Yin · Journal of personality and social psychology 2026 · Series of controlled and incentive-compatible laboratory/online experiments · n=?

When having less elevates more: Benefactor income, moral elevation, and prosocial contagion among observers.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Series of controlled experiments (graded by design analogy for experimental social psychology).

PubMed 42490239 · doi:10.1037/pspa0000493 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Across nine experiments using both hypothetical donation scenarios and incentive-compatible behavioral designs, researchers evaluated how a benefactor's income level (low vs. high) affects observers' emotional responses and subsequent prosocial behavior. The experiments tested perceived altruistic motivation, feelings of moral elevation, downstream generosity (prosocial contagion), contextual boundary conditions (such as the simultaneous presence of high-income benefactors or explicitly making altruistic motives salient), and alternative affective explanations including general positive affect, guilt, and self-reflection.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical values, sample statistics, or effect sizes. Directionally, identical donations by low-income benefactors were perceived as more altruistically motivated, eliciting higher moral elevation and greater downstream generosity compared to donations by high-income benefactors. High-income benefactors attenuated elevation and giving even when low-income benefactors were present, but making altruistic motives salient attenuated income-based differences. Alternative mechanisms (positive affect, guilt, self-reflection) did not fully account for these effects.

Why it matters

This research demonstrates that identical prosocial acts trigger differing degrees of social transmission depending on the giver's perceived wealth, identifying virtue discounting and motive attribution as central mechanisms governing prosocial contagion.

Limits

The abstract provides no sample sizes, demographic characteristics, or quantitative effect sizes. Findings rely on laboratory or survey experimental settings with hypothetical and short-term incentive-compatible tasks, which may not fully reflect spontaneous giving behavior in naturalistic settings.

Cited by