The propagation of everyday prosociality in the workplace

Prosocial behaviors typically benefit those who perform them but can create mixed emotions in recipients. Yet, how does prosociality affect the well-being of those who merely observe it? The current study aimed to answer this question by experimentally prompting employees to perform prosocial acts at work (Givers), be the recipient of such acts (Receivers), or to do neither (Observers). Our focus was on everyday prosociality, which involves kind acts directed at those in one’s social circle, rather than at individuals in need. Social proximity to Givers, but not Receivers, positively predicted boosts in well-being. Indeed, social proximity to Receivers was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward decreased well-being. However, both social proximity to Givers and social proximity to Receivers predicted increases in prosocial behavior among Observers. These results suggest that prosocial behavior and its emotional benefits propagate through social networks, particularly for those in close social proximity to prosocial actors. ‘Remember there’s no such thing as a small act of kindness. Every act creates a ripple with no logical end.’ (Scott Adams) People performing prosocial acts appear to benefit more than the recipients of such acts (Schwartz, Meisenhelder, Ma, & Reed, 2003). Consistent with this finding, research has found that social support is often ineffective (Rafaeli & Gleason, 2009), possibly because recipients (i.e. Receivers) commonly experience negative feelings from being assisted (Fisher, Nadler, & WhitcherAlagna, 1982). Specifically, support that is apparent to the Receiver is more likely to have adverse effects than invisible support (Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000) because being the beneficiary of a prosocial act can foster feelings of inadequacy and indebtedness (McClure et al., 2014; Rafaeli & Gleason, 2009). By contrast, those who perform prosocial behavior (i.e. Givers) typically experience decreased negative affect (Rietschlin, 1998). Furthermore, Givers are often rewarded with increases in positive emotion, life satisfaction, and flourishing (e.g. Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008; Layous, Lee, Choi, & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Nelson, Layous, Cole, & Lyubomirsky, 2016). Self determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) provides an explanation for why prosociality might foster well-being. Deci and Ryan emphasize three basic needs – connectedness, autonomy, and competence – and performing prosocial behavior appears to fulfill each of these needs. Prosocial acts might satisfy one’s need for connectedness by strengthening social ties; they might foster a sense of autonomy by highlighting one’s freedom from acting in a purely self-directed manner; and they might lead to meaningful outcomes in others, which forges a sense of competence. The vast majority of research on prosocial behavior has focused on its effects on Givers and Receivers (see Crocker, Canevello, & Brown, in press, for a review). Yet, prosocial behavior may also cause collateral effects in the emotions and behaviors of those who witness the behavior (i.e. Observers). Other people in an individual’s social network may profit emotionally from the charitable spirit (Hypothesis 1) and even be inspired to act in kind (Hypothesis 2). Alternatively, Observers could feel rejected because they were not chosen as a recipient of a prosocial act, rendering them less likely to be generous themselves. Observers might also feel guilty for not being generous themselves, which would increase their negative affect but could motivate them to behave more prosocially. Furthermore, prosocial behavior may have positive effects for some Observers and negative effects for others. Because Givers typically benefit and Receivers frequently experience mixed outcomes, one possibility is that Observers in closer social proximity to recipients are more negatively affected than Observers in closer social proximity to Givers (Hypothesis 3). In the current study, we examined the spillover effects of prosociality in one’s © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group