Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A self-determination theory approach to predicting daily prosocial behavior

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine reports of typical daily helping (Study 1a-b, Ns = 402 and 217) and daily helping reported over seven days (Study 2, n = 2380 daily diary reports) through the lens of self-determination theory. We examine autonomous prosocial motivation (seeing intrinsic value in helping and seeing helpfulness as part of one’s identity) and controlled prosocial motivation (seeing helping as a duty and obligation) as independent predictors. Autonomous prosocial motivation was linked to more prosocial acts, more time, and more effort spent on typical daily helping (Study 1), and to more prosocial acts, more time, and more effort spent on helping on a given day (Study 2). Controlled prosocial motivation was linked to more money and more effort spent on typical daily helping (Study 1), and to more prosocial acts, more money and more effort spent on helping that day (Study 2). We conclude that both types of prosocial motivation can foster daily helping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also assessed hypothetical helping across 5 hypothetical scenarios (Study 1a) or 6 hypothetical helping scenarios (Study 1b). Results closely mirror those for typical helping and are reported in online supplements (https://osf.io/h8emk/).

  2. We also tested for interaction terms of controlled and autonomous motivation in exploratory analyses. The interaction term was not significant for any outcome variable (results are reported in online supplements: https://osf.io/h8emk/).

  3. In alternative analyses we winsorized outliers at 95% instead. Results remained the same, with one exception: Autonomous motivation was significantly linked to money spent on helping when outliers were winsorized rather than trimmed. Analyses are reported in online supplements: https://osf.io/h8emk/.

  4. Supplementary analyses testing for interactions between autonomous and controlled motivation found a significant interaction only for daily time spent helping, such that the link between autonomous motivation and time spent helping was significant only among those low (1SD below mean) on controlled motivation. Full results are reported in online supplements: https://osf.io/h8emk/.

References

  • Al-Yaaribi, A., Kavussanu, M., & Ring, C. (2016). Consequences of prosocial and antisocial behavior for the recipient. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Retrieved from https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/HSLAS/HSLAS.PDF.

  • Baumsteiger, R. (2019). What the world needs now: An intervention for promoting prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayar, Y., Sayil, M., & Tepe, Y. K. (2020). The relationship of autonomous motivation to prosocial behavior: Mediator role of prosocial friends and friendship quality among Turkish adolescents. Research on Education and Psychology, 4(1), 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boase, J., & Ling, R. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: Self-report versus log data. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 508–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing social support may be more beneficial than receiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14(4), 320–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?

  • Burnham, M. J., Le, Y. K., & Piedmont, R. L. (2018). Who is Mturk? Personal characteristics and sample consistency of these online workers. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 21(9–10), 934–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: a test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.55.2.211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 49, 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory.

  • Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2017). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunfield, K. A. (2014). A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 958.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 41–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R., Gutberg, J., Schattke, K., Paulin, M., & Jost, N. (2015). Self-determination theory, social media and charitable causes: An in-depth analysis of autonomous motivation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 298–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, M. C., Nau, D. P., Erickson, S. R., Aikens, J. E., & Lawrence, J. B. (2004). The concordance of self-report with other measures of medication adherence: A summary of the literature. Medical Care, 649–652.

  • Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Rosnet, E. (2009). Motivational clusters and performance in a real-life setting. Motivation and Emotion, 33(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9115-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64, 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01206.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorin, A. A., Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Wing, R. R., & Raynor, H. A. (2014). Autonomy support, self-regulation, and weight loss. Health Psychology, 33(4), 332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gravel, E. E., Reissing, E. D., & Pelletier, L. G. (2019). Global, relational, and sexual motivation: A test of hierarchical versus heterarchical effects on well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 2269–2289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0047-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action? Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, S. A., Dollahite, D. C., Johnson, N., & Christensen, J. B. (2015). Adolescent motivations to engage in pro-social behaviors and abstain from health-risk behaviors: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Personality, 83(5), 479–490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00366.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: The role of coaching style, autonomous vs controlled motivation, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 527–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holding, A. C., Hope, N. H., Harvey, B., Marion Jetten, A. S., & Koestner, R. (2017). Stuck in limbo: Motivational antecedents and consequences of experiencing action crises in personal goal pursuit. Journal of Personality, 85(6), 893–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 2053168015604648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungert, T., Landry, R., Joussemet, M., Mageau, G., Gingras, I., & Koestner, R. (2015). Autonomous and controlled motivation for parenting: Associations with parent and child outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 1932–1942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T. A., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008). Autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. Journal of Personality, 76, 1201–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00519.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, K., Margolis, S., Revord, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2021). Comparing the effects of performing and recalling acts of kindness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(1), 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Gagne, M., & Dysvik, A. (2015). Do you get what you pay for? Sales incentives, motivation, and employee outcomes. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 11440) Academy of Management.

  • Laguna, M., Mazur, Z., Kędra, M., & Ostrowski, K. (2020). Interventions stimulating prosocial helping behavior: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(11), 676–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Kurtz, J. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). What triggers prosocial effort? A positive feedback loop between positive activities, kindness, and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(4), 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., & Call, V. R. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 276–290.

  • Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovakov, A., & Agadullina, E. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. K., Tunney, R. J., & Ferguson, E. (2017). Does gratitude enhance prosociality? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milyavskaya, M., Inzlicht, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2015). Saying “no” to temptation: Want-to motivation improves self-regulation by reducing temptation rather than by increasing self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4), 677. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milyavskaya, M., Galla, B., Inzlicht, M., & Duckworth, A. (2018). More effort, less fatigue: How interest increases effort and reduces mental fatigue. Preprint available on PsyArvix:https://psyarxiv.com/8npfx/download/?format=pdf

  • Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nelson, S. K., Della Porta, M. D., Jacobs Bao, K., Lee, H. C., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2015). ‘It’s up to you’: Experimentally manipulated autonomy support for prosocial behavior improves well-being in two cultures over six weeks. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(5), 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, S. K., Layous, K., Cole, S. W., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016). Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing. Emotion, 16(6), 850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oviedo, L. (2016). Religious attitudes and prosocial behavior: A systematic review of published research. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 6(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 905–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2012). “I help because I want to, not because you tell me to” empathy increases autonomously motivated helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 681–689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peetz, J., Milyavskaya, M., & Davydenko, M. (2020). When time on task is seen as a reward: Autonomous motivation increases preference for pursuing goals more often for less time. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peetz, J. & Howard, A. (2020). Balancing prosocial effort across social categories: Mental accounting heuristics in helping decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220976683

  • Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, A., II., Kay, A., Finnel, S., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2016). I don’t want the money, I just want your time: How moral identity overcomes the aversion to giving time to prosocial causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In Advances in motivation science (Vol. 6, pp. 111–156). Elsevier.

  • Saucier, D. A. (2015). Race and prosocial behavior. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 392–414). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.019

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016). A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3139–3148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., Clary, E. G., & Stukas, A. A. (2000). The functional approach to volunteerism. Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes, 365, 393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soman, D. (2001). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(3), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanYperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1991). Equity theory and exchange and communal orientation from a cross-national perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, K. M., Milyavskaya, M., Foxen-Craft, E., & Koestner, R. (2016). Some goals just feel easier: Self-concordance leads to goal progress through subjective ease, not effort. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zauberman, G., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (2005). Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., Zhu, J., Wei, L., & Zhang, W. (2021). A comparison between the psychological benefits of giving money vs. giving time. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1–25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Canada grant to the first author (Grant Number 435-2012-1211). All research reported in this study was approved by the Carleton University Research Ethics Board-B (Study 1a+b clearance#114506, Study 2 clearance#105361). Data and materials are available on OSF: https://osf.io/h8emk/.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, K1S5B6, Canada

    Johanna Peetz & Marina Milyavskaya

Authors
  1. Johanna Peetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marina Milyavskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johanna Peetz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peetz, J., Milyavskaya, M. A self-determination theory approach to predicting daily prosocial behavior. Motiv Emot 45, 617–630 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09902-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09902-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation