ArticleCommunications psychology2024
Acting without considering personal costs signals trustworthiness in helpers but not punishers.
Article in Communications psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teacher punishment intensity and parental trust in rural China: a moderated mediation of violation severity and trustworthiness.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Reciprocating trust in Registered Reports.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Green and Generous: Virtue Signaling Environmentalism and Community-Mindedness from an Evolutionary Perspective.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third-party punishment and helping can signal trustworthiness, but the interpretation of deliberation may vary: uncalculated help signals trustworthiness, but this may not hold for punishment. Using online experiments, we measured how deliberation over personal costs and impacts to targets affected the trustworthiness of helpers and punishers. We expected that personal cost-checking punishers and helpers would be trusted less. Conversely, impact deliberation was expected to increase the perceived trustworthiness of punishers but not helpers. Replicating previous work, we found that refraining from checking the personal cost of helping signals trustworthiness (although evidence for observers trusting uncalculating over calculating helpers was mixed). This did not extend to punishment: only uncalculating non-punishers were more trustworthy than cost-checking non-punishers. Impact deliberation results were mixed: deliberation affected the trust and trustworthiness of non-helpers more than helpers and no conclusive results were found for punishment. These results show that deliberation differentially affects assessments of those who help or punish others.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.