Revisiting the effects of helper intentions on gratitude and indebtedness: Replication and extensions Registered Report of Tsang (2006)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gratitude and indebtedness are common emotions in response to a favour, yet research suggests that they are experienced differently depending on the situation. Tsang (Tsang JA. 2006 The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness. Motiv. Emot. 30 , 198–204. ( doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9031-z )), found that gratitude for a favour depended on perceived helper intention, whereas indebtedness did not. Perceived benevolent helper intentions were associated with higher gratitude from beneficiaries compared to selfish ones, yet had no associations with indebtedness. In a registered report with a United States Prolific student sample ( n = 759), we conducted a replication and extensions of studies 2 and 3 from Tsang, 2006. In the original studies, Tsang found support for the impact of the helper’s intention on gratitude (study 2: η p 2 = 0.20 [0.08, 0.32]; study 3: η p 2 = 0.14 [0.03, 0.26]), but not for indebtedness (study 2: η p 2 = 0.01 [0.00, 0.08]; study 3: η p 2 = 0.00 [0.00, 0.03]). In our replications, we found support for the impact of helper’s intention on gratitude (study 2: η p 2 = 0.33 [0.28, 0.37]; study 3: η p 2 = 0.16 [0.12, 0.20]), and—as expected—no support for an effect on indebtedness (study 2: η p 2 = 0.00 [0.00, 0.01]; study 3: η p 2 = 0.01 [0.00, 0.01]). We concluded a successful replication, that helping intent was more strongly associated with gratitude than with indebtedness. Extending the replication, we found evidence for the impact of helper intention on perceived expectations for reciprocity ( d = 1.51 [1.31, 1.71]), and reciprocity inclination ( d = 0.66 [0.48, 0.84]), and for opposite associations of perceived reciprocity expectations with gratitude ( r = −0.28 [−0.35, −0.22]) and indebtedness ( r = 0.17 [0.10, 0.24]). Materials, data and code are available on: https://osf.io/ghfy4/ . This registered report has been officially endorsed by the Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100788 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".