

G. E.

Gerrard

Gibbons

F. X.

(1997). Self-esteem and the relation between risk behavior and perceptions of vulnerability to unplanned pregnancy in college women. Health Psychology, 16, 137.

71.

Sturmer

Snyder

Kropp

Siem

(2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943–956.

72.

Taylor

S. E.

(2006). Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 273–277.

73.

Trivers

(1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.

74.

Tykocinski

O. E.

(2008). Insurance, risk, and magical thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1346–1356.

75.

Vollhardt

J. R.

Staub

(2011). Inclusive altruism born of suffering: The relationship between adversity and prosocial attitudes and behavior toward disadvantaged outgroups. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 307.

76.

Weinstein

N. D.

(1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 24, 1232–1233.

77.

Weinstein

N. D.

Lyon

J. E.

Rothman

A. J.

Cuite

C. L.

(2000). Changes in perceived vulnerability following natural disaster. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 372–395.

78.

Wiepking

(2008). For the Love of Mankind: A sociological study on charitable giving [Doctoral dissertation, Department of Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB