When receiving a favour, we may feel grateful and/or indebted to those who have helped us. What factors determine how much gratitude and indebtedness people experience? In a seminal paper, Tsang (2006) found that people reported feeling more gratitude when the helper's intention was benevolent (e.g., helping others out of genuine concerns for other people) compared to when the helper's intention was perceived to be selfish (e.g., helping others for selfish reasons). In contrast, indebtedness was not influenced by perceived helper intention. This finding highlighted the different processes underlying gratitude and indebtedness, and also inspired later work on how these two emotions may have different downstream influences, for instance on interpersonal relationships.

So far, there has been no published direct replication of this seminal work by Tsang (2006). In the current study, Chan et al. (2024) propose to revisit the effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness, by replicating and extending the original studies (Study 2 & 3) by Tsang (2006). Participants will be asked to either recall (Study 2) or read (Study 3) a scenario in which another person helped them with either benevolent or selfish intentions, and rate how much gratitude and indebtedness they would experience in such situations. The authors predict that in line with the original findings, gratitude will be more influenced by helper intention than indebtedness. To further extend the original findings, the authors will also assess people's perceived expectations for reciprocity, and their intention to reciprocate. These extensions will shed further light on how helper intention may influence beneficiaries’ experiences of gratitude and indebtedness, and their subsequent tendencies to reciprocate.

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by three expert reviewers and the recommender. After the revisions, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/uyfvq
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

1. Tsang, J.-A. (2006). The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9031-z

2. Chan, C. F., Lim, H. C., Lau, F. Y., Ip, W., Lui, C. F. S., Tam, K. Y. Y., & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the Effects of Helper Intention on Gratitude and Indebtedness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Tsang (2006). In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/uyfvq

The Martyrdom Effect is a behavioral tendency in which individuals exhibit greater generosity when their acts of giving entail effort or self-sacrifice (Olivola & Shafir, 2013). Giving at a personal cost, in this mindset, is associated with ascribing and inferring more meaning and value to charitable giving or other forms of generosity than in instances where no particular pain or effort is required to enact prosocial behavior. Arguably, the Martyrdom Effect’s ability to boost prosocial behavior therefore departs from other theories of behavior change postulating that easy options to act prosocially could boost contributions (e.g., default effects in charitable giving, see Altmann et al., 2019; Goswami & Urminsky, 2016). Because they introduce complexity to the debate about encouraging prosocial behavior, three studies from Olivola and Shafir (2013) are now being addressed in this Registered Report by Cheng and Feldman (2024).

Combining these three studies in a high-powered within-subjects replication attempt, transparently communicating necessary deviations from the original design and carefully outlining the analysis strategy, the current study will offer insights into the robustness of prior findings on the role of effort and pain in determining donations.

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 

 

1. Altmann, S., Falk, A., Heidhues, P., Jayaraman, R., & Teirlinck, M. (2019). Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 101, 808-826. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00774

 

2. Cheng, Y. T. & Feldman, G. (2024). Do pain and effort increase prosocial contributions?: Revisiting the Martyrdom Effect with a Replication and extensions Registered Report of Olivola and Shafir (2013). In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/aq89u

 

3. Goswami, I., & Urminsky, O. (2016). When should the Ask be a Nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 829-846. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0001

 

4. Olivola, C. Y., & Shafir, E. (2013). The Martyrdom Effect: When Pain and Effort Increase Prosocial Contributions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.767

Pro-social actions are often driven by emotional factors. For instance, emotions have been shown to play a decisive role in the way we judge the fairness of a situation (affect-as-information theory: e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Storbeck and Clore, 2008), and, thus, how we make decisions. Specific emotions like anger have also been shown to stimulate the motivation to fight injustice (Lerner et al., 2015). At the individual level, people might undertake altruistic actions as a way to relieve themselves from these negative emotions (what Cialdini (1991) calls ‘reflexive distress’) but also because these actions are expected by the social norms (‘normative distress’). Indeed, pro-social actions are usually taken in social contexts, and the perception of one’s behavior by third parties might hinder or facilitate the adoption of pro-social behaviors. Understanding the determinants of the perception of altruistic behaviors is thus a key research question to support pro-social actions in collective settings.

 

In the current study, Woo and Feldman (2024) aim to replicate the seminal work of Barasch et al. (2014), who showed that third parties hold more favorable views of agents undertaking pro-social actions when the latter are motivated by emotions. More precisely, the authors aim to replicate two studies of the original work by conducting a well-powered online experiment (US participants, Prolific, N=1,164). First, they will investigate whether donors who exhibit higher distress regarding the suffering of others are perceived as more moral and authentically concerned for others. Second, they will analyze whether individuals who expect material or reputational benefits from their altruistic deeds are perceived by third parties as less moral than those who act for emotional reasons. In addition to these two replication objectives, the authors propose extensions with pre-registered hypotheses that are inspired by Study 2 from the original work. They seek to investigate whether people are seen as more other-focused when they undertake a prosocial action (donation) and under different expected rewards (material, reputational, emotional benefits).

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated by two external reviewers and the recommender. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

1. Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037207

 

2. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_3

 

3. Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., Garvin, E., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition.

 

4. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043

 

5. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1824-1843. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2008.00138.x

 

6. Woo, T. L. & Feldman, G. (2024). Revisiting the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Barasch et al. (2014) Studies 3 and 6. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/d5bmp

The "lure of choice" refers to the idea that we prefer to preserve the option to choose even when the choice is not helpful. In a classic study cited hundred of times, Bown et al. (2003) reported evidence for the lure of choice from a series of studies involving choices between competing options of night clubs, bank savings accounts, casino spinners, and the Monty Hall door choice paradigm. In all cases, participants tended to prefer to choose an option when paired with a "lure", even when that lure was objectively inferior (e.g., same probability of winning but lower payoff).

 

The lure of choice phenomenon applies to a variety of real-life situations many of us often face in our daily lives, and Bown et al.’s findings have influenced the way organizations present choices to prospective users. Despite their theoretical and practical impact, Bown et al.'s findings have not previously been directly replicated, even as the importance of replication studies has become increasingly acknowledged (Nosek et al., 2022).

 

Here, Chan & Feldman (2024) outline a close replication of Bown et al. (2003) that will replicate and extend their original design. By unifying Bown et al.'s multiple studies into a single paradigm with which they will collect data from approximately 1,000 online participants via Prolific, they will have substantially greater statistical power than the original study to detect the predicted effects. They will follow LeBel et al.’s (2019) criteria for evaluating replicability, such that it will be considered a successful replication depending on how many of the 4 scenarios show a signal in the same direction as Bown et al.’s original results (at least 3 out of 4 scenarios = successful replication; no scenarios = failed replication; 1 or 2 scenarios = mixed results replication). They have also added additional controls including a neutral baseline choice without a lure, further ensuring the the validity and interpretability of their eventual findings.

 

One of the goals in creating Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI RR) was to increase the availability of publishing venues for replication studies, and so PCI RR is well-suited to the proposed replication. Feldman’s lab has also pioneered the use of PCI RR for direct replications of previous studies (e.g., Zhu & Feldman, 2023), and the current submission uses an open-access template he developed (Feldman, 2023). This experience combined with PCI RR’s efficient scheduled review model meant that the current full Stage 1 protocol was able to go from initial submission, receive detailed peer review by two experts, and receive in-principle acceptance (IPA) for the revised submission, all in less than one month.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/8ug9m
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

• Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Collabra: Psychology
• F1000Research
• Journal of Cognition
• Meta-Psychology
• Peer Community Journal
• PeerJ
• Royal Society Open Science
• Studia Psychologica
• Swiss Psychology Open

 

 

Bown, N. J., Read, D. & Summers, B. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.447

 

Chan, A. N. Y. & Feldman, G. (2024). The lure of choice revisited: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Bown et al. (2003) [Stage 1]. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community In Registered Reports. https://osf.io/8ug9m

 

Feldman, G. (2023). Registered Report Stage 1 manuscript template. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YQXTP

 

LeBel, E. P., Vanpaemel, W., Cheung, I. & Campbell, L. (2019). A brief guide to evaluate replications. Meta-Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2018.843

 

Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., ... & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719-748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157

 

Zhu, M. & Feldman, G. (2023). Revisiting the links between numeracy and decision making: Replication Registered Report of Peters et al. (2006) with an extension examining confidence. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77608

The reward value of a stimulus is based on an error in prediction: Things going better than predicted. Could this learning principle, often tested on short acting stimuli, also apply to a long lasting episode, like going for a run? Could how rewarding a run is be based on the run going better than predicted?

 

Understanding the conditions under which exercise is pleasurable could of course be relevant to tempting people to do more of it! In the current study, Brevers et al. (2024) asked people before a daily run to predict the amount of perceived exertion they would experience; then just after the run, to rate the retrospective amount of perceived exertion actually experienced. The difference between the two ratings was the prediction error. Participants also rated their remembered pleasure in running. As hypothesized, the authors found that running pleasure increased linearly with how much retrospective exertion was than predicted.
 
The Stage 2 manuscript received one round of review from two external reviewers, then some minor comments from the recommender, after which it was judged to satisfy the Stage 2 criteria and was awarded a positive recommendation.

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/xh724
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

References
 
1. Brevers, D., Martinent, G., Oz, I. T., Desmedt, O. & de Geus, B. (2024). Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? [Stage 2]. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/xfgqp