双向视角下受助者心理困境及其化解路径*

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240229

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 利他行为由助人者发起,旨在使受助者获益。受助者的获益是衡量利他行为有效性的关键指标。然而,并非所有利他行为都使受助者获益。助人者帮助受助者解决现实难题,但若其帮助行为伴随对受助者心理的负性影响,受助者将陷入现实和心理的双重困境。从助人者和受助者双向视角出发,有助于分析受助者心理困境的成因,发掘来自助人者和受助者两个视角的影响因素,并提出化解受助者心理困境的两条路径。未来研究可进一步厘清不同帮助类型对受助者心理的影响,增加对受助者个体和群体差异的关注,丰富对受助后人际互动和长期结果的探索。双向视角的观点也为提升公益和慈善实践的有效性提供启发。

关键词: 利他行为, 受助者, 助人者, 视角差异

Abstract: Helpers engage in altruistic behavior to increase recipients’ benefits. The extent to which these altruistic behaviors are effective depends on the benefits received by the recipients. However, it is important to note that not all instances of altruistic behavior yield favorable outcomes. While the helpers’ primary objective is to help the recipients overcome practical difficulties, offering help may unintentionally impose negative psychological effects, and thus burdening them with a dilemma comprising practical problems and psychological distress. This predicament contradicts the original intent behind helping. To tackle the above issue and promote the recipients’ benefits, it is imperative to understand the causes of the recipients’ predicament incorporating both the perspectives of the helpers and the recipients.
Helpers offer varying forms of help to recipients based on their perceptions and judgments of the recipients. Unfortunately, some of these helping behaviors may yield negative outcomes for the recipients. Firstly, helpers tend to offer help when they perceive recipients to be incompetent, consequently causing the recipients to feel a lack of ability. Secondly, helpers provide help even in the absence of evidence indicating a genuine need for help. This presumptive help often imposes emotional burdens on recipients who, in fact, do not desire such help. Thirdly, when helpers feel threatened, they sometimes strategically help recipients to maintain their own superior status. Lastly, helpers prefer to provide dependency-oriented help, while recipients would actually benefit more from autonomy-oriented help.
From the perspective of recipients, being inferior to helpers can result in negative outcomes. This perception of inferiority stems from three contributing factors. Firstly, engaging in social comparisons with helpers leads them to see themselves as less competent. Secondly, receiving help without the opportunity to reciprocity fosters a sense of indebtedness towards the helpers. Lastly, recipients cannot decide which forms of help to receive, thereby lacking a sense of autonomy. In addition to perceiving themselves as inferior, holding negative beliefs about accepting help further contributes to negative psychological outcomes. One origin of such negative beliefs is attributing the helpers’ motivations to be self-oriented. This attribution leads to negative psychological experiences after receiving help.
To resolve the dilemma of recipients, we propose two paths: one for helpers and one for recipients. The path for helpers entails two fundamental aspects. Firstly, helpers should better not assume recipients to be incompetent or overly dependent without sufficient evidence, thereby avoiding threats to the recipients' sense of autonomy and capability. Secondly, helpers should cultivate a perspective that regards recipients as ingroup members, enabling the provision of autonomy-oriented help. On the recipient path, proactive engagement is necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts of receiving help. One possible way is to create advantageous circumstances for themselves such as alleviating psychological threats by paying the received help forward to a third party. Additionally, recipients can correct negative beliefs about accepting help by facilitating trust in the helpers. We encourage recipients to mitigate negative psychological outcomes by adopting a more autonomous approach. Future research should further investigate the effectiveness of these two paths and explore strategies to promote positive psychological changes among recipients.
Considering an increasing number of studies have begun to incorporate both the perspectives of helpers and recipients in the realm of helping behavior, future research should first clarify the relationship between distinct types of help to comprehensively integrate previous findings. Secondly, it is essential to consider individual and group differences when examining the divergent outcomes of receiving help. Thirdly, researchers should delve into the interpersonal consequences and long-term effects following the receipt of help. Lastly, the adoption of a dual-path perspective should be encouraged within public welfare and charitable practices to better serve the benefits of the beneficiaries.

Key words: altruistic behavior, recipients, helpers, differences in perspective

娄宇, 谢晓非. 双向视角下受助者心理困境及其化解路径^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(2): 502-511.

Lou Yu, Xie Xiaofei. The Psychological Predicament of The Recipients and Its Solution from A Dual Perspective[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(2): 502-511.

参考文献

[1] 黄殷, 寇彧. (2013). 群体独特性对群际偏差的影响. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 732-739.
[2] 王逸璐, 谢晓非. (2019). 帮助情境中的预测偏差: 成因与应对. 心理科学进展, 27(1), 117-127.
[3] 张兰鸽, 王磊, 张应兰, 寇彧. (2015). 自主定向与依赖定向的群际帮助在动机与后果上的差异. 心理科学进展, 23(9), 1658-1667.
[4] Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67(5), 422-436.
[5] Alvarez, K., & van Leeuwen, E. (2011). To teach or to tell? Consequences of receiving help from experts and peers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 397-402.
[6] Alvarez, K., & van Leeuwen, E. (2015). Paying it forward: How helping others can reduce the psychological threat of receiving help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-9.
[7] Alvarez K., van Leeuwen E., Montenegro-Montenegro E., & van Vugt M. (2018). Empowering the poor: A field study of the social psychological consequences of receiving autonomy or dependency aid in Panama. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 327-345.
[8] Bamberger, P. A., & Levi, R. (2009). Team-based reward allocation structures and the helping behaviors of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 300-327.
[9] Bar-Or, S., & Meyer, J. (2019). What is good help? Responses to solicited and unsolicited assistance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(2), 131-139.
[10] Basu, S. (2021). Framing an altruistic action in periodic (versus aggregate) terms reduces people's moral evaluation of the act and the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104205.
[11] Becker J. C., Ksenofontov I., Siem B., & Love A. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of autonomy- and dependency-oriented help toward refugees. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 831-838.
[12] Berendt J., van Leeuwen E., & Uhrich S. (2023). Can' t live with them, Can' t live without them: The ambivalent effects of existential outgroup threat on helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Advance online publication.
[13] Bilewicz, M. (2009). Perspective taking and intergroup helping intentions: The moderating role of power relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2779-2786.
[14] Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
[15] Borinca I., Falomir-Pichastor J. M., Andrighetto L., & Durante F. (2021). Outgroup prejudice and perceptions of prosocial intergroup behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 40-53.
[16] Brehm J. W.(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press..
[17] Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
[18] Caviola L., Schubert S., & Greene J. D. (2021). The psychology of (in)effective altruism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(7), 596-607.
[19] Chen, Y. Q., & Gao, L. L. (2022). The identified donor effect: Disclosure of the donor's name shapes the recipient's behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(2), 232-250.
[20] Chernyak-Hai, L., & Davidai, S. (2022). "Do not teach them how to fish": The effect of zero-sum beliefs on help giving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(10), 2466-2480.
[21] Chou, S. Y., & Stauffer, J. M. (2016). A theoretical classification of helping behavior and helping motives. Personnel Review, 45(5), 871-888.
[22] Dardenne B., Dumont M., & Bollier T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764-779.
[23] Deelstra J. T., Peeters M. C. W., Schaufeli W. B., Stroebe W., Zijlstra F. R. H., & van Doornen, L. P. (2003). Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 324-331.
[24] DePaulo B. M., Brittingham G. L., & Kaiser M. K. (1983). Receiving competence-relevant help: Effects on reciprocity, affect, and sensitivity to the helper's nonverbally expressed needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1045-1060.
[25] Echterhoff G., Becker J. C., Knausenberger J., & Hellmann J. H. (2022). Helping in the context of refugee immigration. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 106-111.
[26] Ferolino, A. J. P. (2018). Give them fish or teach them to fish? The effects of stability of social stratification and forms of help on higher socioeconomic status group members' attitudes towards anti-poverty programs. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12, e16.
[27] Fisher, J. D., & Nadler, A. (1974). The effect of similarity between donor and recipient on recipient's reactions to aid. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(3), 230-243.
[28] Fisher, J. D., & Nadler, A. (1976). Effect of donor resources on recipient self-esteem and self-help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(2), 139-150.
[29] Fisher J. D., Nadler A., & Whitcher-Alagna S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 27-54.
[30] Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512.
[31] Greenberg, M. S., & Shapiro, S. P. (1971). Indebtedness: An adverse aspect of asking for and receiving help. Sociometry, 34(2), 290-301.
[32] Greenberg M. S.(1980). A theory of indebtedness. In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 3-26). Plenum Press.
[33] Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2017). The intergroup status as helping relations model: Giving, seeking and receiving help as tools to maintain or challenge social inequality. In E. van Leeuwen, & H. Zagefka (Eds.), Intergroup helping (pp. 205-221). Springer.
[34] Halabi S., Dovidio J. F., & Nadler A. (2021). When intergroup helping helps intergroup relations: The moderating role of trust in the outgroup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104141.
[35] Hammond M. D., Overall N. C., & Cross E. J. (2016). Internalizing sexism within close relationships: Perceptions of intimate partners' benevolent sexism promote women's endorsement of benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 214-238.
[36] Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129-134.
[37] Heilman, M. E., & Alcott, V. B. (2001). What I think you think of me: Women's reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 574-582.
[38] Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived economic competition on people' s willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(4), 419-435.
[39] Jones K. P., Clair J. A., King E. B., Humberd B. K., & Arena D. F. (2020). How help during pregnancy can undermine self-efficacy and increase postpartum intentions to quit. Personnel Psychology, 73(3), 431-458.
[40] Karademas, E. C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1281-1290.
[41] Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774-1793.
[42] Kawamura, Y., & Kusumi, T. (2020). Altruism does not always lead to a good reputation: A normative explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 104021.
[43] Kim, S. Y., & Yi, Y. (2017). Embarrassed customers: The dark side of receiving help from others. Journal of Service Management, 28(4), 788-806.
[44] Lanaj K., Johnson R. E., & Wang M. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1097-1110.
[45] Landis B., Fisher C. M., & Menges J. I. (2022). How employees react to unsolicited and solicited advice in the workplace: Implications for using advice, learning, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(3), 408-424.
[46] Lee Y. E., Simon L. S., Koopman J., Rosen C. C., Gabriel A. S., & Yoon S. (2023). When, why, and for whom is receiving help actually helpful? Differential effects of receiving empowering and nonempowering help based on recipient gender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 773-793.
[47] Lennard A. C.,& van Dyne, L. (2018). Helping that hurts intended beneficiaries: A new perspective on the dark side of helping organizational citizenship behavior In P M Podsakoff, S B Mackenzie, & N P Podsakoff (Eds), The oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior Oxford University Press A new perspective on the dark side of helping organizational citizenship behavior. In P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie, & N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford University Press.
[48] Liao H. Y., Su R., Ptashnik T., & Nielsen J. (2022). Feeling good, doing good, and getting ahead: A meta-analytic investigation of the outcomes of prosocial motivation at work. Psychological Bulletin, 148(3-4), 158-198.
[49] Marigold D. C., Cavallo J. V., & Hirniak A. (2020). Subjective perception or objective reality? How recipients' self-esteem influences perceived and actual provider responsiveness in support contexts. Self and Identity, 19(6), 673-697.
[50] Marigold D. C., Cavallo J. V., Holmes J. G., & Wood J. V. (2014). You can't always give what you want: The challenge of providing social support to low self-esteem individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 56-80.
[51] Martinsen B., Norlyk A., & Gramstad A. (2022). The experience of dependence on homecare among people ageing at home. Ageing and Society, Advance online publication.
[52] Montal-Rosenberg, R., & Moran, S. (2022). Envy and help giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(2), 222-243.
[53] Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487-502.
[54] Nadler, A., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2014). Helping them stay where they are: Status effects on Dependency/Autonomy-oriented helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 58-72.
[55] Nadler A., Fisher J. D., & Itzhak S. B. (1983). With a little help from my friend: Effect of single or multiple act aid as a function of donor and task characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 310-321.
[56] Nadler A., Fisher J. D., & Streufert S. (1976). When helping hurts: Effects of donor-recipient similarity and recipient self-esteem on reactions to aid. Journal of Personality, 44(3), 392-409.
[57] Nadler A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky G., & Ben-David Y. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 823-834.
[58] Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
[59] Rosen S., Mickler S. E., & Collins J. E. (1987). Reactions of would-be helpers whose offer of help is spurned. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 288-297.
[60] Schneider M. E., Major B., Luhtanen R., & Crocker J. (1996). Social stigma and the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 201-209.
[61] Schroeder J., Waytz A., & Epley N. (2017). Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(8), 1106-1125.
[62] Small D. A., Loewenstein G., & Slovic P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153.
[63] Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777-787.
[64] Steele, C. M. (1992). Race and the schooling of black Americans. Atlantic Monthly, 269(4), 68-78.
[65] Täuber, S., & van Zomeren, M. (2012). Refusing intergroup help from the morally superior: How one group's moral superiority leads to another group's reluctance to seek their help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 420-423.
[66] Thomas C. C., Otis N. G., Abraham J. R., Markus H. R., & Walton G. M. (2020). Toward a science of delivering aid with dignity: Experimental evidence and local forecasts from Kenya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(27), 15546-15553.
[67] Thompson, P. S., & Bolino, M. C. (2018). Negative beliefs about accepting coworker help: Implications for employee attitudes, job performance, and reputation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 842-866.
[68] Wang Y. L., Ge J. Q., Zhang H. Q., Wang H. X., & Xie X. F. (2020). Altruistic behaviors relieve physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(2), 950-958.
[69] Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-244.
[70] Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 796-810.

编辑推荐

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

711

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	0	0	0	711

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	356	355
比例	50%	50%

摘要