Mark his motives: A motivational attribution perspective on observer responses to peer helping behaviors

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Mutual help among members is critical to the accomplishment of complex tasks in an organization. Helping behaviors are infectious, and employees learn to imitate their coworkers’ helping behaviors through observation. However, whether coworker helping triggers imitation learning depends on observers’ motivational attributions for coworker helping behaviors to some extent.

OBJECTIVE:

Based on attribution theory and approach-avoidance framework, this research explored the approach and avoidance-oriented emotional and behavioral consequences of observers’ prosocial and impression management motivational attributions of coworker helping behavior.

METHODS:

An experimental study with 178 participants and a field study with 259 employees was conducted.

RESULTS:

The results revealed that observers attribute coworkers’ helpfulness to prosocial motivation, which elicited observers’ approach-oriented emotions (i.e., positive empathy) and behaviors (i.e., helping behavior) and reduced coworker exclusion, while impression-management motivation elicited observers’ avoidance-oriented emotions (i.e., disgust) and behaviors (i.e., coworker exclusion) and reduced helping behavior.

CONCLUSION:

The results suggest that prosocial motivational attributions and impression management motivational attributions are key factors in determining whether observers have approach- or avoidance-oriented emotions and behaviors toward coworker helping. Accordingly, individual employees and managers should focus on employees’ motivation to help others in order to promote mutual support and harmony in the workplace.

Keywords

Helping behavior motivation peer influence empathy disgust workplace

The Master said, “See what a man does. Mark his motives. Examine in what things he rests. How can a man conceal his character? How can a man conceal his character?” ——Wei Chang, Confucian Analects

1 Introduction

In modern organizations with both complex division of labor and high uncertainty, mutual help among members is essential for completing sophisticated tasks because it can promote knowledge sharing and support problem-solving and innovation [1, 2]. Helping behaviors also assist recipients with learning, thus enhancing their professional skills and job competency [3]. Likewise, they bring positive emotional experiences to the giver, making him or her feel recognized and appreciated [2 , 5]. Indeed, a large and growing body of literature has focused on helping behavior and its effects on individuals and organizations from the perspectives of givers and recipients [6, 7], but the impact of helping behavior on third-party observers (hereinafter referred to as “observers”) has been left unexplored. However, helping behaviors involve interactions among coworkers [5], and it is through observation that people learn from others in the workplace. Hence, exploring helping behavior from an observer’s perspective will allow us to understand the phenomenon of workplace helping and its consequences more comprehensively.

Psychological theories and research suggest that environment, behavior and individual cognitive processes jointly determine human activity and that people can learn indirectly by observing others (as role models) [8]. Additionally, researchers have contended that helping behavior is socially influenced and “infectious”, meaning that when individuals show high levels of helping behavior in a workgroup, other employees are likely to help others [9].

However, we argue that whether and to what extent individuals who observe helping behavior in the workplace will be “inspired” and engage themselves in more helping behaviors depends on the observer’s attribution of motivations about such behaviors. According to attribution theory, individuals try to identify why others behave beyond normal expectations, and this process of attribution further influences their subsequent emotional and behavioral responses [10]. With that said, as a behavior outside the list of responsibilities for a given role, help in the workplace extends beyond normal work tasks and responsibilities, so observers would need to determine the reasons others devote their time and energy to helping their coworkers [11]. In addition, based on the approach-avoidance framework, when external stimuli act on individuals directly or indirectly through observation, observers may respond with approach or avoidance-oriented emotions [2 , 13]. Accordingly, when individuals observe that a coworker helps others, they are likely to experience approach-oriented emotions if they attribute that helping behavior to prosocial motives [11]. In contrast, when observers attribute helping behaviors to “impression management”, they may consider the giver dishonest or unreliable [11] and show avoidance/aversion.

Combining the motivational attribution perspective with the approach-avoidance framework, we further suggest that positive and negative emotional experiences triggered by helping behaviors in coworkers will in turn promote approach and avoidance behaviors. Specifically, employees in positive emotional states focus less on themselves and more on the needs of others and thus tend to engage in approach-oriented helping behaviors. Disgust, on the other hand, stimulates avoidance, which makes individuals instinctively move away from the object of disgust and thus engage in coworker rejection behaviors. To summarize, this research proposed a dual-path model (see Fig. 1) to explore the proximal approach-avoidance emotional responses and distal approach-avoidance behavioral responses of observers after they make attributions about helping behaviors.

Fig. 1

Proposed theoretical model. Note: Helping behaviors are not only directed at the giver but may also pass along help to others in their social network [57], while exclusion behaviors are directed at the actor who performs the behavior. Therefore, the targets of observer helping behaviors in this study were nonspecified individuals in the workplace, whereas the targets of exclusion behavior were the focal coworkers who helped with impression-management motives.

2 Hypothesis development

2.1 Attribution theory and approach-avoidance framework

Attribution refers to the rational process through which individuals interpret and draw motivational inferences about information in the social environment. According to attribution theory, people have an inherent drive to comprehend the causes of their own and others’ behavior, particularly in cases that defy common sense, and subsequently respond emotionally and behaviorally based on these attributions [14 –16]. Helping others is not an obligation for individuals and often requires additional time and effort. Therefore, individuals tend to make attributions about others’ helping behaviors [4, 5]. Further, coworkers play a critical role in understanding organizational citizenship behaviors in enterprises where employees interact frequently [3]. Therefore, employees may infer the motives of their coworkers’ helping behaviors. Furthermore, Jia and colleagues [11] found that coworkers, both recipients and observers, assess new employees by their motivation to help, and it is more conducive to the adaptation of new employees when coworkers see their helping behaviors as stemming from prosocial motivations rather than impression management. It follows that not only do recipients infer the motives of the givers’ helping behaviors, but observers also infer the motives of coworkers’ helping behaviors. According to attribution theory, we predict that observers will infer the motives of their coworkers’ helping behaviors and, in turn, exhibit different emotional and behavioral responses.

Research has demonstrated two primary motivations for employees’ helping behaviors. One is prosocial motivation, which reflects employees’ genuine concern for the wellbeing of others [17]. Helping behavior driven by prosocial motivation aims to improve the welfare of recipients, sometimes even at the expense of self-interest [18]. The other form of motivation identified in this study is impression management, meaning employees’ desire to portray a good image to their coworkers or superiors [19]. Helping behaviors that are driven by impression management aim to upgrade givers’ images [20]. It follows that an assessment of prosocial motivation triggers the judgment of others as “good soldiers”, while impression management leads to the judgment of others as “good actors” [11]. Research building on attribution theory suggests that different individual attributions can lead to distinct behavioral responses, even for the same behavior [21, 22]. Therefore, we further propose that different attributions of prosocial motivation and impression management motivation for helping coworkers can trigger different emotional and behavioral responses.

Specifically, using the approach-avoidance framework, we argue that helpful behavior may elicit approach-avoidance emotions and behaviors on the part of observers. The approach-avoidance framework comprises two systems: the approach system, which is associated with obtaining pleasant and meaningful experiences, such as those in social and achievement-related situations, and the avoidance system, which is related to self-directed ruminations and internal thought processes that trigger negative emotions. The primary function of the avoidance system is to help people avoid aversive objects or escape from harmful situations [2, 23]. According to the approach-avoidance framework, individuals will perform basic assessments of stimuli to determine if they are beneficial or harmful [24]. In addition, when observing external stimuli, individuals may also have approach-avoidance emotions and behaviors [12]. Therefore, we argue that observing a coworker’s helpfulness elicits approach or avoidance responses.

2.2 Observers’ approach-avoidance emotional responses to coworkers’ helpfulness

Individuals may feel envious of their coworkers’ accomplishments; they may also feel happy about the positive experiences of others, and this ability to share the happiness of others is crucial for teams and organizations [25]. This ability is called positive empathy, defined as “the experience of happiness in response to a coworker’s positive experience and the real or imagined happiness in the coworker” [25]. Positive empathy is triggered by emotional cues from others when employees are told or imagine coworkers’ reactions to learning about positive outcomes. As a positive emotion and a pleasant experience, positive empathy is a typical approach-oriented emotion, while disgust is a typical avoidance-oriented emotion [26].

Observers attributing coworkers’ helping behaviors to prosocial motives may experience positive empathy. Specifically, when people help their coworkers for prosocial reasons, they focus more on the wellbeing of others and the organization without seeking their own gratification and external rewards [27]. In doing so, on the one hand, it enables the recipients to have their problems solved and feel harmony, mutual support and camaraderie in the workplace. On the other hand, it will also bring a positive emotional experience to the giver [4], who can derive joy and satisfaction from helping others, a phenomenon sometimes popularly referred to by the proverb “a bit of fragrance clings to the hand that gives the roses”. Meanwhile, observers of helping behavior will be delighted for the recipient and will applaud the giver’s helping behavior. This understanding and sharing of others’ positive emotions is a product of positive empathy [28]. Taking all these observations together, we propose:

H1a: Coworkers’ helping behaviors depicted as prosocial-motivated will trigger more positive empathy in observers.

Employees motivated by impression management strategically engage themselves in helping behaviors to build a reputation as competent and dedicated [29]. Such helping behaviors to improve self-image are not approved by coworkers and supervisors. In support, research has shown that impression management-motivated helping behavior can weaken trust and relational identity among coworkers and may even induce hostility [30, 31]. Similarly, supervisors underassess their subordinates’ impression management-motivated citizenship behavior and may even resent or criticize this type of self-interested helping [11, 32]. In particular, when a coworker’s impression management-motivated citizenship behavior is rewarded, observers may interpret this as a violation of organizational justice, so they see this kind of help as a threat to their own interests [33]. Therefore, observers who attribute coworkers’ helping behaviors to impression management perceive these actions as making the actor look helpful in front of coworkers and leaders solely to earn their approval and trust. At this point, the observer perceives more of the falsity behind the friendliness and the hypocrisy behind the care. The selfish intentions under the altruism mask that violate the observers’ moral code, and the moral transgressions that cause the emotional experience of avoidance—disgust [34, 35]. Taking all these observations together, we hypothesize the following:

H1b: Coworkers’ helping behaviors depicted as impression management-motivated will trigger more disgust in observers.

2.3 Observers’ approach-avoidance behavioral responses to coworkers’ helpfulness

We further argue that approach-avoidance emotions (i.e., positive empathy and aversion) arising from different attributions of motivations will further elicit approach and avoidance behavior from observers. A number of studies have demonstrated that specific types of emotions, including approach-oriented and avoidance-oriented ones, can elicit corresponding types of behavior in individuals [13, 24]. Concretely, positive emotions motivate people to approach, whereas disgust motivates people to avoid [13]. Therefore, we suggest that positive empathy elicits approach-oriented behavior in which observers help their coworkers, and disgust causes observers to engage in avoidance-oriented behavior in which they exclude the coworkers who are motivated to help solely through self-interest.

Specifically, people are more likely to be engaged in helping behaviors when they experience positive emotions [36] because, on the one hand, positive emotions broaden individuals’ scope of attention; when individuals experience higher levels of positive emotions, they are more likely to notice and be sensitive to the needs of coworkers who are in trouble [4, 37]. On the other hand, according to the mood maintenance model, people in a positive mood tend to maintain their current positive mood, which includes engaging in helping behaviors to obtain positive feedback [4, 38]. At the same time, employees in a positive mood are more concerned about those who need help and less likely to engage in coworker exclusion. Together with Hypothesis 1a, we propose the following:

H2a: Coworkers’ helping behaviors depicted as prosocial-motivated will trigger more helping behavior and less exclusion (toward that coworker) in observers through positive empathy.

Disgust, an evolved antipathy [39], causes individuals to move away from the target object instinctively and engage in avoidance behavior. Researchers have found that anger is associated with direct aggression, whereas disgust is associated with indirect and weaker aggression, as well as depersonalization (i.e., cold and insensitive behaviors) [40, 41]. When employees feel disgust in the workplace, they are less likely to act aggressively. Instead, they are likely to adopt indirect, less recognizable ways, such as exclusion (isolation, intercepting information, and other forms of cold violence), to punish the target. This can reduce costs and conflict, and it can also serve as a deterrent. Meanwhile, disgust, as an avoidance emotion, increases an individual’s social distance from others [42]. Studies have demonstrated that individuals in a negative emotional state are less likely to make helping decisions [43]. Thus, individuals who experience disgust may reduce approach-oriented helping behaviors toward coworkers. Together with Hypothesis 1a, we propose the following:

H2b: Coworkers’ helping behaviors depicted as impression management-motivated will trigger more exclusionary behavior and less helping behavior (toward that coworker) in observers through disgust.

We tested the theoretical model across two studies. Study 1 used a scenario-based experimental design to investigate causal relationships between variables, while Study 2 employed a multi-wave field study to enhance the external validity of the research and test the model further.

3 Study 1: Experimental study

3.1 Pilot study

Before administrating the formal experiment, to test the validity of the manipulated materials and measurement items, we conducted a pilot study with a sample of 128 students. The participants were second-year undergraduate students from a business school in Zhejiang Province, China. We received 112 valid questionnaires for the three types of helpfulness attribution scenarios, and the average age of the participants ranged from 19 to 22.

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the three attribution contexts on positive empathy, disgust, helpful behavior, and coworker exclusion. The results of the pilot study showed that the prosocial motivation attribution and impression-management motivation attribution manipulations were valid and that the scale reliability and validity were acceptable. In addition, the relationships among the variables were consistent with our hypotheses.

Table 1
Means and standard deviations for the three types of attribution conditions (Study 1)

Condition Positive empathy Disgust Helping behavior Coworker exclusion

M SD M SD M SD M SD

HB-prosocial motivational attributions 3.72 0.93 1.63 0.86 4.32 0.88 2.48 0.81

HB-impression-management motivational attributions 2.27 0.92 2.44 0.99 4.08 0.98 2.92 0.73

HB-non-manipulation attribution 3.24 0.70 1.68 0.84 4.17 1.00 2.57 0.61

Condition	Positive empathy	Disgust	Helping behavior	Coworker exclusion
HB-prosocial motivational attributions	3.72	0.93	1.63	0.86	4.32	0.88	2.48	0.81
HB-impression-management motivational attributions	2.27	0.92	2.44	0.99	4.08	0.98	2.92	0.73
HB-non-manipulation attribution	3.24	0.70	1.68	0.84	4.17	1.00	2.57	0.61

Note: n = 112; HB = helping behavior.

3.2 Formal experiment

3.2.1 Participants

A total of 210 employees from enterprises and institutions in Zhejiang Province, China, took part in this experiment and were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. Sample size for this study was estimated by G*Power to assure adequate statistical power. We eliminated 32 participants who completed only part of the questionnaire or failed the check questions, resulting in 178 participants (43.25% male) included in the analysis. The majority of participants were aged between 20 and 29 (32% of the total versus all other age brackets) and had bachelor’s degrees (55.6% of the total versus all other education levels).

3.2.2 Experimental design and procedures

Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in a between-subjects design: prosocial motivation attributions, impression-management motivation attributions, or nonmanipulative motivation attributions (the number of participants in each condition ranged from 57 to 63). The experiment comprised the following four steps. First, participants were asked to answer a personality questionnaire measuring their neuroticism and agreeableness (control variables). Second, they read a vignette (in which we asked participants to imagine that they worked in the marketing department of a large enterprise and that Mr. Wang was one of their coworkers in their department) and received one of the experimental treatments of three types of attributions of helping behavior. Then, they completed the questionnaire to report the perceived level of helpfulness and motivational attributions and answer the manipulation check questions. Third, participants completed questionnaires that included positive empathy and disgust (mediating variables) as well as subsequent intentions to help others and exclude coworkers (dependent variables). Finally, the participants reported how carefully they answered the questions and completed the demographic questions.

3.2.3 Manipulation and measurement

The manipulation of attributions for helping behaviors consisted of two parts: the coworker helping scenario and the attribution scenario. The three contexts presented the same helping situation first and then the different attribution situations.

Helping behavior scenario: We developed a helping behavior scenario based on the scale developed by Lee and colleagues [5] and the conceptualization of helping behavior. It has three aspects: helping others solve problems, speeding up work progress, and preventing problems.

The participants were asked to imagine that they observed the workplace helping behavior of their coworker Mr. Wang. The detailed scenarios are as follows:

At work, you noticed that Mr. Wang often helps other coworkers. For instance, when a coworker in the same department took sick leave and had a backlog of work, Mr. Wang offered to take over some of his work. When a new coworker had just joined the company, Wang independently greeted him and taught him some workplace tips. Mr. Wang also helped coworkers with heavy workloads to share some of their work. In addition, just last month, a coworker in the department made a mistake out of haste and obtained the wrong customer information, which was fortunately discovered by Mr. Wang in time, thus avoiding potentially negative consequences.

Manipulation of attribution toward helping behavior: Based on Bharanitharan and colleagues’ [44] method of manipulating motivational attribution, Wang’s motivation to help was reflected through his conversations with his coworkers. We derived the wording for this attribution scenario from the prosocial and impression-management motivation scenarios by Rioux and Penner [45]. The nonmanipulative attribution condition does not present any attribution scenario. The specific materials for prosocial and impression-management motivation attributions were as follows:

Attribution of prosocial motivatio n: O nce you overheard a conversation between Wang and other coworkers. Wang believed that coworkers should help each other, and even if the leader did not notice his good deeds, he considered it right to help others. Wang mentioned that he was once a newcomer, and he has also experienced the pain of not being able to solve problems. So, when his coworkers encounter difficulties, he is willing to help solve them as much as he can, and he believes that sometimes helping out coworkers costs him nothing.

Attribution of impression-management motivation: Once you overheard a conversation between Wang and other colleagues. Wang mentioned that the leader pays more attention to team cohesion in performance reviews. As a result, he would try to help his coworkers as much as possible in the presence of the leader. He said that when a new employee first joins the company, the person who expresses kindness at the very beginning leaves a positive impression. The reason he carefully checked his work and found loopholes was that he was afraid that he could not deliver the project to his leaders if there were problems. This would make the leader feel he is irresponsible.

After the experimental treatment, the participants completed surveys measuring helping behavior, prosocial motivation attribution, and impression-management motivation attribution. The Helping Behavior Scale included 3 items developed by Lee and colleagues [5]. A sample item is “he or she helped coworkers avoid potential problems with their work”. The Motivational Attribution Scale included 10 items developed by Rioux and Penner [45]. Example items are “Because he wants to help his coworkers in any way he can” and “To impress his coworkers”. The above items are responded to on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.

Positive empathy. We used 3 items (e.g., warm) of positive empathy from Batson et al.’s [46] State Empathy Scale to measure the participants’ level of positive empathy at the present moment. Participants responded on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) (α= 0.89).

Disgust. We measured state disgust with 3 items (e.g., disgusted; 0 = not at all, 5 = extremely) from Fredrickson and colleagues’ [47] developed Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) (α= 0.92).

Helping behavior. Following the recommendations of Lin and colleagues [4], we measured helping behavior with one question about future willingness to help. The item is “Are you willing to help a coworker (like Mr. Wang) at work in the future?” The item was rated on a 6-point scale (1 = very reluctant, 6 = very willing).

Coworker exclusion. We measured coworker exclusion using Hitlan and Noel’s [48] 7-item scale; an example item is “ignoring him (or her)”. The items were rated in the same way as above (α= 0.80).

Control variables. We controlled for gender, age, education level, and tenure. In addition, following previous studies [6, 49], we also controlled the agreeableness, since individuals with high agreeableness are likely to engage in helping behaviors.

We translated all scales into Chinese using a “translation and back-translation” process.

3.2.4 Results

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests revealed that participants in the prosocial motivation attribution condition reported higher prosocial motivation attributions (M = 5.01, SD = 0.70) than those in the impression-management attribution and nonmanipulation attribution conditions (M = 4.27, SD = 1.18), F = 19.43, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.10. Furthermore, participants in the impression-management motivational attribution condition reported higher impression-management motivational attributions (M = 4.37, SD = 1.14) than those in the prosocial motivation attribution and nonmanipulation attribution conditions (M = 2.87, SD = 1.23), F = 71.31, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.29, which indicates that our attribution manipulations were successful.

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities for the Study 2 variables. We show the differences between experimental conditions on positive empathy and exclusion in Fig. 2a 2b.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities Among Variables (Study 1)

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Gender 1.55 0.50

2 Age 3.07 0.94 –0.14

3 Education 4.45 0.76 0.01 –0.26^*

4 Tenure 3.47 1.72 –0.23^ 0.47^*** 0.03

5 Agreeableness 6.97 0.88 0.18^* –0.01 0.07 0.01

6 HB-prosocial motivational attributions 0.33 0.47 –0.03 0.01 –0.03 0.00 0.03

7 HB-impression-management motivational attributions 0.35 0.48 0.01 0.05 –0.04 –0.02 0.15^* –0.52^***

8 HB-non-manipulation attribution 0.32 0.47 0.02 –0.06 0.07 0.02 –0.18^* –0.48^* –0.51^*

9 Positive empathy 3.47 0.92 –0.02 0.04 –0.05 0.10 0.10 0.31^* –0.26^* –0.05 (0.89)

10 Disgust 1.83 0.84 –0.03 0.00 –0.10 –0.15^* –0.20^** –0.15^* 0.28^* –0.14 –0.30^* (0.92)

11 Helping behavior 4.91 1.01 0.14 –0.05 0.09 –0.03 0.26^* 0.07 –0.06 –0.01 0.35^* –0.38^***

12 Coworker exclusion 2.43 0.85 –0.18^* 0.18^* –0.16^* 0.01 –0.22^ –0.08 0.13 –0.06 –0.31^* 0.55^* –0.36^* (0.80)

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1 Gender	1.55	0.50
2 Age	3.07	0.94	–0.14
3 Education	4.45	0.76	0.01	–0.26^***
4 Tenure	3.47	1.72	–0.23^**	0.47^***	0.03
5 Agreeableness	6.97	0.88	0.18^*	–0.01	0.07	0.01
6 HB-prosocial motivational attributions	0.33	0.47	–0.03	0.01	–0.03	0.00	0.03
7 HB-impression-management motivational attributions	0.35	0.48	0.01	0.05	–0.04	–0.02	0.15^*	–0.52^***
8 HB-non-manipulation attribution	0.32	0.47	0.02	–0.06	0.07	0.02	–0.18^*	–0.48^***	–0.51^***
9 Positive empathy	3.47	0.92	–0.02	0.04	–0.05	0.10	0.10	0.31^***	–0.26^***	–0.05	(0.89)
10 Disgust	1.83	0.84	–0.03	0.00	–0.10	–0.15^*	–0.20^**	–0.15^*	0.28^***	–0.14	–0.30^***	(0.92)
11 Helping behavior	4.91	1.01	0.14	–0.05	0.09	–0.03	0.26^***	0.07	–0.06	–0.01	0.35^***	–0.38^***
12 Coworker exclusion	2.43	0.85	–0.18^*	0.18^*	–0.16^*	0.01	–0.22^**	–0.08	0.13	–0.06	–0.31^***	0.55^***	–0.36^***	(0.80)

Note: n = 178. Variables 7–9 are dummy variables for the three attribution conditions (1 = yes, 0 = no). ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001. Numbers in diagonal brackets are alpha coefficient; HB = helping behavior.

Fig. 2

(a) Differences in positive empathy between conditions.

Fig. 2

(b) Differences in disgust between conditions.

We tested the model using Mplus 8 (Table 3), with prosocial motivation attributions and impression-management motivational attributions as dummy variables and nonmanipulation attributions as the reference group.

Table 3

Results for Testing Mediation (Study 1)

Variable	Positive empathy		Disgust		Helping behavior		Coworker exclusion
	M1		M2		M3		M4
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Controls
Gender	–0.03	0.14	–0.04	0.12	0.19	0.13	–0.22^*	0.11
Age	–0.02	0.09	0.04	0.07	0.00	0.08	0.13^*	0.06
Education	–0.08	0.09	–0.06	0.09	0.10	0.10	–0.09	0.07
Tenure	0.05	0.05	–0.08^*	0.04	–0.04	0.05	0.00	0.04
Agreeableness	0.13	0.08	–0.22^**	0.08	0.17	0.10	–0.07	0.07
Independent variables
HB-prosocial motivational attributions	0.43^**	0.15	0.03	0.13	–0.06	0.16	0.05	0.14
HB-impression-management motivational attributions	–0.32^*	0.16	0.56^***	0.150	0.12	0.19	–0.07	0.13
Mediator variables
Positive empathy					0.31^***	0.09	–0.18^**	0.06
Disgust					–0.35^***	0.10	0.50^***	0.06
R2	0.13^**		0.17^**		0.24^***		0.38^***
	Mediator model		Effect		SE		Boot 95% CI
	prosocial attributions ⟶ positive empathy ⟶ helping behavior		0.13		0.06		[0.04, 0.29]
Indirect effects	prosocial attributions ⟶ positive empathy ⟶ coworker exclusion		–0.08		0.04		[–0.17, –0.02]
	impression-management attributions ⟶ disgust ⟶ coworker exclusion		0.28		0.08		[0.12, 0.45]
	impression-management attributions ⟶ disgust ⟶ helping behavior		–0.19		0.07		[–0.38, –0.08]

Note: n = 178. Note. Non-manipulation condition was used as a reference group, the b values are unstandardized regression coefficients. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001. HB = helping behavior.

The results showed that after controlling for gender, age, education, tenure, neuroticism, and agreeableness, relative to participants in the nonmanipulation attribution condition, participants felt more positive empathy in the prosocial motivational attribution condition (M1: b = 0.43, p < 0.01) and more disgust in the impression-management motivational attribution condition (M2: b = 0.56, p < 0.01), supporting H1a and H1b, respectively.

As expected, the relative indirect effects of prosocial motivational attributions (with nonmanipulated attribution as the reference group) on helping behavior (b = 0.13, 95% CI [0.04, 0.29]) and on coworker exclusion (b = -0.08, 95% CI [–0.17, –0.02]) through positive empathy were significant. Additionally, the relative indirect effects of impression-management motivational attributions (with nonmanipulated attribution as the reference group) on coworker exclusion (b = –0.19, 95% CI [–0.38, –0.08]) and on helping behavior (b = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.45]) through disgust were also significant. Thus, H2a and H2b were supported.

4 Study 2: Field study

4.1 Participants and procedures

The participants in this study were full-time employees from China. Data were collected through an internet-based survey in two phases, separated by two weeks. At Time 1, employees’ motivational attributions, positive empathy and disgust, and demographics were assessed. Outcome variables (helping behavior and coworker exclusion) were assessed at Time 2. A total of 350 online questionnaires were distributed. Invalid questionnaires in which participants selected the same option and/or participant responses failed to be matched were eliminated, resulting in 259 valid questionnaires with a validity rate of 74%.

4.2 Measures

Helping behavior. We assessed the frequency of participants’ helping behavior over the past two weeks using the Favor Giving 4-item scale from Ouyang and colleagues [50]. A sample item is: “I took time to help a coworker with work-related problems” (1 = never, 6 = always) (α= 0.91).

Pro-social motivational attributions, impression management motivational attributions, positive empathy, disgust, and coworker exclusion were measured with the same scales as in Study 1, except that coworker exclusion was rated on a frequency scale.

Controls. We controlled for the same demographics as in Study 1.

4.3 Analysis and results

We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess the factor structure of our study variables (i.e., prosocial motivation, impression management motivation, empathy and disgust, helping behavior, and coworker exclusion). Our six-factor measurement model showed a good fit to the data (χ² (308) = 602.98, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, IFL = 0.93) and outperformed both a five-factor model (where two types of behaviors were loaded on the same factor [Δ χ² = 610.53, p < 0.001]) and a four-factor model (where two types of emotions and two behaviors were loaded on the same factor [Δ χ² = 1366.33, p < 0.001]) (see Table 4).

Table 4
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Study Measures (Study 2)

Model χ² df χ²/df RMSEA SRMR CFI TLI

1 Six-factor model (hypothesized model) 602.98 308 1.96 0.06 0.09 0.94 0.93

2 Five-factor model (HB+CE) 1213.51 313 3.88 0.11 0.12 0.82 0.80

3 Five-factor model (PM+IMM) 1389.50 313 4.44 0.12 0.15 0.78 0.75

4 Four-factor model (HB+CE; PM+IMM) 1969.31 317 6.21 0.14 0.16 0.67 0.63

5 Three-factor model (PM+IMM; PE+D; HP+CE) 2759.05 320 8.62 0.17 0.17 0.50 0.45

6 Two-factor model (PM+IMM+PE+D; HP+CE) 3217.10 322 9.99 0.19 0.18 0.41 0.36

7 One-factor model (PM+IMM+PE+D+HP+CE) 3519.15 323 10.90 0.20 0.18 0.35 0.29

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
1	Six-factor model (hypothesized model)	602.98	308	1.96	0.06	0.09	0.94	0.93
2	Five-factor model (HB+CE)	1213.51	313	3.88	0.11	0.12	0.82	0.80
3	Five-factor model (PM+IMM)	1389.50	313	4.44	0.12	0.15	0.78	0.75
4	Four-factor model (HB+CE; PM+IMM)	1969.31	317	6.21	0.14	0.16	0.67	0.63
5	Three-factor model (PM+IMM; PE+D; HP+CE)	2759.05	320	8.62	0.17	0.17	0.50	0.45
6	Two-factor model (PM+IMM+PE+D; HP+CE)	3217.10	322	9.99	0.19	0.18	0.41	0.36
7	One-factor model (PM+IMM+PE+D+HP+CE)	3519.15	323	10.90	0.20	0.18	0.35	0.29

Note: PM = prosocial motivation; IMM = impression management motivation; PE = positive empathy; D = disgust; HP = helping behavior; CE = coworker exclusion.

Because our study data was from the same source, we conducted a Harman single-factor test to examine common-method bias. We found that the first factor accounted for only 25.97% of the variance, suggesting that common-method variance was not a major concern in our study.

Table 5 displays the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the variables in Study 2.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities Among Variables (Study 2)

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 Gender	1.57	0.50
2 Age	3.38	1.19	0.14^*
3 Education	4.77	0.78	–0.07	–0.30^**
4 Tenure	4.37	1.89	0.18^**	0.79^**	–.21^**
5 Agreeableness	4.61	0.90	0.06	0.05	0.10	0.01
6 HB-prosocial motivational attributions	4.64	0.89	0.07	–0.01	–0.02	–0.04	.45^**	(0.83)
7 HB-impression-management motivational attributions	3.55	1.19	–0.07	–0.00	–.13^*	–0.04	–0.04	.23^**	(0.89)
8 Positive empathy	3.49	0.81	0.08	–0.09	0.10	–0.07	.46^**	.48^**	0.11	(0.92)
9 Disgust	2.39	1.02	–0.03	0.15^*	–0.10	0.09	–.23^**	–.28^**	.20^**	–.33^**	(0.95)
10 Helping behavior	4.44	0.92	0.01	0.08	0.02	0.02	.41^**	.54^**	0.06	.51^**	–.32^**	(0.91)
11 Coworker exclusion	2.72	0.76	–0.09	0.12^*	–0.11	0.07	–.25^**	–.22^**	.28^**	–.32^**	.35^**	–.23^**	(0.66)

Note: n = 259. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. Numbers in diagonal brackets are alpha coefficient; HB = helping behavior.

We conducted analyses to test our hypotheses with Mplus 8. Figure 3 shows the unstandardized path coefficients. Prosocial motivation attributions were positively related to positive empathy (b = 0.29, p < 0.01), while impression management motivation attributions were positively related to disgust (b = 0.21, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.

Fig. 3

Path analysis results for Study 2. Note: n = 259. Unstandardized path coefficients are reported. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01.

We tested the indirect hypothesis using the product of coefficients approach and a 5,000 with put-back sampling using the Bootstrap method to construct 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals [51]. The results showed (Table 6) that prosocial motivation had significant indirect effects on helping behavior and coworker exclusion through positive empathy (for helping, b = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19]; for exclusion, b = –0.05, 95% CI [–0.11, –0.02]). Indirect effects of impression management motivation through disgust on coworker exclusion and helping were also significant (for exclusion, b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.06]; for helping, b = –0.02, 95% CI [–0.06, –0.003]). Hypotheses 2a and 2b were thus supported.

Table 6

Indirect effects results (Study 2)

Mediator model	Effect	SE	Boot 95% CI
Prosocial attributions⟶positive empathy⟶helping behavior	0.10	0.04	[0.03, 0.19]
Prosocial attributions⟶positive empathy⟶coworker exclusion	–0.05	0.02	[–0.11, –0.02]
Impression-management attributions⟶disgust⟶coworker exclusion	0.03	0.01	[0.01, 0.06]
Impression-management attributions⟶disgust⟶helping behavior	–0.02	0.01	[–0.06, –0.003]

Note: n = 259.

5 General discussion

5.1 Theoretical implications

First, this study examines the approach-avoidance consequences in observers of coworkers’ helping behaviors. As noted earlier, the majority of the research on workplace helping focuses on the givers and recipients. Our study examines employees’ responses to coworkers’ helping behaviors from an observer’s perspective, which is conducive to a more thorough understanding of workplace helping behavior and responds to scholars’ calls to explore third-party relationships beyond the traditional employer-employee dichotomy [52]. Additionally, previous research has found that the motivation of coworkers to perform organizational citizenship behaviors affects individual perceptions of fairness because employees will perceive rewards received by coworkers for traditional (i.e., altruistic) motives as fairer [33]. Our findings extend prior research by showing that the motivational attributions of coworkers have significant effects on observers’ perceptions as well as on their emotions and behaviors.

Second, this study enriched motivational attribution theory by systematically and comprehensively examining observers’ approach-avoidance emotional and behavioral responses to others’ apparent or assumed motivations by integrating attribution theory and the approach-avoidance framework. The results indicated that approach-oriented or avoidance-oriented responses to coworkers depended on the attributions of their helpfulness, with prosocial motivational attributions and impression-management motivational attributions explaining the difference. Specifically, when individuals observe others, they not only listen to what they say and observe what they do but also identify the causes and then respond in an approach or avoidance manner based on their attributions of motivations about others’ behavior. Furthermore, previous research suggested that individual citizenship behavior can only be beneficial if it is stable, directed toward coworkers, and driven by altruistic motives [3], which is consistent with our findings.

Third, this study examined approach-avoidance emotional responses under different motivational attributions, which contributed to empirical research on workplace-based positive empathy and enriched the literature on the relationship between attributions and emotions. Our research answered calls for considering motivational factors when examining the light and dark sides of organizational citizenship behavior by Yam and colleagues [53]. We found that when coworkers’ helping behavior is attributed to prosocial motives, observers feel a sense of mutual support, are gratified by kindness and have positive empathy toward this happy, pleasant event. This is consistent with previous findings that citizenship behaviors driven by prosocial motivation predict happiness [32]; it also echoes Anegoda and Bordia’s [25] call for empirical research on positive empathy in the workplace. The results also demonstrated another possibility: When attributing coworkers’ help to impression-management motivation, observers would consider it a deliberate self-interested behavior to gain appreciation and recognition from their leaders and coworkers, and the so-called competition for profit as goodness is not virtuous or true, eliciting instead disgust.

Fourth, this study extended the outcomes of helping behavior by examining different behavioral responses to others’ help. Based on the approach-avoidance framework, we found that attributing the help motivation of coworkers to prosocial tendencies has a gainful effect through positive empathy, subsequently resulting in observers’ mimicry and more workplace helping and reducing coworker exclusion. Meanwhile, impression-management attributions, which are perceived on the same level as an attribution of “good acting”, will elicit disgust and lead to coworker exclusion, as well as negatively affect helping behavior. Our findings also expand knowledge that workplace help may not always have a radiating effect to encourage employees to engage in more helping behaviors but may also elicit negative consequences due to an assessment of impure motives.

5.2 Practical implications

Beyond contributing to the literature, our findings have practical implications as well. First, our results suggested that helping behavior perceived to be motivated by impression-management can result in negative emotions and behaviors in observers. Therefore, it is important for employees to understand that not all helping behaviors will be recognized positively and that observers may infer varying motivations behind workplace help. Consequently, employees should be cautious about engaging in helping behaviors that are motivated primarily by self-interest or reputation, as these might lead counterproductively to disgust. Individuals should also be careful to avoid being perceived as self-serving when their motives are in fact prosocial [33].

Second, given that helping can be caused by different motives, only prosocial motivation may bring positive results to observers, whereas employees motivated by impression-management may not find similar or even expected responses. Essentially, engagement in impression management-motivated behavior is largely credited to earning leader support and rewards. Therefore, leaders should consider the motivation behind employees’ behavior when recognizing and rewarding them for their helpfulness and should examine the sustainability of their helpfulness from multiple perspectives and sources. It is also important that leaders guide employees to value team goals and organizational commitment alongside their own work goals.

Finally, the results also suggest that behavior motivated by impression management not only is ineffectual but even induces the disgust and exclusion of coworkers, which may disrupt team climate and organizational harmony. As such, organizations should avoid policies and practices that may drive employees to help others purely out of self-interest, taking measures instead such as excluding helping behavior from formal performance appraisals, giving leaders and coworkers more discretion in performance appraisals, or rewarding performance on a team or collective basis.

5.3 Limitations and recommendations for future research

Recent research also has several limitations, which may highlight directions for future research. First, the premise of this study is based on attribution theory, which assumes that individuals attribute motivations to others and subsequently behave accordingly. However, it is likely that there are employees in the organization who neglect others’ behaviors or motivations, and even if some do attribute motivations for certain behaviors, they may not universally generate specific emotions and behaviors in response, especially for highly socialized employees who take workplace rules for granted. Alternatively, an employee’s motivation to help others may be driven by a combination of motives, such as pro-social motivation and impression management motivation. Therefore, we encourage future research to provide new insights.

Second, our study did not consider boundary conditions and antecedent variables. Future research could extend our work to explore the moderating role of specific factors and antecedents that influence motivational attributions. For example, in traditional value systems, superiors have an obligation to assist their subordinates, and employees with high levels of competence have ample force to help others. Therefore, high-status coworkers who help out of prosocial motives may not trigger significant positive empathy, while any helping behaviors inspired by impression-management motives will probably provoke more disgust. It has also been found that observers tend to make self-serving attributions about high-status employees when they offer public help [54]. Moreover, attributions are influenced by individual characteristics and social contextual factors [55, 56]. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore the antecedents of motivational attributions, i.e., why do observers make attributions of prosocial motivation or impression-management motivation?

Third, the participants in both the experimental study and the survey were all from China. According to Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory, China scores much lower than Western countries in terms of individualism and indulgence. Therefore, the results are likely to be constrained by cultural norms. In Western culture, interpersonal relationships are loose and less constrained by social groups, and individuals are less influenced by coworkers’ behaviors. Thus, the negative impact of coworkers’ impression management-motivated helping behaviors may also be weaker. Therefore, we invite future research to further explore observers’ attributions of helping motives among coworkers in different cultural contexts.

Fourth, this work focused on helping behavior, which is a common and long-standing phenomenon in the workplace, where observers’ observations of coworkers’ helping behaviors are based on offline work situations. However, with the rising trend of online working in recent years, it has become less probable for employees to directly witness their coworkers’ helpful actions. Instead, online communication tools offer a novel platform for individuals to indirectly perceive the helping behaviors of their coworkers through group interactions. Therefore, exploring the impact of online working on employees’ perceptions of coworker helping represents a promising direction for future research.

6 Conclusion

Existing studies on workplace helping behaviors usually focus on the perspective of both the givers and/or recipients. We constructed and tested a model that examined the emotional and behavioral effects of helping behaviors on observers. Based on attribution theory and the approach-avoidance framework, our study used experimental and field studies to find how observers would determine the reasons for coworkers’ helping behaviors. Specifically, prosocial motivational attributions and impression-management motivational attributions about coworkers elicited observers’ approach-avoidance emotions, i.e., positive empathy and disgust, respectively, which in turn motivated approach-oriented behaviors (i.e., helping behaviors) and avoidance-oriented behaviors (i.e., coworker exclusion). These findings provide new insights into the study of workplace helping behavior from the perspective of motivational attributions by observers. This suggests that employees in organizations should be cautious about engaging in impression management-motivated helping behaviors. Additionally, organizations and leaders should guide employees to prioritize team goals and implement collective performance rewards, among other measures, to increase helping behaviors driven by prosocial motivation and prevent impression management-motivated helping behaviors from triggering workplace exclusion.

Ethical approval

This study obtained approval from the Ethics Review Committee of Suzhou University of Science and Technology.

Informed consent

All participants signed an informed consent form prior to the survey.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no acknowledgments.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71974140; 72171053).

References

Grant

, Patil

. Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management Review. 2012;37(4):547–68.

Spitzmuller

, Park

, Van Dyne

, Wagner

, Maerz

. When do you benefit? Differential boundary conditions facilitate positive affect and buffer negative affect after helping others. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2021;30(4):482–94.

Turner

, Connelly

. Helping in the eyes of the beholder: The impact of OCB type and fluctuation in OCB on coworker perceptions and evaluations of helpful employees. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology. 2021;5(3):269–82.

Lin Savani

, Ilies

, Lin

, Savani

, Ilies

. Doing good, feeling good? The roles of helping motivation and citizenship pressure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2019;104(8):1020–35.

Lee

, Bradburn

, Johnson

, Lin

SHJ

, Chang

CHD

. The benefits of receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2019;104(2):197–213.

Lin

, Koopmann

, Wang

. How Does Workplace Helping Behavior Step Up or Slack Off? Integrating Enrichment-Based and Depletion-Based Perspectives. Journal of Management. 2020;46(3):385–413.

Borgh van der

, Jong de

, Nijssen

. Why helping coworkers does not always make you poor: The contingent role of common and unique position within the sales team. Industrial Marketing Management. 2019;77:23–40.

Bandura

. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):248–87.

Bommer

, Miles

, Grover

. Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2003;24(2):181–96.

10.

Weiner

. Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Theories of Motivation from an Attributional Perspective. Educational Psychology Review. 2000;12:1–14.

11.

Jia

, Zhong

, Xie

. Helping others makes me fit better: effects of helping behavior by newcomers andcoworker-attributed motives on newcomers’ adjustment. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2021;36(3):401–16.

12.

Zhang

, Liu

, Chen

. Fight and Flight: a Contingency Model of Third Parties’ Approach-Avoidance Reactions to Peer Abusive Supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2020;35(6):767–82.

13.

Eder

, Elliot

, Harmon-Jones

. Approach and avoidance motivation: Issues and advances. Emotion Review. 2013;5(3):227–9.

14.

Weiner

. A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;39(2):186–200.

15.

Weiner B

. May I borrow your class notes? An attributional analysis of judgments of help giving in an achievement-related context. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1980;72(5):676–81.

16.

Lyubykh

, Bozeman

, Hershcovis

, Turner

, Shan

. Employee performance and abusive supervision: The role of supervisor over-attributions. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2022;43(1):125–45.

17.

Barasch

, Levine

, Berman

, Small

. Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014;107(3):393–413.

18.

Moon

, Kamdar

, Mayer

, Takeuchi

. Me or We? The Role of Personality and Justice as Other-Centered Antecedents to Innovative Citizenship Behaviors Within Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(1):84–94.

19.

Bolino

, Turnley

. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005;90(4):740–8.

20.

Wayne

, Liden

. Effects of Impression Management on Performance Ratings: A Longitudinal Study. Academy of Management Journal. 1995;38(1):232–60.

21.

McMahon

, Chan

, Cheing

, Rosenthal

, Bezyak

. Drivers of workplace discrimination against people with disabilities: The utility of Attribution Theory. Work. 2005;25(1):77–88.

22.

Randolph

. The meaning of workplace discrimination for women with disabilities. Work. 2005;24(4):369–80.

23.

Watson

. Mood and temperament. Guilford Press. 2000.

24.

Elliot

, Eder

, Harmon-Jones

. Approach-avoidance motivation and emotion: Convergence and divergence. Emotion Review. 2013;5(3):308–11.

25.

Ganegoda

, Bordia

. I can be happy for you, but not all the time: A contingency model of envy and positive empathy in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2019;104(6):776–95.

26.

Harmon-Jones

. Anger and the behavioral approach system. Personality and Individual Differences. 2003;35(5):995–1005.

27.

Lebel

, Patil

. Proactivity despite discouraging supervisors: The powerful role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2018;103(7):724–37.

28.

Morelli

, Lieberman

, Zaki

. The emerging study of positive empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2015;9(2):57–68.

29.

Grant

, Mayer

. Good Soldiers and Good Actors: Prosocial and Impression Management Motives as Interactive Predictors of Affiliative Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009;94(4):900–12.

30.

Bolino

, Turnley

, Bloodgood

. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 2002;27(4):505–22.

31.

Rubenstein

, Kammeyer-Mueller

, Thundiyil

. The comparative effects of supervisor helping motives on newcomer adjustment and socialization outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020;105(12):1466–89.

32.

Halbesleben

JRB

, Bowler

, Bolino

, Turnley

. Organizational concern, prosocial values, or impression management? How supervisors attribute motives to organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2010;40(6):1450–89.

33.

Farrell

, Finkelstein

. The Impact of Motive Attributions on Coworker Justice Perceptions of Rewarded Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2011;26(1):57–69.

34.

Giner-Sorolla

, Chapman

. Beyond Purity: Moral Disgust Toward Bad Character. Psychological Science. 2017;28(1):80–91.

35.

Chapman

, Anderson

. Things rank and gross in nature: A review and synthesis of moral disgust. Psychological Bulletin. 2013;139(2):300–27.

36.

Telle

, Pfister

. Positive empathy and prosocial behavior: A neglected link. Emotion Review. 2016;8(2):154–63.

37.

Fredrickson

. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology. 1998;2(3):300–19.

38.

Wegener

, Petty

. Mood Management Across Affective States: The Hedonic Contingency Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;66(6):1034–48.

39.

Rozin

, Fallon

. A Perspective on Disgust. Psychological Review. 1987;94(1):23–41.

40.

Pond

, DeWall

, Lambert

, Deckman

, Bonser

, Fincham

. Repulsed by violence: Disgust sensitivity buffers trait, behavioral, and daily aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012;102(1):175–88.

41.

Molho

, Tybur

, Güler

, Balliet

, Hofmann

. Disgust and Anger Relate to Different Aggressive Responses to Moral Violations. Psychological Science. 2017;28(5):609–19.

42.

Fischer

, Manstead

, Lewis

, Haviland-Jones

, Barrett

: Social Functions of Emotion and Emotion Regulation. W: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones J, Barrett LF, red. Handbook of emotions. New York: Guilford; 2016, s. 424-39.

43.

Sharma

. Positive and Negative Affect: Impact on Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour among College Going Adolescents. International Journal of Indian Psychology. 2015;2(3):12–7.

44.

Bharanitharan

, Lowe

, Bahmannia

, Chen

, Cui

. Seeing is not believing: Leader humility, hypocrisy, and their impact on followers’ behaviors. Leadership Quarterly. 2021;32(2):101440.

45.

Rioux

, Penner

. The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001;86(6):1306–14.

46.

Batson

, Batson

, Todd

, Brummett

, Shaw

, Aldeguer

CMR

. Empathy and the Collective Good: Caring for One of the Others in a Social Dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;68(4):619–31.

47.

Fredrickson

, Tugade

, Waugh

, Larkin

. What Good Are Positive Emotions in Crises? A Prospective Study of Resilience and Emotions Following the Terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84(2):365–76.

48.

Hitlan

, Noel

. The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2009;18(4):477–502.

49.

Grant

, Wrzesniewski

. I Won’t Let You Down. or Will I? Core Self-Evaluations, Other-Orientation, Anticipated Guilt and Gratitude, and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010;95(1):108–21.

50.

Ouyang

, Xu

, Huang

, Liu

, Tang

. Reaching the limits of reciprocity in favor exchange: The effects of generous, stingy, and matched favor giving on social status. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2018;103(6):614–30.

51.

MacKinnon

, Lockwood

, Hoffman

, West

, Sheets

. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods. 2002;7:83–104.

52.

Cook

, Hahn

. Social Exchange Theory. Theoretical Sociology. 2021;2:179–205.

53.

Yam

, Klotz

, He

, Reynolds

. From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal. 2017;60(1):373–96.

54.

Siem

, Stürmer

. Attribution of Egoistic Versus Altruistic Motives to Acts of Helping: The Role of the Helper’s Status and the Act’s Intended Publicity. Social Psychology. 2019;50(1):53–66.

55.

, Farh

CIC

. An Emotional Process Theory of How Subordinates Appraise, Experience, and Respond to Abusive Supervision Over Time. Academy of Management Review. 2017;42(2):207–32.

56.

Douglas

, Kiewitz

, Martinko

, Harvey

, Kim

, Chun

. Cognitions, Emotions, and Evaluations: An Elaboration Likelihood Model for Workplace Aggression. The Academy of Management Review. 2008;33(2):425–51.

57.

Bowler

, Brass

. Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006;91(1):70–82.