Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis: Gift Givers overestimate the Benefits of Pre‑help Gifting when Help‑Seeking

Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis: Gift Givers overestimate the Benefits of Pre‑help Gifting when Help‑Seeking | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis: Gift Givers overestimate the Benefits of Pre‑help Gifting when Help‑Seeking Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han, Xuchun Liu, Keyan Zhu, Xiaoke Xie This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background People often underestimate others' willingness to provide help and may therefore offer a gift before making a request to build rapport and pave the way for their appeal. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is unclear, as givers may mispredict how such a gift is perceived. Purpose The present research aimed to investigate whether a giver-recipient asymmetry exists in the context of help-seeking, whereby gift-givers overestimate the positive impact of gifting before (vs. after) a request is fulfilled. We also sought to identify the underlying psychological mechanism and downstream consequences of this potential bias. Methods Six studies were conducted. Studies 1a and 1b test the giver-recipient asymmetry using different scenarios with tea and cash gifts. Study 2 test whether givers' overestimation is due to their underestimation of the perceived coercion on the part of the recipient. Studies 3 and 4 systematically ruled out alternative explanations of anticipated regret and social desirability. Study 5 examined the downstream consequences of pre-help gifting on future interactions. Finally, Study 6 explored a practical intervention to mitigate the negative effects. Results The results demonstrated that: (1) Gift-givers systematically overestimated the positive effects of pre-help gifting, believing recipients would evaluate the gift and the giver more favorably than they actually did. (2) This misprediction was mediated by perceived coercion; givers underestimated the degree to which recipients felt their autonomy was threatened by the pre-help gift. (3) Experiencing a pre-help gift (vs. a post-help gift) reduced recipients' willingness to help the same person in the future. (4) Explicitly stating the help-seeking intention when giving the gift mitigated these negative effects. Conclusion This research identifies a novel giver-recipient asymmetry error in gift-giving, extending the literature on giver-recipient asymmetries and psychological reactance. The findings offer practical guidance, suggesting that while pre-help gifting can be a counterproductive strategy, its negative impact can be alleviated by transparently communicating one's intentions. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Help-seeking Gift giving Misprediction Giver-recipient asymmetry Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 1 Introduction A classic story from the Ming Dynasty collection "San Yan Er Pai" recounts a dispute between two brothers over an inheritance. The elder son attempts to bribe relatives and friends with gifts, hoping they will testify that he is the rightful heir. This act of "Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis"—a last-minute attempt to curry favor—is met with ridicule in the story. Gift-giving is a common strategy when seeking help, a practice that appears to align with the social norm of reciprocity, wherein a recipient is expected to return the favor [ 1 ]. However, contradictory evidence suggests that giving a gift before asking for help can paradoxically lead to negative feelings in the recipient [ 2 ]. The aforementioned story illustrates this, as the elder son's pre-help "gifting" resulted in mockery rather than support. Why does a seemingly norm-consistent behavior trigger a negative reaction? According to psychological reactance theory, individuals experience negative affect when their freedom of choice is threatened [ 3 ]. In the context of pre-help gifting, recipients may feel discomfort because they perceive the gift as an attempt to manipulate their behavior. This perceived threat to their autonomy results in a negative gift-receiving experience. However, help-seekers (givers) may be unaware of this potential for psychological reactance, as they focus on the instrumental value of the gift while overlooking the recipient's need for autonomy. The present research aims to investigate two core questions arising from this asymmetry. First, when giving a gift before seeking help, do givers systematically overestimate how positively recipients will evaluate them? Second, does this potential asymmetry stem from givers misjudging the recipient's sense of psychological reactance—specifically, that givers underestimate the degree to which recipients feel they are coerced? Furthermore, we hypothesize that this asymmetry may have downstream consequences, such that recipients may respond more negatively to subsequent requests for help from the giver. Finally, we propose that this negative outcome might be mitigated if the giver explicitly states their intentions during the initial gift exchange. 2. THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES 2.1 Gift Timing and Gifting when seeking help Gift-giving is frequently associated with specific timings or occasions, such as major holidays, festivals, or birthdays. This timing carries significant signaling value [ 4 – 8 ], allowing givers to convey care or consideration for the recipient [ 9 , 10 ]. Seeking help represents another common occassion for gift-giving. Help-seekers often underestimate others’ willingness to help [ 11 ] and therefore may offer a gift beforehand to persuade a potential helper or afterwards to express gratitude [ 12 – 14 ]. Beyond conveying care, help-seekers may also be guided by gifting norms. Prior research demonstrates that specific norms influence givers' judgments [ 15 – 17 ]. For instance, Teigen et al. [ 18 ] found that givers prefer to offer new rather than used items, even if the used item is more practical, because gives believed that new items better align with gifting norms. Similarly, Kupor et al. [ 17 ] showed that givers avoid giving "incomplete" gifts (e.g., a $ 50 gift certificate for a $ 100 product) due to a gifting norm of completeness. Gifting norms also extend to timing; for example, Haltman et al. [ 18 ] found that givers studiously avoid giving late gifts, fearing that violating the norm of punctuality will cause recipients to feel displeased. A gift can simultaneously signal care, thereby improving relationship quality [ 1 , 19 – 21 ], while also serving the giver's goal of receiving a more positive evaluation by adhering to the norm of reciprocity [ 22 ]. Based on this, we infer that when seeking help, givers will prefer to give a gift before the help is rendered rather than after. This preference is likely driven by the belief that pre-gifting provides a more timely signal of their intent to reciprocate, thus increasing the likelihood of securing the desired help. 2.2 Perceived Coercion and Giver-Recipient Asymmetry Although givers hope to win favor through gifts, gifting error can damage the giver-recipient relationship [ 23 – 25 ]. A gift offered before help is requested may make a potential helper feel uneasy. According to psychological reactance theory, individuals experience a strong motivational state to restore their freedom when it is threatened [ 3 ]. Previous research indicates that when individuals feel their autonomy is threatened or perceive that others are attempting to persuade or manipulate them, they may respond less favorably to prosocial requests [ 26 – 28 ]. This is because individuals desire to maintain a sufficient sense of autonomy and to feel that their actions are implemented according to their own plans and control [ 29 ]. When seeking help, a potential helper has not yet decided whether to help. A pre-help gift introduces an external motivation that can undermine their sense of autonomy [ 30 , 31 ], making them feel coerced or manipulated. This, in turn, may diminish the positive experience of receiving the gift and lead to a more negative evaluation of the giver. Gift-giving is a common phenomenon in which givers and recipients often have different evaluations of the same gift [ 9 , 32 ]. Such giver-recipient asymmetries manifest not only in the type of gift [ 33 – 36 ] but also at specific gifting timing [ 18 , 37 ]. This is partly attributable to the self-serving bias, whereby individuals' motivation to maintain a positive self-image creates cognitive biases [ 10 ], leading givers to overestimate recipients' evaluations of their gifts [ 38 , 39 ]. We propose that when gifting before a request, givers focus on the act's compliance with social norms and the gift's instrumental value, thereby overlooking the sense of coercion it may impose on the recipient. In contrast to the recipient's potentially negative experience, the giver may not even be aware that their act of gifting creates this feeling of coercion, leading to a asymmetry. We therefore hypothesize: H1 Givers overestimate the positive effect of a pre-help (vs. post-help) gift. H2 Perceived coercion mediates the asymmetry in H1. Specifically, givers underestimate the recipient's feeling of being coerced, leading to the overestimation of the gift's positive effect during pre-help gifting. H3 Helpers are less willing to grant a subsequent request for help from a requester who previously gave them a pre-help (vs. post-help) gift. 2.3 Alternative Explanations: Anticipated Regret and Social Desirability Beyond perceived coercion, other factors may contribute to the asymmetry in pre-gifting. First is anticipated regret . Regret is a negative, counterfactual-based emotion ("if only...") that often explains decision avoidance [ 40 , 41 ]. In the context of pre-help gifting, a recipient may worry that accepting the gift creates an obligation to help. Should they fail to provide the help, they would feel responsible, leading to a negative experience. Consequently, they dislike receiving pre-help gifts. In post-help gifting, however, the help has already been successfully rendered, eliminating the uncertainty of a negative outcome. Thus, regret is no longer a factor, and the gift may be not evaluated as negatively. Second is social desirability , which refers to the tendency of individuals to act in a manner that is viewed as favorable by others [ 42 ]. In a helping context, a social expectation may exist that helpers should act altruistically, not for a reward. Given the effect of social desirability, it is difficult to determine whether a recipient's (i.e., the potential helper's) negative attitude toward a pre-help gift stems from genuine aversion to the gift itself or from a desire to conform to the social expectation of "helping without accepting rewards." 2.4 A Moderating Strategy: Explicitly stating the help-seeking intention Based on our primary hypothesis, pre-help gifting can make recipients uncomfortable. From the giver's perspective, however, pre-gifting is often seen as a necessary step to ensure their request is successful. Is it possible to narrow the gap and improve the recipient's experience? Drawing on the primacy of warmth in social evaluation, we propose that explicitly stating the help-seeking intention when giving the gift may cause the giver to be perceived as more sincere, thereby mitigating the negative effects of pre-help gifting. Gifts can signal information about the giver's warmth and competence [ 43 ]. Prior research indicates that warmth has primacy in social judgment; the core of warmth is whether another person holds benevolent and cooperative intentions, which includes sincerity and trustworthiness [ 9 ]. Sincerity can reduce suspicion in interactions and help build mutual trust [ 44 ]. When a gift conveys a signal of warmth, it enhances the recipient's experience [ 45 , 46 ]. In sum, we predict that explicitly stating one's intention to seek help when giving a gift will leave a more positive impression on the recipient and improve their overall experience. We therefore hypothesize: H4 Explicitly stating the intention to seek help during pre-help gifting improves the recipient's experience. The present research Across six studies, we investigated the asymmetry between givers and recipients regarding pre-help gifts when seeking help. In Studies 1a and Study 1b, we found that givers overestimated recipients' positive evaluation of a pre-help gift with two different help-seeking scenarios, validating H1. In Study 2, we measured the perceived coercion experienced by both givers and recipients to explore the psychological mechanism of the asymmetry, validating H2. In Study 3 and Study 4, we ruled out the alternative explanations of anticipated regret social desirability. In Study 5, we examined whether this asymmetry affects social interactions between the giver and recipient by measuring the recipient's willingness to receive subsequent gifts and provide help, validating H3. Finally, Study 6 offered a strategy to mitigate the negative impact of pre-help gifting, demonstrating the helper's evaluation of the gift improves when help-seeker explicitly states their intention to ask for help, supporting H4. In our studies, sample size was based on 80% power to detect a medium effect, calculated using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). All of our experiments were run on the online platform Credamo. All measures, manipulations, and participant exclusions for all studies have been reported in the manuscript and the web appendix. Materials and data for all studies are provided in the web appendix, available on OSF: https://osf.io/v7qe3/?view_only=00901cea563f4ff4a9dca3498c7b2f90 . 3. Study 1a: Giver-recipient Asymmetry in Pre-help Gifting 3.1 Method Participants and Design A power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a total sample size of at least 128 participants was required to detect a medium effect ( f = 0.25) with 80% statistical power at α = 0.05. We recruited 240 participants and after excluding those who failed an attention check, we obtained a valid sample of 208 participants (76 males, 132 females; M age = 27.08, SD = 4.82). This study employed a 2 (gift timing: pre-help vs. post-help) × 2 (role: giver vs. recipient) between-subjects design. Materials and Procedure Participants assigned to the "giver" role read a scenario in which they had to imagine asking a colleague to take their place on a business trip. The scenario specified that, in order to persuade the colleague to accept the request, the participant had given them a gift in advance. After reading the scenario, givers completed an attention check, answering whether they had just engaged in help-seeking or help-giving. Subsequently, givers who passed the check were asked to predict the recipient's thoughts, specifically: "How willing do you think the recipient is to accept your gift?" (0 = not at all willing, 7 = very willing), "How do you think the recipient feels at this moment?" (0 = very unhappy, 7 = very happy), and "What kind of evaluation do you think the recipient will give you?" (0 = very poor, 7 = very good). Participants assigned to the recipient role read a corresponding scenario, imagining that a colleague asked them for help and they accepted the gift. These participants were also randomly assigned to either the pre-help or post-help gifting condition. After reading the scenario and passing the same attention check, recipients were asked to report their feelings. As the final scenario was set as having agreed to help, the pre-help group's feelings were measured using a retrospective method: they were asked to re-evaluate the gift from the perspective of that moment. The questions were: "If you were back in that moment, how willing would you be to accept the giver's gift?" (0 = not at all willing, 7 = very willing), "How do you feel at this moment?" (0 = very unhappy, 7 = very happy), and "What evaluation would you give the giver?" (0 = very poor, 7 = very good). The post-help group only needed to answer based on their current feelings: "How willing are you to accept the giver's gift?" (0 = not at all willing, 7 = very willing), "How do you feel at this moment?" (0 = very unhappy, 7 = very happy), and "What evaluation would you give the giver?" (0 = very poor, 7 = very good). Finally, all participants provided demographic information, including gender and age. 3.2 Results and Analysis We conducted a two-way ANOVA predicting three dependent variables—willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver—from role, gift timing, and their interaction. The results revealed that givers' predictions of willingness, feelings, and evaluation in the pre-help condition(vs. post-help condition) were significantly higher(see Fig. 1 ). Willingness to accept . The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing ( F (1, 204) = 179.99, p < .001, η p ² = .469), with the post-help condition predicting greater willingness to accept than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.41, SD Post−help = 0.78 vs. M Pre−help = 3.85, SD Pre−help = 2.35). A significant effect of role was also observed ( F (1, 204) = 199.87, p < .001, η p ² = 0.495), with givers' predicted willingness being higher than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 5.48, SD Giver = 0.95 vs. M Recipient = 3.95, SD Recipient = 2.24). Notably, a significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed ( F (1, 204) = 429.38, p < .001, η p ² = 0.678). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' willingness to accept ( F (1, 204) = 569.55, p < .001, η p ² = 0.736), with givers' expected willingness being much higher than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 5.88, SD Giver = 0.12 vs. M Recipient = 1.68, SD Recipient = 0.13). An opposite-direction difference emerged in the post-help gift-giving condition: givers' expected willingness was lower than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 5.00, SD Giver = 0.12 vs. M Recipient = 5.79, SD Recipient = 0.11, F(1, 204) = 23.23, p < .001, ηp² = 0.102). Happiness . The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing ( F (1, 204) = 195.89, p < .001, η p ² = .490), with the post-help condition predicting greater happiness than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.48, SD Post−help = 0.67 vs. M Pre−help = 3.96, SD Pre−help = 2.38). A significant effect of role was also observed ( F (1, 204) = 293.57, p < .001, η p ² = 0.590), with givers' predicted happiness being higher than recipients' actual happiness ( M Giver = 5.63, SD Giver = 0.79 vs. M Recipient = 3.92, SD Recipient = 2.19). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed ( F (1, 204) = 458.12, p < .001, η p ² = 0.692). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness ( F (1, 204) = 569.55, p < .001, η p ² = 0.736), with givers' expected happiness being much higher than recipients' actual happiness ( M Giver = 6.06, SD Giver = 0.11 vs. M Recipient = 1.72, SD Recipient = 0.12). An opposite-direction difference emerged in the post-help gift-giving condition: givers' expected happiness was lower than recipients' actual happiness ( M Giver = 5.23, SD Giver = 0.12 vs. M Recipient = 5.71, SD Recipient = 0.11, F(1, 204) = 9.77, p = .002, ηp² = 0.046). Evaluation of the giver . The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing ( F (1, 204) = 232.98, p < .001, η p ² = 0.533), with the post-help condition predicting greater evaluation than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help =5.56, SD Post−help = 0.67 vs. M Pre−help = 4.02, SD Pre−help = 2.09). A significant effect of role was also observed ( F (1, 204) = 269.08, p < .001, η p ² = 0.569), with givers' evaluation being higher than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.60, SD Giver = 0.70 vs. M Recipient = 4.10, SD Recipient = 2.01). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed ( F (1, 204) = 403.36, p < .001, η p ² = 0.664. A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness ( F (1, 204) = 624.01, p < .001, η p ² = 0.754), with givers' expected evaluation being much higher than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.86, SD Giver = 0.11 vs. M Recipient = 2.06, SD Recipient = 0.11). An opposite-direction difference emerged in the post-help gift-giving condition: givers' expected evaluation was lower than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.36, SD Giver = 0.10 vs. M Recipient = 5.74, SD Recipient = 0.09, F(1, 204) = 7.26, p = 0.008, η p ² = 0.046). 3.3 Discussion Study 1a provided validation of the giver-recipient asymmetry in help-seeking contexts. Givers overestimated the positive impact of a pre-help gift across various aspects. They mistakenly believed their pre-help gifting would be well-received, but in reality, recipients provided a more negative evaluation. In the post-help condition, a discrepancy between givers' and recipients' thoughts still existed. More importantly, the direction of this discrepancy was reversed: in post-help gifting, givers underestimated the recipients' willingness to accept the gift, their happiness, and their evaluation of the giver. 4. Study 1b: Giver-recipient Asymmetry for a Cash Gift Study 1b aimed to further validate the asymmetry by considering a another form of gift: cash. Previous research has shown that recipients and givers often differ in their assessment of a gift's economic value [ 22 , 48 ]. As a gift form directly related to individual economic interests, cash is largely free from common gifting issues like practicality and valuation bias, making it an important tool for reciprocity. Therefore, we chose to use a cash gift to further test this asymmetry. 4.1 Method Participants and Design A power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a total sample size of at least 180 participants was required to detect a medium effect ( f = 0.25) with 80% statistical power at a significance level of α = .05. We recruited a total of 252 participants. After excluding those who failed an attention check, we obtained a valid sample of 218 participants (98 males, 120 females; M age = 28.04, SD = 5.17). This study employed a 2 (gift timing: pre-help vs. post-help) × 2 (role: giver vs. recipient) between-subjects design. Materials and Procedure Similar to Study 1a, participants assigned to the giver role read a scenario imagining they needed to ask a friend for help and gave them a red envelope containing 1000 RMB. Recipients imagined a friend asked them for help and they accepted the red envelope. The questions asked after reading the scenarios were identical to those in Study 1a. 4.2 Results and Analysis We conducted a two-way ANOVA predicting three dependent variables—willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver—from role, gift timing, and their interaction (see Fig. 2 ). Willingness to accept. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 214) = 149.42, p < .001, η p ² = .411), with the post-help condition predicting greater willingness to accept than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.03, SD Post−help = 1.09 vs. M Pre−help = 3.33, SD Post−help = 2.03). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 214) = 101.90, p < .001, η p ² = .323), with givers' predicted willingness being higher than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 4.88, SD Giver = 0.10 vs. M Recipient = 3.34, SD Recipient = 0.11). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 214) = 141.27, p < .001, η p ²= .398). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' willingness to accept (F(1, 214) = 220.62, p < .001, η p ² = .508), with givers' expected willingness being much higher than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 4.85, SD Giver = 0.15 vs. M Recipient = 1.51, SD Recipient = 0.17). However, there’s no significant difference in the post-help condition (F(1, 214) = 1.77, p = .185, η p ² = .008). Happiness . The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 214) = 145.93, p < .001, η p ² = 0.405), with the post-help condition predicting better feelings than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 4.97, SD Post−help = 0.95 vs. M Pre−help = 3.45, SD Pre−help = 1.98). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 214) = 133.63, p < .001, η p ² = 0.384), with givers' predicted feelings being better than recipients' actual feelings ( M Giver = 4.93, SD Giver = 1.05 vs. M Recipient = 3.54, SD Recipient = 1.95). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed ( F (1, 214) = 153.64, p < .001, η p ² = 0.418). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness ( F (1, 214) = 569.55, p < .001, η p ² = 0.550), with givers' expected happiness being much higher than recipients' actual happiness ( M Giver = 4.96, SD Giver = 0.14 vs. M Recipient = 1.64, SD Recipient = 0.15). However, there’s no significant difference in the post-help condition(F(1, 214) = 0.39, p = .535, ηp² = .002) Evaluation of the giver . The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 214) = 136.91, p < .001, η p ² = 0.390), with the post-help condition predicting greater evaluation than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.10, SD Post−help = 1.20 vs. M Pre−help = 3.41, SD Pre−help = 2.13). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 214) = 108.02, p < .001, η p ² = 0.335), with givers' predicted evaluation being higher than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.00, SD Giver = 1.28 vs. M Recipient = 3.58, SD Recipient = 2.15). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 214) = 152.67, p < .001, ηp² = 0.416). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' evaluation of them (F(1, 214) = 236.32, p < .001, η p ² = 0.525), with givers' predicted evaluation being much higher than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.06, SD Giver = 0.16 vs. M Recipient = 1.44, SD Recipient = 0.17). In the post-help condition, givers did not show a predictive bias (F(1, 214) = 2.13, p = .146, η p ² = 0.010). 4.3 Discussion Building on Study 1a, Study 1b extended the gift form to cash gifts. The results show that the asymmetry in pre-help gifting persists. Givers significantly overestimated the recipient's willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of them. In post-help gifting, this predictive asymmetry disappeared. To further substantiate this conclusion and discuss the psychological mechanism of this phenomenon, Study 2 will measure perceived coercion and examine its role as a mediating variable. 5. Study 2: The Mediating Role of Perceived Coercion Studies 1a and 1b measured the differences in attitude between givers and recipients at different gifting times, proving the existence of a giver-recipient asymmetry in their feelings. The purpose of Study 2 is to test H2, that the Giver-recipient Asymmetry in pre-help gifting is due to givers underestimating the coercion perceived by recipients. 5.1 Method Participants and Design A power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a total sample size of at least 180 participants was required to detect a medium effect ( f = 0.25) with 80% statistical power at a significance level of α = .05. We recruited a total of 290 participants. After excluding those who failed an attention check, we obtained a valid sample of 273 participants (115 males, 158 females; aged 18–48, M age = 27.57, SD = 7.25). This study employed a 2 (gift timing: pre-help vs. post-help) × 2 (role: giver vs. recipient) between-subjects design. Materials and Procedure The experimental procedure was largely consistent with Study 1. The difference was that in this study, both givers and recipients needed to answer questions about the perceived coercion of the gifting behavior. Givers were asked an additional question: "Do you think your act of giving is coercing the other party?" (0 = not at all, 7 = completely). Recipients were asked an additional question: "Do you think the other party's act of giving is coercing you?" (0 = not at all, 7 = completely). The results of Study 1 and Study 2 show that the scores for the three dimensions of willingness to accept, recipient's feelings, and evaluation of the giver are quite similar. Therefore, to facilitate subsequent data processing for the mediation effect, following the methods of Givi & Kirk [ 49 ] and Shang et al. [ 50 ], the scores of these three indicators were standardized and then averaged, and named "Overall Rating". A higher overall rating represents a more positive prediction by the giver and a more positive actual experience by the recipient. 5.2 Results and Analysis First, We conducted a two-way ANOVA predicting three dependent variables—perceived coercion, willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver—from role, gift timing, and their interaction(see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 ). Perceived coercion . The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269) = 58.25, p < .001, η p ²= 0.178), with the pre-help condition predicting greater perceived coercion than the post-help condition ( M Pre−help = 2.54, SD Pre−help = 1.75 vs. M Post−help = 1.24, SD Post−help = 1.01). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269) = 7.53, p = .006, η p ² = 0.027), with givers' predicted coerciveness being lower than recipients' actual perceived coercion ( M Giver = 1.66, SD Giver = 1.45 vs. M Recipient = 2.13, SD Recipient = 1.66). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269) = 4.11, p = .044, η p ² = 0.015). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers underestimated the coerciveness of their own gift (F(1, 270) = 9.49, p = .002, η p ² = 0.034), with givers' predicted coercion being lower than recipients' actual perceived coercion ( M Giver = 2.13, SD Giver = 1.71 vs. M Recipient = 2.94, SD Recipient = 1.70). However, in the post-help condition, there was no significant difference between the two (F(1, 270) = 0.24, p = .621, η p ² = 0.001). Willingness to accept. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269) = 16.25, p < .001, η p ² = 0.057), with the post-help condition predicting greater willingness to accept than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.27, SD Post−help = 0.12 vs. M Pre−help = 4.60, SD Post−help = 0.12). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269) = 16.73, p < .001, η p ² = 0.059), with givers' predicted willingness being higher than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 5.27, SD Giver = 0.12 vs. M Recipient = 4.60, SD Recipient = 0.12). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269) = 8.15, p < .001, η p ² = 0.029). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' willingness to accept (F(1, 270) = 23.08, p < .001, η p ² = 0.079), with givers' expected willingness being much higher than recipients' actual willingness ( M Giver = 5.17, SD Giver = 1.12 vs. M Recipient = 4.03, SD Recipient = 1.93). However, in the post-help condition, the difference between the two was not significant (F(1, 270) = 0.75, p = .388, η p ²= 0.003). Happiness. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269) = 45.91, p < .001, η p ² = 0.146), with the post-help condition predicting greater happiness than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.58, SD Post−help = 1.18 vs. M Pre−help = 4.53, SD Pre−help = 1.46). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269) = 18.98, p < .001, η p ² = 0.066), with givers' predicted happiness being higher than recipients' actual happiness ( M Giver = 5.39, SD Giver = 1.11 vs. M Recipient = 4.71, SD Recipient = 1.62). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269) = 4.46, p = .036, η p ² = 0.016). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness (F(1, 270) = 18.14, p < .001, η p ² = 0.063), with givers' predicted happiness being higher than recipients' actual happiness ( M Giver = 5.03, SD Giver = 1.18 vs. M Recipient = 4.03, SD Recipient = 1.54). In the post-help condition, givers did not show a predictive bias (F(1, 270) = 2.23, p = .136, η p ² = 0.008). Evaluation of the giver. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269) = 30.79, p < .001, η p ² = 0.103), with the post-help condition predicting greater evaluation than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 5.52, SD Post−help = 1.03 vs. M Pre−help = 4.75, SD Pre−help = 1.30). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269) = 14.31, p < .001, η p ² = 0.051), with givers' predicted evaluation being lower than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.14, SD Giver = 1.15 vs. M Recipient = 5.65, SD Recipient = 0.93). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269) = 3.62, p < .001, η p ² = 0.013). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' evaluation of them (F(1, 270) = 14.71, p < .001, η p ² = 0.052), with givers' predicted evaluation being higher than recipients' actual evaluation ( M Giver = 5.15, SD Giver = 1.15 vs. M Recipient = 4.36, SD Recipient = 1.32). In the post-help condition, givers did not show a predictive bias (F(1, 270) = 1.65, p = 0.2, η p ² = 0.006). Finally, we conducted a PROCESS Model 7 moderated mediation analysis, treating role as the independent variable( giver = 1, recipient = 2 ), global rating as the dependent variable, perceived coercion for the recipient as the mediator, and gift timing as the moderator( pre-help = 1, post-help = 2 ).In other words, this analysis allows us to test whether the timing of the gift moderates the effect of role (giver or recipient) on perceived coercion (i.e., whether there is a moderating effect on path a) [ 19 ]. We observed a significant index of moderated mediation ( b = 0.23, SE = 0.12, 95% CI: [0.003, 0.50]), Specifically, in the pre-help gifting context, we observed a significant indirect effect, where role influenced the rating through perceived coercion (b = -0.28, SE = 0.11, 95% CI: [-0.50, -0.08]). In the post-help gifting context, this indirect effect was not significant (b = -0.05, SE = 0.06, 95% CI: [-0.16, 0.07]; see Fig. 5 ). 5.3 Discussion Study 2 showed the reason of asymmetry in pre-help gifting is that givers misjudge the coercion perceived by recipients. Recipients feel that a pre-help gift implies a coercion to help, thus leading to negative emotions and a negative evaluation of the giver. 6. Study 3: Ruling out the alternative explanation of anticipated regret Study 2 confirmed the mediating role of perceived coercion. However, it is worth noting that in the experimental materials for Study 2, the post-help gift scenario involved the gift being presented after the recipient had already completed the favor, meaning the outcome was certain. In the pre-help gift scenario, the recipient had not yet performed the helpful act. In this situation, beyond feeling coerced, recipients might also anticipate regret over accepting the gift, stemming from the concern that they might not ultimately be able to provide the help successfully. In Study 3, we compared recipients' reactions to receiving a gift at two different gift timing: "post-agreement but before acting" versus " post-help." In both conditions, the helper had already voluntarily agreed to assist, positioning the gift as a reward for the promise of help rather than a means to coerce the action itself. The key difference was the certainty of the outcome: in the former condition, the participant had only made a verbal commitment, whereas in the latter, the help had already been rendered. If recipients in the "post-agreement" condition evaluated the gift less favorably than those in the "a post-help" condition, it would suggest that their evaluation is driven by anticipated regret. Conversely, a lack of a significant difference would allow us to rule out the alternative explanation of anticipated regret. 6.1 Method Participants and design A power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a sample size of at least 128 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (d = 0.25) at α = .05. We recruited a total of 190 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 162 individuals (78 male, 84 female; age range = 20–58 years, M = 31.68, SD = 8.12). The study employed a single-factor, between-subjects design with two levels of the gift timing: post-agreement vs. post-help. Materials and procedure In this study, all participants were instructed to imagine themselves in the role of a gift recipient. Participants assigned to the "post-agreement" condition imagined that after they had agreed to a friend's request for help. Participants assigned to the "post-help" condition imagined that they first agreed to a friend's request and then received a gift from the friend after successfully providing the help. Following the scenario, participants responded to the same dependent measures as in Study 1. 6.2 Results and Analysis Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the dependent variables between the two conditions (post-agreement vs. post-help, see Fig. 6 ). Willingness to accept . The results indicated no significant difference between the "post-agreement" condition and the "post-help" condition, t (160) = -1.88, p = .062, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.02], Cohen's d = 1.08. Happiness. There was no significant difference between the "post-agreement" condition and the "post-help" condition, t (160) = -1.85, p = .066, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.02], Cohen's d = 1.002. Evaluation of the gift-giver. The results indicated no significant difference between the "post-agreement" condition ( M = 5.77, SD = 0.80) and the "post-help" condition ( M = 6.10, SD = 0.80), t (131) = -2.39, p = .529, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.07], Cohen's d = 0.80. 6.3 Discussion Study 3 found no significant differences in recipients' attitudes, regardless of whether the gift was received post-agreement to help but before acting, or after the help was completed. These findings suggest that as long as the request for help precedes the act of gift-giving, recipients' attitudes are generally positive. Even when the helpful act has not yet been rendered, recipients remain willing to accept this 'thank-you-in-advance' gift and maintain a positive evaluation of the giver. This result allows us to effectively rule out the influence of anticipated regret as an alternative explanation for recipients' attitudes in this context. 7. Study 4: Ruling out the alternative explanation of social desirability In addition to anticipated regret, the presence of social desirability means the negative attitude displayed by recipients (i.e., the helpers) in the pre-help gift condition may stems from the social expectation that one "should not help merely for the sake of receiving a gift." Therefore, in Study 4, we introduced a third level to the "role": the observer. Incorporating a third-party perspective is a effective method to test social desirability bias [ 51 , 52 ]. Observers did not directly participate in the process of requesting help or giving a gift but witnessed the entire event. Although observers were present, neither the request for help nor the act of gift-giving involved their personal interests, thus their actions were not constrained by any particular social expectations. Thus, if givers' predictions of recipients' reactions are still more positive than those of observers, the alternative explanation of social desirability can be ruled out. Participants and design A power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a total sample size of at least 211 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (f = 0.25) at an alpha level of α = .05. We recruited a total of 317 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 283 individuals (127 male, 156 female; age range = 18–45 years, M = 28.04, SD = 5.17). The study employed a 2 (gift timing pre-help gift vs. post-help gift) × 3 (role: gift-giver vs. recipient vs. observer) between-subjects design. Materials and procedure In this study, we designed a scenario involving a request for help and gift-giving with three roles. The basic research design was similar to the studies above, with the difference being that during the process of the gift-giver presenting the gift to the recipient, an observer witnessed the entire event. Observers were asked to predict how the gift-giver and recipient would perceive the different gift-giving behaviors from their own perspective and to report how they thought the recipient would feel. The specific experimental procedure was similar to that of Study 1. 7.2 Results and Analysis In Study 4 and Study 5, to simplify the data analysis process, we continued to standardize and then average the scores for willingness to accept, recipient's happiness, and evaluation of the giver, combining them into a single dependent variable named "Overall Rating". A two-way ANOVA was then used to test the effect of gift timing and role. We report only the results for "Overall Rating" in the main text; the results for willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver are presented in the supplementary materials. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing ( F (1, 277) = 235.11, p < .001, η p ² = 0.459), with the post-help condition predicting higher overall rating than the pre-help condition ( M Post−help = 0.52, SD Post−help = 0.46 vs. M Pre−help = -0.50, SD Pre−help = 1.48). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 277) = 51.39, p < .001, η p ² = 0.271), with givers' overall rating ( M Giver = 0.48, SD Giver = 0.06) being higher than recipients' actual happiness ( M Recipient = -0.26, SD Recipient = 0.06) and observer’s overall rating( M Recipient = -0.21, SD Recipient = 0.06). A significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 277) = 20.56, p < .001, η p ² = 0.016). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' overall rating, with givers' predicted overall rating being higher than recipients' actual overall rating ( M Giver = 0.50, SD Giver = 0.09 vs. M Recipient = -1.12, SD Recipient = 0.08, p < 0.001). Notably, givers also overestimated observer’s overall rating, with givers' predicted overall rating being higher than observer' actual overall rating ( M Observer = -0.89, SD Observer = 0.08, p < 0.001). In other condition, givers did not show a predictive bias(see Fig. 7 ). 7.3 Discussion By introducing the observer role, Study 4 ruled out the alternative explanation of social desirability that may have been present in the previous studies. In the post-help gift condition, all parties viewed this gift with a high degree of positivity. In the pre-help gift condition, more importantly, the observer's overall rating was consistent with the recipient's ,which was lower than givers’ prediction. This indicates that the recipient's unwillingness to accept the gift is not due to social expectations but is a genuine resistance to the act of pre-help gifting. 8. Study 5: The Consequences of the Giver-Recipient Asymmetry in Pre-help Gifting The results of Studies 1 to 4 revealed the giver-recipient asymmetry concerning pre-help gifts and explained its cause: the pre-help gift makes recipients feel that the gift compels them to provide help. According to reactance theory [ 27 ], individuals constantly strive to maintain control over their own actions. If they feel their freedom of choice is infringed upon or challenged, they will inevitably exhibit reactance and resistance. In a help-seeking context, if potential helpers feel coerced into offering assistance, even without direct evidence, they may reduce the level of help or even refuse to help altogether [ 2 ]. Study 5 will examine the downstream consequences of gift-giving at different gift timing, specifically how pre-help and post-help gifts respectively affect future gift acceptance and helping behavior. 8.1 Method Participants and design A power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a total sample of at least 128 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (d = 0.25) at α = .05. We recruited a total of 174 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 151 individuals (83 male, 68 female; age range = 19–37 years, M = 26.84, SD = 4.43). The study employed a single-factor, two-level (gift-giving: pre-help vs. post-help) between-subjects design. Materials and procedure In this study, all participants played the role of the recipient to investigate how different gift timing affect the recipient's immediate feelings and future behavior. Participants assigned to the pre-help gift condition read a scenario in which they imagined receiving a gift from a friend, and a few days later, this friend asked them for help. In the post-help gift condition, participants first agreed to their friend's request for help and, after providing the help, received a gift from the friend. Participants first answered the same questions as in Study 1. Subsequently, they were asked to respond about their willingness to accept a gift from this friend again in the future and the likelihood of helping them again. 8.2 Results and Analysis Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the overall rating, willingness to accept again and willingness to help again for the two levels of gift timing(pre-help vs. post-help). We standardized the items for "willingness to accept again" and "willingness to help again". Overall rating . The results indicated recipients' overall rating in the pre-help condition ( M = -0.72, SD = 0.43) was significantly lower than in the post-help condition ( M = 0.75, SD = 0.51), t (149) = -19.02, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.47, 95% CI = [-3.57, -2.62]. Willingness to accept again . The results indicated recipients' willingness to accept again in the pre-help condition ( M = -0.75, SD = 0.63) was significantly lower than in the post-help condition ( M = 0.78, SD = 0.67), t (149) = -14.39, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.65, 95% CI = [-2.76, -1.93]. Willingness to help again . The results indicated recipients' willingness to help again in the pre-help condition ( M = -0.77, SD = 0.60) was significantly lower than in the post-help condition ( M = 0.81, SD = 0.65), t (149) = -15.89, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.61, 95% CI = [-3.02, -2.15]. Subsequently, using a method similar to that in Study 4, willingness to accept again and willingness to help again—were averaged to create a composite score named "Consequence". A mediation analysis was conducted using 5,000 bootstrap samples, with gift timing as the independent variable, immediate consequences as the mediator, and consequences as the dependent variable. The 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect was [0.06, 0.64], indicating a significant mediation effect. The overall rating resulting from the different gift timing led to corresponding consequences(see Fig. 8 ). 8.3 Discussion Study 5 compared recipients' overall rating and future expectations in the pre-help versus post-help gift conditions. In the pre-help gift condition, the recipient's overall rating were all lower than in the post-help gift condition. Moreover, recipients also showed a more negative attitude toward potential future gift and requests for help. In Study 6, we will explore whether there are appropriate methods for pre-help gift-giving. 9. Study 6: Mitigating the Negative Effects of Pre-Help Gifting: Explicitly stating the help-seeking intention Studies 1–5 identified the giver-recipient asymmetry regarding pre-help gifts in help-seeking. This asymmetry leads to a highly negative evaluation by the recipient and even affects their subsequent social interaction. Sincerity is an important emotional cue that can shift an individual's behavior in a more positive and proactive direction [ 53 ]. Study 6 tests H4, which posits that sincerely stating one's intention to seek help when giving a pre-help gift can win the recipient's favor. 9.1 Method Participants and design A power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [ 47 ] indicated that a total sample of at least 128 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (d = 0.25) at α = .05. We recruited a total of 160 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 144 individuals (81 male, 63 female; age range = 18–44 years, M = 26.92, SD = 5.37). The study employed a single-factor, two-level (gift intention: explicit vs. ambiguous) between-subjects design. Materials and procedure In this study, all participants played the role of the recipient, imagining a friend asking for their help. In the explicit group, the friend explained their intention while giving the gift before asking for help, stating that they were seeking assistance. In the ambiguous group, the friend gave the gift without expressing that they might seek help in the future. Participants were required to answer the following questions: "How sincere do you think the giver was when giving the gift?" (0 = very insincere, 7 = very sincere), "How do you feel right now?" (0 = very unhappy, 7 = very happy), "What is your evaluation of the giver?" (0 = very poor, 7 = very good), and "How willing are you to grant the giver's request?" (0 = very unwilling, 7 = very willing). 9.2 Results and Analysis Independent samples t-tests were conducted for the two levels of the factor (intention: explicit vs. ambiguous). Sincerity . The results indicated sincerity in the explicit condition ( M = 5.90, SD = 1.25) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition ( M = 1.12, SD = 1.07), t (142) = 24.02, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.17, 95% CI = [3.45, 4.59]. Happiness . The results indicated happiness in the explicit condition ( M = 3.82, SD = 1.56) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition ( M = 1.42, SD = 1.03), t (142) = 10.60, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.36, 95% CI = [1.39, 2.16]. Evaluation of the giver . The results indicated evaluation of the giver in the explicit condition ( M = 3.57, SD = 1.46) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition ( M = 1.91, SD = 1.13), t (142) = 7.50, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.32, 95% CI = [0.89, 1.61]. Willingness to help . The results indicated willingness to help in the explicit condition ( M = 3.79, SD = 1.50) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition ( M = 2.11, SD = 1.06), t (142) = 7.65, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.32, 95% CI = [0.92, 1.64] (see Fig. 9 ). 9.3 Discussion By manipulating the sincerity of the giver's intention for seeking help during a pre-help gift, Study 6 indicate that compared to a pre-help gift-giver who only gives a gift without mentioning the reason, a pre-help gift-giver who explicitly states the intention to ask for help is perceived more positively by the recipient. Furthermore, the recipient is more willing to offer help later. The findings of Study 6 provide givers with a method for pre-help gift-giving that is more satisfactory to the recipient and has a higher rate of success. 10. General Discussion Across six studies, we reveal a giver- recipient asymmetry in help-seeking contexts. Givers believe that giving a gift before asking for help is an effective way to cultivate rapport and gain the recipient's favor, but the outcome is contrary to their expectations. Studies 1a and 1b, using different forms of gifts respectively, validated the asymmetry in pre-help gifting, that givers overestimated the recipient's willingness to accept the gift, their happiness upon gifts, and their positive evaluation of the giver. Study 2 explored the psychological mechanism, finding that this bias is driven by the recipient's perceived coercion, a feeling that givers underestimate. To corroborate this conclusion, Studies 3 and 4 ruled out the roles of anticipated regret and social desirability. Study 5 further investigated the downstream consequences of asymmetry, examining whether the asymmetry affects future interactions. The results showed that pre-help gift significantly reduced the recipient's willingness to accept future gifts or provide help again. Finally, Study 6 attempted to find a more suitable approach for pre-help gifting, with results indicating that explicitly stating the purpose of the gift can mitigate the recipient's negative emotions and unfavorable evaluations of the giver in a pre-help gifting context. 10.1 Theoretical Implications Misprediction has long been a topic of interest in psychology. Our research focuses on the misprediction in gift-giving in help-seeking contexts. By simultaneously considering the timing within the help-seeking context and the psychological processes of givers and recipients, our findings enrich the theoretical literature on misprediction. In such situations, help-seekers and potential helpers differ in their willingness to seek or provide help [ 11 , 54 ]. Furthermore, in the process of giving a gift, givers also often make significant misjudgments regarding gift form, delivery method, and so on [ 55 , 56 ]. This research places emphasis on the role of timing in gift-giving, echoing recent studies on "when to give." The research by Givi and Galak was among the first to address this issue [ 10 ]. Subsequently, Haltman found that when giving occasion-based gifts, givers tend to overestimate the negative impact of a late gift [ 19 ]. Our research extends their conclusions. Specifically, we find that when seeking help, the gift timing is also crucial. When giving a gift beforehand, givers systematically overestimate the recipient's evaluation of the gift and of the givers themselves. This bias stems from the givers' failure to recognize the sense of coercion perceived by the recipient, whereas explicitly stating one's intention can mitigate the recipient's negative evaluation. This conclusion also provides new evidence for the theory of psychological reactance [ 3 , 57 ]. 10.2 Practical Implications Our findings offer some practical advice for interpersonal interactions. Given that Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis, pre-help gifting can lead to negative experiences and consequences for the recipient, givers should use this strategy with caution. If giving a gift beforehand is deemed necessary, it is advisable to state the help-seeking intention explicitly to alleviate the recipient's resistance. Additionally, this research provides valuable insights for marketing. Marketers can design promotional content that emphasizes the positive effects of expressing gratitude with a gift after the fact, guiding consumers to focus on the benefits of post-help gifting and thus avoiding a diminished consumer experience due to misjudgment. For example, for business gifts, the emphasis could be on their role as an exclusive token of appreciation after a project is completed. Brands can also help consumers clarify their intentions with pre-help gifts—for instance, by using copy such as, "This gift is to thank you in advance for your help, and we look forward to a long-term partnership"—thereby enhancing the consumer experience for both the giver and the recipient. 10.3 Limitations The current research still has some shortcomings.. First, our research primarily relied on participants' self-reports and did not measure actual helping behavior, which may limit the external validity of the findings. Second, considering the complexity of interpersonal relationships, other factors such as power dynamics could also influence the choice of gift timing when seeking help. For example, when a subordinate seeks help from a superior, a pre-help gift might align with both parties' expectations, a scenario not considered in current research [ 58 ]. Furthermore, help-seeking and gift-giving are heavily influenced by social norms [ 19 ]. Given that social norms vary across cultures [ 59 ], the stability of this asymmetry needs to be tested in other cultural contexts. Finally, although six studies confirmed the existence of the asymmetry in pre-help gift-giving, a reverse asymmetry for post-help gifting appeared in Study 1, which is not consistent with the other five studies. This may suggest that givers, under certain circumstances, underestimate the positive impact of post-help gifts, a possibility that warrants further investigation. 11. Conclusion Overall, the current research revealed a significant giver-recipient asymmetry in the context of pre-help gifting, and clarified the psychological mechanisms behind givers' mispredictions when offering a gift before making a request. First, the research demonstrated that gift-givers systematically overestimate the positive effects of pre-help gifting, believing recipients would evaluate the gift and the giver more favorably than they actually did. Second, perceived coercion plays a mediating role in this asymmetry. Specifically, this misprediction arises because givers underestimate the degree to which recipients feel their autonomy is threatened by the pre-help gift, leading them to overlook the potential for a negative reaction. Third, the research identified the downstream consequences of this bias, showing that pre-help gifting reduces recipients' willingness to help in the future, but also proposed a practical intervention: explicitly stating one's help-seeking intention can mitigate these negative effects. Declarations Supplementary Information Supplementary materials are available on https://osf.io/v7qe3/?view_only=00901cea563f4ff4a9dca3498c7b2f90. Author contributions Conceptualization: Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han and Xuchun Liu; Data Curation: Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han and Xuchun Liu; Formal analysis: Xuchun Liu, Shuyao Han, and XiaoKe Xie; Methodology: Shuyao Han, Xuchun Liu and Keyan Zhu; Original draft: Shuyao Han, Xuchun Liu and Xiaoke xie; Review and editing: Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han, Xiaoke Xie; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding The study is funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (24BSH093). Data availability Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Permission was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of School of Psychology, Qufu Normal University (No. 2025127). Participants provided informed consent after being fully informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential risks and benefits. All responses were collected anonymously and kept strictly confidential. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. The study was designed to minimize any potential psychological discomfort, and collected data were used solely for research purposes and stored securely. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Steidlmeier P. Gift giving, bribery and corruption: ethical management of business relationships in China. J Bus Ethics. 1999:121–32. Regan DT. Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1971;7:627–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90025-4. Rosenberg B, Siegel J. Psychological reactance theory: an introduction and overview. Motiv Sci. 2025;11:133–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000376. Donnelly GE, Wilson AV, Whillans AV, Norton MI. Communicating resource scarcity and interpersonal connection. J Consum Psychol. 2021;31:726–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1226. Keinan A, Bellezza S, Paharia N. The symbolic value of time. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;26:58–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.05.001. Lee-Yoon A, Donnelly GE, Whillans AV. Overcoming resource scarcity: consumers’ response to gifts intending to save time and money. J Assoc Consum Res. 2020;5:391–403. https://doi.org/10.1086/709887. Whillans AV, Yoon J, Turek A, Donnelly G. Extension request avoidance predicts greater time stress among women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U A. 2021;118:2224–2224. Whillans AV, Yoon J, Donnelly G. People overestimate the self-presentation costs of deadline extension requests. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2022;98:104253–104253. Freling RE, Moore Koskie M, Freling TH, Moulard JG, Crosno JL. Exploring gift gaps: a meta-analysis of giver–recipient asymmetries. Psychol Mark. 2024;41:1318–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21981. Givi J, Galak J. Gift recipients’ beliefs about occasion‐based and nonoccasion‐based gifts: the importance of signaling care and meeting expectations in gift giving. J Consum Psychol. 2022;32:445–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1239. Bohns VK, Flynn FJ. Why didn’t you just ask? Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46:402–9. Chou SY, Stauffer JM. A theoretical classification of helping behavior and helping motives. Pers Rev. 2016;45:871–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2015-0076. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. Zhao X, Epley N. Surprisingly happy to have helped: underestimating prosociality creates a misplaced barrier to asking for help. Psychol Sci. 2022;33:1708–31. Goodwin C, Smith KL, Spiggle S. Gift giving: consumer motivation and the gift purchase process. Adv Consum Res. 1990;17:690–8. Wolfinbarger MEF. The gift of the magi: situational and individual effects on gift symbolism. University of California, 1990. Kupor D, Flynn F, Norton MI. Half a gift is not half-hearted: a giver–receiver asymmetry in the thoughtfulness of partial gifts. Soc Psychol Bull. 2017;43:1686–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727003. Teigen KH, Olsen MVG, Solås OE. Giver–receiver asymmetries in gift preferences. Br J Soc Psychol. 2005;44:125–44. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X23428. Haltman C, Herziger A, Donnelly GE, Reczek RW. Better late than never? Gift givers overestimate the relationship harm from giving late gifts. J Consum Psychol. 2024:jcpy.1446. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1446. Luo B, Fang W, Shen J, Cong XF. Gift–image congruence and gift appreciation in romantic relationships: the roles of intimacy and relationship dependence. J Bus Res. 2019;103:142–52. Ward MK, Broniarczyk SM. Ask and you shall (not) receive: close friends prioritize relational signaling over recipient preferences in their gift choices. J Mark Res. 2016;53:1001–18. Givi J, Birg L, Lowrey TM, Galak J. An integrative review of gift-giving research in consumer behavior and marketing. J Consum Psychol. 2023;33:529–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1318. Peetz J, Howard AL. People prefer to diversify across different types of prosocial behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol. 2022;61:924–39. Ruth JA, Otnes CC, Brunel FF. Gift receipt and the reformulation of interpersonal relationships. J Consum Res. 1999;25:385–402. Dunn EW, Aknin LB, Norton MI. Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science. 2008;319:1687–8. Galak J, Givi J, Williams EF. Why certain gifts are great to give but not to get: a framework for understanding errors in gift giving. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016;25:380–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416656937. Brehm JW, Cole AH. Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. J Soc Psychol. 1966;3:420–420. Fransen ML, Smit EG, Verlegh PW. Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1201–1201. Tan B, Li Z, Cheng H, Wang Z. Teach me fishing or give me the fish: differential effects of receiving autonomous and dependent help on task performance. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2022;20:647–647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010647. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49:182–182. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125:627–627. van de Ven J. The demand for social approval and status as a motivation to give. J Inst Theor Econ. 2002;158:464–82. Givi J, Mu Y. A meta-analysis of giver–recipient asymmetries in gift giving. J Consum Psychol. 2023;33:45–62. Flynn FJ, Adams GS. Money can’t buy love: asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009;45:404–9. Givi J, Galak J. Sentimental value and gift giving: givers’ fears of getting it wrong prevents them from getting it right. J Consum Psychol. 2017;27:473–9. Goodman JK, Lim S. When consumers prefer to give material gifts instead of experiences: the role of social distance. J Consum Res. 2018;45:365–82. Yang AX, Koo M, Hwang J. Remember me, will you?: overusing material gifts for interpersonal memory management. J Consum Psychol. 2022;32:615–33. Van Lange PA. Being better but not smarter than others: the muhammad ali effect at work in interpersonal situations. Soc Psychol Bull. 1991;17:689–93. Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J. 1990;100:464–464. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133. Ziano I, Villanova D. More useful to you: believing that others find the same objects more useful. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2023;106:104460–104460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104460. Anderson CJ. The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:139–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139. Feldman G, Albarracín D. Norm theory and the action-effect: the role of social norms in regret following action and inaction. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;69:111–20. Zerbe WJ, Paulhus DL. Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: a reconception. Acad Manag Rev. 1987;12:250–64. Abele AE, Ellemers N, Fiske ST, Koch A, Yzerbyt V. Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychol Rev. 2021;128:290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262. Chin S, Wang T, Ho C. Gifts that give twice are not twice as nice: consumers avoid socially responsible gifts for picky recipients. Psychol Mark. 2024;41:2070–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22027. Wickham RE. Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49:878–87. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91. Waldfogel J. The deadweight loss of christmas. Am Econ Rev. 1993;83:1328–36. Givi J, Kirk CP. Saying no: the negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think. J Soc Psychol. 2024;126:1103–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000443. Shang X, Chen Z, Lu J. Will I be judged harshly after trying to help but causing more troubles? A misprediction about help recipients. Acta Psychol Sin. 2021;53:291–291. Lu J, Fang Q, Qiu T. Rejecters overestimate the negative consequences they will face from refusal. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2023;29:280–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000457. Savitsky K, Epley N, Gilovich T. Do others judge us as harshly as we think? Overestimating the impact of our failures, shortcomings, and mishaps. J Soc Psychol. 2001;81:44–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.44. Chatelain G, Hille SL, Sander D, Patel M, Hahnel UJJ, Brosch T. Feel good, stay green: positive affect promotes pro-environmental behaviors and mitigates compensatory mental bookkeeping effects. J Env Psychol. 2018;56:3–11. Newark DA, Bohns VK, Flynn FJ. A helping hand is hard at work: help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2017;139:18–29. Baskin E, Wakslak CJ, Trope Y, Novemsky N. Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: a construal-level approach to gift giving. J Consum Res. 2014;41:169–82. Cavanaugh LA, Gino F, Fitzsimons GJ. When doing good is bad in gift giving: mis-predicting appreciation of socially responsible gifts. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2015;131:178–89. Schumpe B, Leander N. Rebels for a reason: how psychological reactance is goal-directed. Motiv Sci. 2025;11:213–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000364. Emerson RM. Power-dependence relations. Power Mod. Soc., London: Routledge; 2019, p. 48–58. Shen H, Wan F, Wyer RS Jr. Cross-cultural differences in the refusal to accept a small gift: the differential influence of reciprocity norms on asians and north americans. J Soc Psychol. 2011;100:271–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021201. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 31 Oct, 2025 Editor invited by journal 08 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 03 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7760964","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542967280,"identity":"6cb7f7aa-4677-48d0-9d32-46f7c23e86ea","order_by":0,"name":"Xiaoming Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiaoming","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":542967281,"identity":"ba4ae802-61e2-42dd-b7d3-7f34e7c7be7d","order_by":1,"name":"Shuyao Han","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shuyao","middleName":"","lastName":"Han","suffix":""},{"id":542967283,"identity":"a29b71f3-ba56-4a31-8304-1b3175c7bd56","order_by":2,"name":"Xuchun Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Soochow University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xuchun","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":542967284,"identity":"9fef257a-6ce8-48b1-9635-8ca85f5c29eb","order_by":3,"name":"Keyan Zhu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keyan","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhu","suffix":""},{"id":542967287,"identity":"a9ef6d97-2316-445f-8eee-aa226735abd5","order_by":4,"name":"Xiaoke Xie","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiaoke","middleName":"","lastName":"Xie","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-01 15:38:37","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95799095,"identity":"24dfd243-aaab-46df-b196-2222633674d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:18:45","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":204634,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ClutchingBuddhasfeetincrisisGiftGiversoverestimatetheBenefitsofPrehelpGiftingwhenHelpSeeking.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/42aa359bf0d9360511aa3c7a.docx"},{"id":95798566,"identity":"6d937cd5-3fc7-4333-8bc4-b913eec10900","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:17:05","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7396,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"889180fd5b52465ababdb37551f1b934.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/d97f41ea67d9fc83e1c19860.json"},{"id":95684334,"identity":"7b09da7b-dd52-4c61-a791-8367811440d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":162361,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"889180fd5b52465ababdb37551f1b9341enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/f9568b86702a9bcbf338e392.xml"},{"id":95684316,"identity":"ea865f4e-082a-44e9-bb0a-d5d533ef64e0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16211,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/643bf14fa2b3566c46aeb0e7.png"},{"id":95797717,"identity":"8edc8bf2-19f4-4759-a5b7-64cee5d54489","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:09:55","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14998,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/524a460906e40d8184542558.png"},{"id":95684322,"identity":"33791ccf-53d5-4199-8cba-3df5a98a3d75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15452,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/3c262d7d96e1bf0c8887df09.png"},{"id":95684328,"identity":"f6ebba47-54e3-427f-a59c-40c279533af9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5218,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/33c1a7cd4b36ec3992fda3bc.png"},{"id":95798199,"identity":"600d5651-096c-45f5-bd2b-4577a797b078","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:16:00","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":18476,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/f8b9ef30a9bfc6e3c873ad8f.png"},{"id":95798402,"identity":"3ccff29c-c0f5-4206-9344-811ce83d8679","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:16:42","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8702,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/3dd5cb057af435785379b612.png"},{"id":95684340,"identity":"ba263eb7-544a-4dc9-88d5-2871d0a76ad4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:45","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8688,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/6633a4908b56567691ce1415.png"},{"id":95684335,"identity":"710e4357-0f11-4a2d-91ad-334adc28b534","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/d5fd3ddb0bd3cc40ad5465a7.png"},{"id":95684331,"identity":"e01a0478-f47f-40ef-9bdb-f7d52a0c0cac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9219,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/35fe9f6b8d43f27ce6d2f345.png"},{"id":95684343,"identity":"c2b64b32-0b4b-4851-af16-31e4b182e645","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:45","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7620,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/8dbffc6d751cf698d975704f.png"},{"id":95684339,"identity":"4b520d8c-db6d-444c-90df-d7d812d6a8a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:45","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7183,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/6053de4ab70d1d02b9392a96.png"},{"id":95684324,"identity":"06323f47-15d4-4299-9b31-1aa716693a4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7380,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/071289d08d95419b98d1b875.png"},{"id":95684329,"identity":"468912ea-31ca-4bc6-b9c1-543d5f075987","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2853,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/10af7d50fb98950024dfa743.png"},{"id":95684332,"identity":"93d7c004-32af-48b0-9687-be8558e19fcf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9973,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/4c6ddc85290fa6cf56e99489.png"},{"id":95684336,"identity":"e25d2e74-8c92-4871-9046-d1b3561a4512","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4836,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/684d4912dafb7baa4fbb3ef1.png"},{"id":95799778,"identity":"d458db3b-ace6-475a-9833-fa94c4e0cde1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:20:44","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/72683a7241c0d06f4e674263.png"},{"id":95684333,"identity":"be6f8987-0896-4a12-90b8-4def27ff4af9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6376,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/9826b7572f5ed4838ec6cb71.png"},{"id":95684342,"identity":"f6c42ee7-decc-4754-aeab-b4b19fcde5cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:45","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4859,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/4edb9fbfd9322b5b23e6ab83.png"},{"id":95684338,"identity":"88344080-8635-4462-a6fa-97aa3fb64072","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:45","extension":"xml","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":161772,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"889180fd5b52465ababdb37551f1b9341structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/f0ec5751160bd0d841c7ee1c.xml"},{"id":95799185,"identity":"34ac426a-bc84-4a2f-bd1b-6fe608bf5342","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:19:02","extension":"html","order_by":22,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":174256,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/5f074ee13ef48e27f6bd109b.html"},{"id":95799611,"identity":"ba7e8b12-c62b-40a1-96ac-669ed8b69cb7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:20:22","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79015,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredicted willingness to accept, happiness and evaluation based on role and gift timing in Study 1b(***p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/d1a23d71941a626f80d86cd0.png"},{"id":95684312,"identity":"0f445b11-7ee0-493c-b499-d0757dfbd252","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":77169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredicted willingness to accept, happiness and evaluation based on role and gift timing in Study 1b(***p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/12a3fcd22140fac43221f301.png"},{"id":95684314,"identity":"02e3fe49-f486-493f-8001-79a0922914ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82845,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredicted willingness to accept, happiness and evaluation based on role and gift timing in Study 2(***p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/d3ce722018e06c804753c97c.png"},{"id":95684315,"identity":"b7114f87-6138-4ec4-8e20-d8973a5e339f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33367,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived Coercion in Study 2(**p＜0.01)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/dff63856ec4a6e3c88892d74.png"},{"id":95799488,"identity":"4d2c5961-5ef7-4cae-bfa8-c9a588161fae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:20:05","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102797,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePROCESS Model 7 moderated mediation analysis in Study 2(*p＜0.05, *** p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/7b7adf1913cea46492fd5422.png"},{"id":95684321,"identity":"4564cc51-14ae-4caf-8401-6241a99cb93a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61729,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredicted willingness to accept, happiness and evaluation based gift timing in Study 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/e354156ac0d6149adc6ba4f8.png"},{"id":95798570,"identity":"c59fb87b-b4a1-49e8-9393-c42d56752b4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:17:06","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47796,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredicted overall lrating based on role and gift timing in Study 4(***p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/08bc66438b3314d1e0534553.png"},{"id":95684326,"identity":"2a265479-2598-43b1-bf99-ebbdfd77cd2a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 22:05:44","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58186,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOverall rating, willingness to accept again and willingness to help again based on gift timing in Study 5(***p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/8b57e50275cac5adb0acd8c5.png"},{"id":95798104,"identity":"925db08c-b824-4c57-95e0-82edd3e3fc5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:15:29","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56397,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSincerity, happiness, evaluation and willingness to help based on gift intention in Study 6(***p＜0.001)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/7e9d332cf8b474aa00361423.png"},{"id":95804788,"identity":"982cba09-1188-4595-a958-eb8af82a1d7d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:39:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2303091,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7760964/v1/e845778a-f04b-47f4-b6db-241096b7607a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis: Gift Givers overestimate the Benefits of Pre‑help Gifting when Help‑Seeking","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eA classic story from the Ming Dynasty collection \"San Yan Er Pai\" recounts a dispute between two brothers over an inheritance. The elder son attempts to bribe relatives and friends with gifts, hoping they will testify that he is the rightful heir. This act of \"Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis\"\u0026mdash;a last-minute attempt to curry favor\u0026mdash;is met with ridicule in the story.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGift-giving is a common strategy when seeking help, a practice that appears to align with the social norm of reciprocity, wherein a recipient is expected to return the favor [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. However, contradictory evidence suggests that giving a gift before asking for help can paradoxically lead to negative feelings in the recipient [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. The aforementioned story illustrates this, as the elder son's pre-help \"gifting\" resulted in mockery rather than support. Why does a seemingly norm-consistent behavior trigger a negative reaction?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to psychological reactance theory, individuals experience negative affect when their freedom of choice is threatened [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. In the context of pre-help gifting, recipients may feel discomfort because they perceive the gift as an attempt to manipulate their behavior. This perceived threat to their autonomy results in a negative gift-receiving experience. However, help-seekers (givers) may be unaware of this potential for psychological reactance, as they focus on the instrumental value of the gift while overlooking the recipient's need for autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present research aims to investigate two core questions arising from this asymmetry. First, when giving a gift before seeking help, do givers systematically overestimate how positively recipients will evaluate them? Second, does this potential asymmetry stem from givers misjudging the recipient's sense of psychological reactance\u0026mdash;specifically, that givers underestimate the degree to which recipients feel they are coerced? Furthermore, we hypothesize that this asymmetry may have downstream consequences, such that recipients may respond more negatively to subsequent requests for help from the giver. Finally, we propose that this negative outcome might be mitigated if the giver explicitly states their intentions during the initial gift exchange.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Gift Timing and Gifting when seeking help\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGift-giving is frequently associated with specific timings or occasions, such as major holidays, festivals, or birthdays. This timing carries significant signaling value [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5 CR6 CR7\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], allowing givers to convey care or consideration for the recipient [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Seeking help represents another common occassion for gift-giving. Help-seekers often underestimate others\u0026rsquo; willingness to help [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] and therefore may offer a gift beforehand to persuade a potential helper or afterwards to express gratitude [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond conveying care, help-seekers may also be guided by gifting norms. Prior research demonstrates that specific norms influence givers' judgments [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. For instance, Teigen et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] found that givers prefer to offer new rather than used items, even if the used item is more practical, because gives believed that new items better align with gifting norms. Similarly, Kupor et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] showed that givers avoid giving \"incomplete\" gifts (e.g., a \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e50 gift certificate for a \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100 product) due to a gifting norm of completeness. Gifting norms also extend to timing; for example, Haltman et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] found that givers studiously avoid giving late gifts, fearing that violating the norm of punctuality will cause recipients to feel displeased.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA gift can simultaneously signal care, thereby improving relationship quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR20\" citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], while also serving the giver's goal of receiving a more positive evaluation by adhering to the norm of reciprocity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on this, we infer that when seeking help, givers will prefer to give a gift before the help is rendered rather than after. This preference is likely driven by the belief that pre-gifting provides a more timely signal of their intent to reciprocate, thus increasing the likelihood of securing the desired help.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Perceived Coercion and Giver-Recipient Asymmetry\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough givers hope to win favor through gifts, gifting error can damage the giver-recipient relationship [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. A gift offered before help is requested may make a potential helper feel uneasy. According to psychological reactance theory, individuals experience a strong motivational state to restore their freedom when it is threatened [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Previous research indicates that when individuals feel their autonomy is threatened or perceive that others are attempting to persuade or manipulate them, they may respond less favorably to prosocial requests [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR27\" citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. This is because individuals desire to maintain a sufficient sense of autonomy and to feel that their actions are implemented according to their own plans and control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen seeking help, a potential helper has not yet decided whether to help. A pre-help gift introduces an external motivation that can undermine their sense of autonomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], making them feel coerced or manipulated. This, in turn, may diminish the positive experience of receiving the gift and lead to a more negative evaluation of the giver.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGift-giving is a common phenomenon in which givers and recipients often have different evaluations of the same gift [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Such giver-recipient asymmetries manifest not only in the type of gift [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34 CR35\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] but also at specific gifting timing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. This is partly attributable to the self-serving bias, whereby individuals' motivation to maintain a positive self-image creates cognitive biases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e], leading givers to overestimate recipients' evaluations of their gifts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. We propose that when gifting before a request, givers focus on the act's compliance with social norms and the gift's instrumental value, thereby overlooking the sense of coercion it may impose on the recipient. In contrast to the recipient's potentially negative experience, the giver may not even be aware that their act of gifting creates this feeling of coercion, leading to a asymmetry. We therefore hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eGivers overestimate the positive effect of a pre-help (vs. post-help) gift.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived coercion mediates the asymmetry in H1. Specifically, givers underestimate the recipient's feeling of being coerced, leading to the overestimation of the gift's positive effect during pre-help gifting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eHelpers are less willing to grant a subsequent request for help from a requester who previously gave them a pre-help (vs. post-help) gift.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Alternative Explanations: Anticipated Regret and Social Desirability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond perceived coercion, other factors may contribute to the asymmetry in pre-gifting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst is \u003cb\u003eanticipated regret\u003c/b\u003e. Regret is a negative, counterfactual-based emotion (\"if only...\") that often explains decision avoidance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. In the context of pre-help gifting, a recipient may worry that accepting the gift creates an obligation to help. Should they fail to provide the help, they would feel responsible, leading to a negative experience. Consequently, they dislike receiving pre-help gifts. In post-help gifting, however, the help has already been successfully rendered, eliminating the uncertainty of a negative outcome. Thus, regret is no longer a factor, and the gift may be not evaluated as negatively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond is \u003cb\u003esocial desirability\u003c/b\u003e, which refers to the tendency of individuals to act in a manner that is viewed as favorable by others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. In a helping context, a social expectation may exist that helpers should act altruistically, not for a reward. Given the effect of social desirability, it is difficult to determine whether a recipient's (i.e., the potential helper's) negative attitude toward a pre-help gift stems from genuine aversion to the gift itself or from a desire to conform to the social expectation of \"helping without accepting rewards.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 A Moderating Strategy: Explicitly stating the help-seeking intention\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on our primary hypothesis, pre-help gifting can make recipients uncomfortable. From the giver's perspective, however, pre-gifting is often seen as a necessary step to ensure their request is successful. Is it possible to narrow the gap and improve the recipient's experience? Drawing on the primacy of warmth in social evaluation, we propose that explicitly stating the help-seeking intention when giving the gift may cause the giver to be perceived as more sincere, thereby mitigating the negative effects of pre-help gifting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGifts can signal information about the giver's warmth and competence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Prior research indicates that warmth has primacy in social judgment; the core of warmth is whether another person holds benevolent and cooperative intentions, which includes sincerity and trustworthiness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Sincerity can reduce suspicion in interactions and help build mutual trust [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. When a gift conveys a signal of warmth, it enhances the recipient's experience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. In sum, we predict that explicitly stating one's intention to seek help when giving a gift will leave a more positive impression on the recipient and improve their overall experience. We therefore hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplicitly stating the intention to seek help during pre-help gifting improves the recipient's experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe present research\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross six studies, we investigated the asymmetry between givers and recipients regarding pre-help gifts when seeking help. In Studies 1a and Study 1b, we found that givers overestimated recipients' positive evaluation of a pre-help gift with two different help-seeking scenarios, validating H1. In Study 2, we measured the perceived coercion experienced by both givers and recipients to explore the psychological mechanism of the asymmetry, validating H2. In Study 3 and Study 4, we ruled out the alternative explanations of anticipated regret social desirability. In Study 5, we examined whether this asymmetry affects social interactions between the giver and recipient by measuring the recipient's willingness to receive subsequent gifts and provide help, validating H3. Finally, Study 6 offered a strategy to mitigate the negative impact of pre-help gifting, demonstrating the helper's evaluation of the gift improves when help-seeker explicitly states their intention to ask for help, supporting H4.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn our studies, sample size was based on 80% power to detect a medium effect, calculated using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007). All of our experiments were run on the online platform Credamo. All measures, manipulations, and participant exclusions for all studies have been reported in the manuscript and the web appendix. Materials and data for all studies are provided in the web appendix, available on OSF: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/v7qe3/?view_only=00901cea563f4ff4a9dca3498c7b2f90\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/v7qe3/?view_only=00901cea563f4ff4a9dca3498c7b2f90\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Study 1a: Giver-recipient Asymmetry in Pre-help Gifting","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a total sample size of at least 128 participants was required to detect a medium effect (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) with 80% statistical power at α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05. We recruited 240 participants and after excluding those who failed an attention check, we obtained a valid sample of 208 participants (76 males, 132 females; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27.08, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.82). This study employed a 2 (gift timing: pre-help vs. post-help) \u0026times; 2 (role: giver vs. recipient) between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and Procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants assigned to the \"giver\" role read a scenario in which they had to imagine asking a colleague to take their place on a business trip. The scenario specified that, in order to persuade the colleague to accept the request, the participant had given them a gift in advance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter reading the scenario, givers completed an attention check, answering whether they had just engaged in help-seeking or help-giving. Subsequently, givers who passed the check were asked to predict the recipient's thoughts, specifically: \"How willing do you think the recipient is to accept your gift?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all willing, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very willing), \"How do you think the recipient feels at this moment?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very unhappy, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very happy), and \"What kind of evaluation do you think the recipient will give you?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very poor, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very good).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants assigned to the recipient role read a corresponding scenario, imagining that a colleague asked them for help and they accepted the gift. These participants were also randomly assigned to either the pre-help or post-help gifting condition. After reading the scenario and passing the same attention check, recipients were asked to report their feelings. As the final scenario was set as having agreed to help, the pre-help group's feelings were measured using a retrospective method: they were asked to re-evaluate the gift from the perspective of that moment. The questions were: \"If you were back in that moment, how willing would you be to accept the giver's gift?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all willing, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very willing), \"How do you feel at this moment?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very unhappy, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very happy), and \"What evaluation would you give the giver?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very poor, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very good). The post-help group only needed to answer based on their current feelings: \"How willing are you to accept the giver's gift?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all willing, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very willing), \"How do you feel at this moment?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very unhappy, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very happy), and \"What evaluation would you give the giver?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very poor, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very good).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, all participants provided demographic information, including gender and age.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a two-way ANOVA predicting three dependent variables\u0026mdash;willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver\u0026mdash;from role, gift timing, and their interaction. The results revealed that givers' predictions of willingness, feelings, and evaluation in the pre-help condition(vs. post-help condition) were significantly higher(see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to accept\u003c/b\u003e. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;179.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = .469), with the post-help condition predicting greater willingness to accept than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.41, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.78 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.85, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.35). A significant effect of role was also observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;199.87, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.495), with givers' predicted willingness being higher than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.48, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.95 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.95, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.24).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, a significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;429.38, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.678). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' willingness to accept (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;569.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.736), with givers' expected willingness being much higher than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.88, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.68, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.13). An opposite-direction difference emerged in the post-help gift-giving condition: givers' expected willingness was lower than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.00, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.79, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.11, F(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.23, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.102).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHappiness\u003c/b\u003e. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;195.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = .490), with the post-help condition predicting greater happiness than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.48, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.67 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.96, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.38). A significant effect of role was also observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;293.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.590), with givers' predicted happiness being higher than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.63, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.79 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.92, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.19).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;458.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.692). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;569.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.736), with givers' expected happiness being much higher than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.06, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.11 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.72, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12). An opposite-direction difference emerged in the post-help gift-giving condition: givers' expected happiness was lower than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.23, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.71, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.11, F(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.77, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.046).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEvaluation of the giver\u003c/b\u003e. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;232.98, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.533), with the post-help condition predicting greater evaluation than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e =5.56, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.67 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.02, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.09). A significant effect of role was also observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;269.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.569), with givers' evaluation being higher than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.60, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.70 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.10, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.01).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;403.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.664. A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;624.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.754), with givers' expected evaluation being much higher than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.86, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.11 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.06, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.11). An opposite-direction difference emerged in the post-help gift-giving condition: givers' expected evaluation was lower than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.36, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.10 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.74, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.09, F(1, 204)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.26, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.008, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.046).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 1a provided validation of the giver-recipient asymmetry in help-seeking contexts. Givers overestimated the positive impact of a pre-help gift across various aspects. They mistakenly believed their pre-help gifting would be well-received, but in reality, recipients provided a more negative evaluation. In the post-help condition, a discrepancy between givers' and recipients' thoughts still existed. More importantly, the direction of this discrepancy was reversed: in post-help gifting, givers underestimated the recipients' willingness to accept the gift, their happiness, and their evaluation of the giver.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Study 1b: Giver-recipient Asymmetry for a Cash Gift","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy 1b aimed to further validate the asymmetry by considering a another form of gift: cash. Previous research has shown that recipients and givers often differ in their assessment of a gift's economic value [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. As a gift form directly related to individual economic interests, cash is largely free from common gifting issues like practicality and valuation bias, making it an important tool for reciprocity. Therefore, we chose to use a cash gift to further test this asymmetry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a total sample size of at least 180 participants was required to detect a medium effect (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) with 80% statistical power at a significance level of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05. We recruited a total of 252 participants. After excluding those who failed an attention check, we obtained a valid sample of 218 participants (98 males, 120 females; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.04, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.17). This study employed a 2 (gift timing: pre-help vs. post-help) \u0026times; 2 (role: giver vs. recipient) between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and Procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilar to Study 1a, participants assigned to the giver role read a scenario imagining they needed to ask a friend for help and gave them a red envelope containing 1000 RMB. Recipients imagined a friend asked them for help and they accepted the red envelope. The questions asked after reading the scenarios were identical to those in Study 1a.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a two-way ANOVA predicting three dependent variables\u0026mdash;willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver\u0026mdash;from role, gift timing, and their interaction (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to accept.\u003c/b\u003e The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.42, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = .411), with the post-help condition predicting greater willingness to accept than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.03, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.09 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.33, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.03). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;101.90, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = .323), with givers' predicted willingness being higher than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.88, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.10 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.34, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.11).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;141.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2;= .398). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' willingness to accept (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;220.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = .508), with givers' expected willingness being much higher than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.85, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.15 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.51, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.17). However, there\u0026rsquo;s no significant difference in the post-help condition (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.77, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.185, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = .008).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHappiness\u003c/b\u003e. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145.93, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.405), with the post-help condition predicting better feelings than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.97, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.95 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.45, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.98). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;133.63, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.384), with givers' predicted feelings being better than recipients' actual feelings (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.93, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.05 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.54, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.95).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;153.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.418). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;569.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.550), with givers' expected happiness being much higher than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.96, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.14 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.64, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.15). However, there\u0026rsquo;s no significant difference in the post-help condition(F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.535, ηp\u0026sup2; = .002)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEvaluation of the giver\u003c/b\u003e. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;136.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.390), with the post-help condition predicting greater evaluation than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.10, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.20 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.41, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.13). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;108.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.335), with givers' predicted evaluation being higher than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.00, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.28 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.58, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.15).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;152.67, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.416). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' evaluation of them (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;236.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.525), with givers' predicted evaluation being much higher than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.06, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.16 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.44, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.17). In the post-help condition, givers did not show a predictive bias (F(1, 214)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.146, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on Study 1a, Study 1b extended the gift form to cash gifts. The results show that the asymmetry in pre-help gifting persists. Givers significantly overestimated the recipient's willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of them. In post-help gifting, this predictive asymmetry disappeared. To further substantiate this conclusion and discuss the psychological mechanism of this phenomenon, \u003cb\u003eStudy 2 will measure perceived coercion and examine its role as a mediating variable.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Study 2: The Mediating Role of Perceived Coercion","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudies 1a and 1b measured the differences in attitude between givers and recipients at different gifting times, proving the existence of a giver-recipient asymmetry in their feelings. The purpose of Study 2 is to test H2, that the Giver-recipient Asymmetry in pre-help gifting is due to givers underestimating the coercion perceived by recipients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a total sample size of at least 180 participants was required to detect a medium effect (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) with 80% statistical power at a significance level of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05. We recruited a total of 290 participants. After excluding those who failed an attention check, we obtained a valid sample of 273 participants (115 males, 158 females; aged 18\u0026ndash;48, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003eage\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27.57, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.25). This study employed a 2 (gift timing: pre-help vs. post-help) \u0026times; 2 (role: giver vs. recipient) between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and Procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experimental procedure was largely consistent with Study 1. The difference was that in this study, both givers and recipients needed to answer questions about the perceived coercion of the gifting behavior. Givers were asked an additional question: \"Do you think your act of giving is coercing the other party?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;completely). Recipients were asked an additional question: \"Do you think the other party's act of giving is coercing you?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;completely).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of Study 1 and Study 2 show that the scores for the three dimensions of willingness to accept, recipient's feelings, and evaluation of the giver are quite similar. Therefore, to facilitate subsequent data processing for the mediation effect, following the methods of Givi \u0026amp; Kirk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] and Shang et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e], the scores of these three indicators were standardized and then averaged, and named \"Overall Rating\". A higher overall rating represents a more positive prediction by the giver and a more positive actual experience by the recipient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, We conducted a two-way ANOVA predicting three dependent variables\u0026mdash;perceived coercion, willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver\u0026mdash;from role, gift timing, and their interaction(see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePerceived coercion\u003c/b\u003e. The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2;= 0.178), with the pre-help condition predicting greater perceived coercion than the post-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.54, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.75 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.24, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.01). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.027), with givers' predicted coerciveness being lower than recipients' actual perceived coercion (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.66, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.45 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.13, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.66).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.044, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.015). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers underestimated the coerciveness of their own gift (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.034), with givers' predicted coercion being lower than recipients' actual perceived coercion (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.13, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.71 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.94, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.70). However, in the post-help condition, there was no significant difference between the two (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.621, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to accept.\u003c/b\u003e The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.057), with the post-help condition predicting greater willingness to accept than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.27, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.60, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.73, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.059), with givers' predicted willingness being higher than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.27, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.60, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.15, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.029). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' willingness to accept (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.079), with givers' expected willingness being much higher than recipients' actual willingness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.17, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.12 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.03, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.93). However, in the post-help condition, the difference between the two was not significant (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.388, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2;= 0.003).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHappiness.\u003c/b\u003e The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;45.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.146), with the post-help condition predicting greater happiness than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.58, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.18 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.53, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.46). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.98, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.066), with givers' predicted happiness being higher than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.39, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.11 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.71, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.62).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.036, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.016). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' happiness (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.063), with givers' predicted happiness being higher than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.03, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.18 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.03, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.54). In the post-help condition, givers did not show a predictive bias (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.136, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.008).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEvaluation of the giver.\u003c/b\u003e The analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.103), with the post-help condition predicting greater evaluation than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.52, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.03 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.75, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.30). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.051), with givers' predicted evaluation being lower than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.14, SD\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;sub\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;Giver\u0026lt;/sub\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.15 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.65, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.93).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 269)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.013). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' evaluation of them (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.052), with givers' predicted evaluation being higher than recipients' actual evaluation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.15, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.15 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.36, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.32). In the post-help condition, givers did not show a predictive bias (F(1, 270)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.006).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, we conducted a PROCESS Model 7 moderated mediation analysis, treating role as the independent variable( giver\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, recipient\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2 ), global rating as the dependent variable, perceived coercion for the recipient as the mediator, and gift timing as the moderator( pre-help\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, post-help\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2 ).In other words, this analysis allows us to test whether the timing of the gift moderates the effect of role (giver or recipient) on perceived coercion (i.e., whether there is a moderating effect on path a) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. We observed a significant index of moderated mediation ( b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12, 95% CI: [0.003, 0.50]), Specifically, in the pre-help gifting context, we observed a significant indirect effect, where role influenced the rating through perceived coercion (b = -0.28, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, 95% CI: [-0.50, -0.08]). In the post-help gifting context, this indirect effect was not significant (b = -0.05, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, 95% CI: [-0.16, 0.07]; see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 2 showed the reason of asymmetry in pre-help gifting is that givers misjudge the coercion perceived by recipients. Recipients feel that a pre-help gift implies a coercion to help, thus leading to negative emotions and a negative evaluation of the giver.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Study 3: Ruling out the alternative explanation of anticipated regret","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy 2 confirmed the mediating role of perceived coercion. However, it is worth noting that in the experimental materials for Study 2, the post-help gift scenario involved the gift being presented after the recipient had already completed the favor, meaning the outcome was certain. In the pre-help gift scenario, the recipient had not yet performed the helpful act. In this situation, beyond feeling coerced, recipients might also anticipate regret over accepting the gift, stemming from the concern that they might not ultimately be able to provide the help successfully.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Study 3, we compared recipients' reactions to receiving a gift at two different gift timing: \"post-agreement but before acting\" versus \" post-help.\" In both conditions, the helper had already voluntarily agreed to assist, positioning the gift as a reward for the promise of help rather than a means to coerce the action itself. The key difference was the certainty of the outcome: in the former condition, the participant had only made a verbal commitment, whereas in the latter, the help had already been rendered. If recipients in the \"post-agreement\" condition evaluated the gift less favorably than those in the \"a post-help\" condition, it would suggest that their evaluation is driven by anticipated regret. Conversely, a lack of a significant difference would allow us to rule out the \u003cb\u003ealternative explanation\u003c/b\u003e of anticipated regret.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.1 Method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a sample size of at least 128 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) at α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05. We recruited a total of 190 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 162 individuals (78 male, 84 female; age range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20\u0026ndash;58 years, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.68, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.12). The study employed a single-factor, between-subjects design with two levels of the gift timing: post-agreement vs. post-help.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, all participants were instructed to imagine themselves in the role of a gift recipient. Participants assigned to the \"post-agreement\" condition imagined that after they had agreed to a friend's request for help. Participants assigned to the \"post-help\" condition imagined that they first agreed to a friend's request and then received a gift from the friend after successfully providing the help. Following the scenario, participants responded to the same dependent measures as in Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the dependent variables between the two conditions (post-agreement vs. post-help, see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to accept\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated no significant difference between the \"post-agreement\" condition and the \"post-help\" condition, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(160) = -1.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.062, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.02], Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.08.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHappiness.\u003c/b\u003e There was no significant difference between the \"post-agreement\" condition and the \"post-help\" condition, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(160) = -1.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.066, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.02], Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.002.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEvaluation of the gift-giver.\u003c/b\u003e The results indicated no significant difference between the \"post-agreement\" condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.77, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80) and the \"post-help\" condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.10, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(131) = -2.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.529, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.07], Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 3 found no significant differences in recipients' attitudes, regardless of whether the gift was received post-agreement to help but before acting, or after the help was completed. These findings suggest that as long as the request for help precedes the act of gift-giving, recipients' attitudes are generally positive. Even when the helpful act has not yet been rendered, recipients remain willing to accept this 'thank-you-in-advance' gift and maintain a positive evaluation of the giver. This result allows us to effectively rule out the influence of anticipated regret as an alternative explanation for recipients' attitudes in this context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Study 4: Ruling out the alternative explanation of social desirability","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn addition to anticipated regret, the presence of social desirability means the negative attitude displayed by recipients (i.e., the helpers) in the pre-help gift condition may stems from the social expectation that one \"should not help merely for the sake of receiving a gift.\" Therefore, in Study 4, we introduced a third level to the \"role\": the observer. Incorporating a third-party perspective is a effective method to test social desirability bias [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Observers did not directly participate in the process of requesting help or giving a gift but witnessed the entire event. Although observers were present, neither the request for help nor the act of gift-giving involved their personal interests, thus their actions were not constrained by any particular social expectations. Thus, if givers' predictions of recipients' reactions are still more positive than those of observers, the alternative explanation of social desirability can be ruled out.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a total sample size of at least 211 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (f\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) at an alpha level of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05. We recruited a total of 317 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 283 individuals (127 male, 156 female; age range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18\u0026ndash;45 years, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.04, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.17). The study employed a 2 (gift timing pre-help gift vs. post-help gift) \u0026times; 3 (role: gift-giver vs. recipient vs. observer) between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we designed a scenario involving a request for help and gift-giving with three roles. The basic research design was similar to the studies above, with the difference being that during the process of the gift-giver presenting the gift to the recipient, an observer witnessed the entire event. Observers were asked to predict how the gift-giver and recipient would perceive the different gift-giving behaviors from their own perspective and to report how they thought the recipient would feel. The specific experimental procedure was similar to that of Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Study 4 and Study 5, to simplify the data analysis process, we continued to standardize and then average the scores for willingness to accept, recipient's happiness, and evaluation of the giver, combining them into a single dependent variable named \"Overall Rating\". A two-way ANOVA was then used to test the effect of gift timing and role. We report only the results for \"Overall Rating\" in the main text; the results for willingness to accept, happiness, and evaluation of the giver are presented in the supplementary materials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis yielded a significant effect of gift timing (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 277)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;235.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.459), with the post-help condition predicting higher overall rating than the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.52, SD \u003csub\u003ePost\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.46 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = -0.50, SD \u003csub\u003ePre\u0026minus;help\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.48). A significant effect of role was also observed (F(1, 277)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.271), with givers' overall rating (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.48, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.06) being higher than recipients' actual happiness (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = -0.26, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.06) and observer\u0026rsquo;s overall rating(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = -0.21, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.06).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant interaction between gift timing and role was observed (F(1, 277)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.56, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.016). A simple effects analysis further showed that in the pre-help condition, givers overestimated recipients' overall rating, with givers' predicted overall rating being higher than recipients' actual overall rating (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.50, SD \u003csub\u003eGiver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.09 vs. \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = -1.12, SD \u003csub\u003eRecipient\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.08, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Notably, givers also overestimated observer\u0026rsquo;s overall rating, with givers' predicted overall rating being higher than observer' actual overall rating (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003eObserver\u003c/sub\u003e = -0.89, SD \u003csub\u003eObserver\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.08, p \u0026lt; 0.001). In other condition, givers did not show a predictive bias(see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy introducing the observer role, Study 4 ruled out the alternative explanation of social desirability that may have been present in the previous studies. In the post-help gift condition, all parties viewed this gift with a high degree of positivity. In the pre-help gift condition, more importantly, the observer's overall rating was consistent with the recipient's ,which was lower than givers\u0026rsquo; prediction. This indicates that the recipient's unwillingness to accept the gift is not due to social expectations but is a genuine resistance to the act of pre-help gifting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"8. Study 5: The Consequences of the Giver-Recipient Asymmetry in Pre-help Gifting","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of Studies 1 to 4 revealed the giver-recipient asymmetry concerning pre-help gifts and explained its cause: the pre-help gift makes recipients feel that the gift compels them to provide help. According to reactance theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], individuals constantly strive to maintain control over their own actions. If they feel their freedom of choice is infringed upon or challenged, they will inevitably exhibit reactance and resistance. In a help-seeking context, if potential helpers feel coerced into offering assistance, even without direct evidence, they may reduce the level of help or even refuse to help altogether [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Study 5 will examine the downstream consequences of gift-giving at different gift timing, specifically how pre-help and post-help gifts respectively affect future gift acceptance and helping behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e8.1 Method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a total sample of at least 128 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) at α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05. We recruited a total of 174 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 151 individuals (83 male, 68 female; age range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19\u0026ndash;37 years, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.84, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.43). The study employed a single-factor, two-level (gift-giving: pre-help vs. post-help) between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, all participants played the role of the recipient to investigate how different gift timing affect the recipient's immediate feelings and future behavior. Participants assigned to the pre-help gift condition read a scenario in which they imagined receiving a gift from a friend, and a few days later, this friend asked them for help. In the post-help gift condition, participants first agreed to their friend's request for help and, after providing the help, received a gift from the friend. Participants first answered the same questions as in Study 1. Subsequently, they were asked to respond about their willingness to accept a gift from this friend again in the future and the likelihood of helping them again.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e8.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the overall rating, willingness to accept again and willingness to help again for the two levels of gift timing(pre-help vs. post-help). We standardized the items for \"willingness to accept again\" and \"willingness to help again\".\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall rating\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated recipients' overall rating in the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -0.72, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.43) was significantly lower than in the post-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(149) = -19.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.47, 95% CI = [-3.57, -2.62].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to accept again\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated recipients' willingness to accept again in the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -0.75, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63) was significantly lower than in the post-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.78, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(149) = -14.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.65, 95% CI = [-2.76, -1.93].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to help again\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated recipients' willingness to help again in the pre-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -0.77, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.60) was significantly lower than in the post-help condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.65), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(149) = -15.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61, 95% CI = [-3.02, -2.15].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, using a method similar to that in Study 4, willingness to accept again and willingness to help again\u0026mdash;were averaged to create a composite score named \"Consequence\". A mediation analysis was conducted using 5,000 bootstrap samples, with gift timing as the independent variable, immediate consequences as the mediator, and consequences as the dependent variable. The 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect was [0.06, 0.64], indicating a significant mediation effect. The overall rating resulting from the different gift timing led to corresponding consequences(see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e8.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 5 compared recipients' overall rating and future expectations in the pre-help versus post-help gift conditions. In the pre-help gift condition, the recipient's overall rating were all lower than in the post-help gift condition. Moreover, recipients also showed a more negative attitude toward potential future gift and requests for help. In Study 6, we will explore whether there are appropriate methods for pre-help gift-giving.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"9. Study 6: Mitigating the Negative Effects of Pre-Help Gifting: Explicitly stating the help-seeking intention","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudies 1\u0026ndash;5 identified the giver-recipient asymmetry regarding pre-help gifts in help-seeking. This asymmetry leads to a highly negative evaluation by the recipient and even affects their subsequent social interaction. Sincerity is an important emotional cue that can shift an individual's behavior in a more positive and proactive direction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Study 6 tests H4, which posits that sincerely stating one's intention to seek help when giving a pre-help gift can win the recipient's favor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e9.1 Method\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants and design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA power analysis using G*Power 3.1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] indicated that a total sample of at least 128 participants was needed to achieve 80% statistical power to detect a medium effect (d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) at α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05. We recruited a total of 160 participants. After removing participants who failed an attention check, the final sample consisted of 144 individuals (81 male, 63 female; age range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18\u0026ndash;44 years, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.92, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.37). The study employed a single-factor, two-level (gift intention: explicit vs. ambiguous) between-subjects design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and procedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, all participants played the role of the recipient, imagining a friend asking for their help. In the \u003cb\u003eexplicit\u003c/b\u003e group, the friend explained their intention while giving the gift before asking for help, stating that they were seeking assistance. In the \u003cb\u003eambiguous\u003c/b\u003e group, the friend gave the gift without expressing that they might seek help in the future. Participants were required to answer the following questions: \"How sincere do you think the giver was when giving the gift?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very insincere, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very sincere), \"How do you feel right now?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very unhappy, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very happy), \"What is your evaluation of the giver?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very poor, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very good), and \"How willing are you to grant the giver's request?\" (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very unwilling, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very willing).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e9.2 Results and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent samples t-tests were conducted for the two levels of the factor (intention: explicit vs. ambiguous).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSincerity\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated sincerity in the explicit condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.90, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.25) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.12, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.07), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(142)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.17, 95% CI = [3.45, 4.59].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHappiness\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated happiness in the explicit condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.82, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.56) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.42, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.03), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(142)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.36, 95% CI = [1.39, 2.16].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEvaluation of the giver\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated evaluation of the giver in the explicit condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.57, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.46) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.91, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.13), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(142)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.50, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.32, 95% CI = [0.89, 1.61].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWillingness to help\u003c/b\u003e. The results indicated willingness to help in the explicit condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.79, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.50) was significantly higher than in the ambiguous condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.11, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.06), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(142)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen's \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.32, 95% CI = [0.92, 1.64] (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e9.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy manipulating the sincerity of the giver's intention for seeking help during a pre-help gift, Study 6 indicate that compared to a pre-help gift-giver who only gives a gift without mentioning the reason, a pre-help gift-giver who explicitly states the intention to ask for help is perceived more positively by the recipient. Furthermore, the recipient is more willing to offer help later. The findings of Study 6 provide givers with a method for pre-help gift-giving that is more satisfactory to the recipient and has a higher rate of success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"10. General Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcross six studies, we reveal a giver- recipient asymmetry in help-seeking contexts. Givers believe that giving a gift before asking for help is an effective way to cultivate rapport and gain the recipient's favor, but the outcome is contrary to their expectations. Studies 1a and 1b, using different forms of gifts respectively, validated the asymmetry in pre-help gifting, that givers overestimated the recipient's willingness to accept the gift, their happiness upon gifts, and their positive evaluation of the giver. Study 2 explored the psychological mechanism, finding that this bias is driven by the recipient's perceived coercion, a feeling that givers underestimate. To corroborate this conclusion, Studies 3 and 4 ruled out the roles of anticipated regret and social desirability. Study 5 further investigated the downstream consequences of asymmetry, examining whether the asymmetry affects future interactions. The results showed that pre-help gift significantly reduced the recipient's willingness to accept future gifts or provide help again. Finally, Study 6 attempted to find a more suitable approach for pre-help gifting, with results indicating that explicitly stating the purpose of the gift can mitigate the recipient's negative emotions and unfavorable evaluations of the giver in a pre-help gifting context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e10.1 Theoretical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMisprediction has long been a topic of interest in psychology. Our research focuses on the misprediction in gift-giving in help-seeking contexts. By simultaneously considering the timing within the help-seeking context and the psychological processes of givers and recipients, our findings enrich the theoretical literature on misprediction. In such situations, help-seekers and potential helpers differ in their willingness to seek or provide help [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, in the process of giving a gift, givers also often make significant misjudgments regarding gift form, delivery method, and so on [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research places emphasis on the role of timing in gift-giving, echoing recent studies on \"when to give.\" The research by Givi and Galak was among the first to address this issue [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Subsequently, Haltman found that when giving occasion-based gifts, givers tend to overestimate the negative impact of a late gift [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Our research extends their conclusions. Specifically, we find that when seeking help, the gift timing is also crucial. When giving a gift beforehand, givers systematically overestimate the recipient's evaluation of the gift and of the givers themselves. This bias stems from the givers' failure to recognize the sense of coercion perceived by the recipient, whereas explicitly stating one's intention can mitigate the recipient's negative evaluation. This conclusion also provides new evidence for the theory of psychological reactance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e10.2 Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings offer some practical advice for interpersonal interactions. Given that Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis, pre-help gifting can lead to negative experiences and consequences for the recipient, givers should use this strategy with caution. If giving a gift beforehand is deemed necessary, it is advisable to state the help-seeking intention explicitly to alleviate the recipient's resistance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, this research provides valuable insights for marketing. Marketers can design promotional content that emphasizes the positive effects of expressing gratitude with a gift after the fact, guiding consumers to focus on the benefits of post-help gifting and thus avoiding a diminished consumer experience due to misjudgment. For example, for business gifts, the emphasis could be on their role as an exclusive token of appreciation after a project is completed. Brands can also help consumers clarify their intentions with pre-help gifts\u0026mdash;for instance, by using copy such as, \"This gift is to thank you in advance for your help, and we look forward to a long-term partnership\"\u0026mdash;thereby enhancing the consumer experience for both the giver and the recipient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e10.3 Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current research still has some shortcomings.. First, our research primarily relied on participants' self-reports and did not measure actual helping behavior, which may limit the external validity of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, considering the complexity of interpersonal relationships, other factors such as power dynamics could also influence the choice of gift timing when seeking help. For example, when a subordinate seeks help from a superior, a pre-help gift might align with both parties' expectations, a scenario not considered in current research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, help-seeking and gift-giving are heavily influenced by social norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Given that social norms vary across cultures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e], the stability of this asymmetry needs to be tested in other cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, although six studies confirmed the existence of the asymmetry in pre-help gift-giving, a reverse asymmetry for post-help gifting appeared in Study 1, which is not consistent with the other five studies. This may suggest that givers, under certain circumstances, underestimate the positive impact of post-help gifts, a possibility that warrants further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"11. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOverall, the current research revealed a significant giver-recipient asymmetry in the context of pre-help gifting, and clarified the psychological mechanisms behind givers' mispredictions when offering a gift before making a request.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, the research demonstrated that gift-givers systematically overestimate the positive effects of pre-help gifting, believing recipients would evaluate the gift and the giver more favorably than they actually did. Second, perceived coercion plays a mediating role in this asymmetry. Specifically, this misprediction arises because givers underestimate the degree to which recipients feel their autonomy is threatened by the pre-help gift, leading them to overlook the potential for a negative reaction. Third, the research identified the downstream consequences of this bias, showing that pre-help gifting reduces recipients' willingness to help in the future, but also proposed a practical intervention: explicitly stating one's help-seeking intention can mitigate these negative effects.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eSupplementary Information\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary materials are available on https://osf.io/v7qe3/?view_only=00901cea563f4ff4a9dca3498c7b2f90.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han and Xuchun Liu; Data Curation: Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han and Xuchun Liu; Formal analysis: Xuchun Liu, Shuyao Han, and XiaoKe Xie; Methodology: Shuyao Han, Xuchun Liu and Keyan Zhu; Original draft: Shuyao Han, Xuchun Liu and Xiaoke xie; Review and editing: Xiaoming Wang, Shuyao Han, Xiaoke Xie;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study is funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (24BSH093).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Permission was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of School of Psychology,\u0026nbsp;Qufu Normal University (No. 2025127). Participants provided informed consent after being fully informed about the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, procedures, and potential risks and benefits. All responses were collected anonymously and kept strictly confidential. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. The study was designed to minimize any potential psychological discomfort, and collected data were used solely for research purposes and stored securely.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteidlmeier P. Gift giving, bribery and corruption: ethical management of business relationships in China. J Bus Ethics. 1999:121\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRegan DT. Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1971;7:627\u0026ndash;39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90025-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosenberg B, Siegel J. Psychological reactance theory: an introduction and overview. Motiv Sci. 2025;11:133\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000376.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonnelly GE, Wilson AV, Whillans AV, Norton MI. Communicating resource scarcity and interpersonal connection. J Consum Psychol. 2021;31:726\u0026ndash;45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeinan A, Bellezza S, Paharia N. The symbolic value of time. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;26:58\u0026ndash;61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.05.001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee-Yoon A, Donnelly GE, Whillans AV. Overcoming resource scarcity: consumers\u0026rsquo; response to gifts intending to save time and money. J Assoc Consum Res. 2020;5:391\u0026ndash;403. https://doi.org/10.1086/709887.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhillans AV, Yoon J, Turek A, Donnelly G. Extension request avoidance predicts greater time stress among women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U A. 2021;118:2224\u0026ndash;2224.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhillans AV, Yoon J, Donnelly G. People overestimate the self-presentation costs of deadline extension requests. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2022;98:104253\u0026ndash;104253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreling RE, Moore Koskie M, Freling TH, Moulard JG, Crosno JL. Exploring gift gaps: a meta-analysis of giver\u0026ndash;recipient asymmetries. Psychol Mark. 2024;41:1318\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21981.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGivi J, Galak J. Gift recipients\u0026rsquo; beliefs about occasion‐based and nonoccasion‐based gifts: the importance of signaling care and meeting expectations in gift giving. J Consum Psychol. 2022;32:445\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBohns VK, Flynn FJ. Why didn\u0026rsquo;t you just ask? Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46:402\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChou SY, Stauffer JM. A theoretical classification of helping behavior and helping motives. Pers Rev. 2016;45:871\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2015-0076.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591\u0026ndash;621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao X, Epley N. Surprisingly happy to have helped: underestimating prosociality creates a misplaced barrier to asking for help. Psychol Sci. 2022;33:1708\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodwin C, Smith KL, Spiggle S. Gift giving: consumer motivation and the gift purchase process. Adv Consum Res. 1990;17:690\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfinbarger MEF. The gift of the magi: situational and individual effects on gift symbolism. University of California, 1990.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKupor D, Flynn F, Norton MI. Half a gift is not half-hearted: a giver\u0026ndash;receiver asymmetry in the thoughtfulness of partial gifts. Soc Psychol Bull. 2017;43:1686\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeigen KH, Olsen MVG, Sol\u0026aring;s OE. Giver\u0026ndash;receiver asymmetries in gift preferences. Br J Soc Psychol. 2005;44:125\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X23428.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaltman C, Herziger A, Donnelly GE, Reczek RW. Better late than never? Gift givers overestimate the relationship harm from giving late gifts. J Consum Psychol. 2024:jcpy.1446. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1446.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo B, Fang W, Shen J, Cong XF. Gift\u0026ndash;image congruence and gift appreciation in romantic relationships: the roles of intimacy and relationship dependence. J Bus Res. 2019;103:142\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWard MK, Broniarczyk SM. Ask and you shall (not) receive: close friends prioritize relational signaling over recipient preferences in their gift choices. J Mark Res. 2016;53:1001\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGivi J, Birg L, Lowrey TM, Galak J. An integrative review of gift-giving research in consumer behavior and marketing. J Consum Psychol. 2023;33:529\u0026ndash;45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1318.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeetz J, Howard AL. People prefer to diversify across different types of prosocial behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol. 2022;61:924\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuth JA, Otnes CC, Brunel FF. Gift receipt and the reformulation of interpersonal relationships. J Consum Res. 1999;25:385\u0026ndash;402.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunn EW, Aknin LB, Norton MI. Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science. 2008;319:1687\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalak J, Givi J, Williams EF. Why certain gifts are great to give but not to get: a framework for understanding errors in gift giving. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016;25:380\u0026ndash;5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416656937.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrehm JW, Cole AH. Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. J Soc Psychol. 1966;3:420\u0026ndash;420.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFransen ML, Smit EG, Verlegh PW. Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1201\u0026ndash;1201.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan B, Li Z, Cheng H, Wang Z. Teach me fishing or give me the fish: differential effects of receiving autonomous and dependent help on task performance. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2022;20:647\u0026ndash;647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010647.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49:182\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125:627\u0026ndash;627.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan de Ven J. The demand for social approval and status as a motivation to give. J Inst Theor Econ. 2002;158:464\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGivi J, Mu Y. A meta-analysis of giver\u0026ndash;recipient asymmetries in gift giving. J Consum Psychol. 2023;33:45\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlynn FJ, Adams GS. Money can\u0026rsquo;t buy love: asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009;45:404\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGivi J, Galak J. Sentimental value and gift giving: givers\u0026rsquo; fears of getting it wrong prevents them from getting it right. J Consum Psychol. 2017;27:473\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodman JK, Lim S. When consumers prefer to give material gifts instead of experiences: the role of social distance. J Consum Res. 2018;45:365\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang AX, Koo M, Hwang J. Remember me, will you?: overusing material gifts for interpersonal memory management. J Consum Psychol. 2022;32:615\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Lange PA. Being better but not smarter than others: the muhammad ali effect at work in interpersonal situations. Soc Psychol Bull. 1991;17:689\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J. 1990;100:464\u0026ndash;464. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZiano I, Villanova D. More useful to you: believing that others find the same objects more useful. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2023;106:104460\u0026ndash;104460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104460.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson CJ. The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:139\u0026ndash;67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman G, Albarrac\u0026iacute;n D. Norm theory and the action-effect: the role of social norms in regret following action and inaction. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;69:111\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZerbe WJ, Paulhus DL. Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: a reconception. Acad Manag Rev. 1987;12:250\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbele AE, Ellemers N, Fiske ST, Koch A, Yzerbyt V. Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychol Rev. 2021;128:290\u0026ndash;314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChin S, Wang T, Ho C. Gifts that give twice are not twice as nice: consumers avoid socially responsible gifts for picky recipients. Psychol Mark. 2024;41:2070\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22027.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWickham RE. Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49:878\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaldfogel J. The deadweight loss of christmas. Am Econ Rev. 1993;83:1328\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGivi J, Kirk CP. Saying no: the negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think. J Soc Psychol. 2024;126:1103\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000443.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShang X, Chen Z, Lu J. Will I be judged harshly after trying to help but causing more troubles? A misprediction about help recipients. Acta Psychol Sin. 2021;53:291\u0026ndash;291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu J, Fang Q, Qiu T. Rejecters overestimate the negative consequences they will face from refusal. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2023;29:280\u0026ndash;91. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000457.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSavitsky K, Epley N, Gilovich T. Do others judge us as harshly as we think? Overestimating the impact of our failures, shortcomings, and mishaps. J Soc Psychol. 2001;81:44\u0026ndash;56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChatelain G, Hille SL, Sander D, Patel M, Hahnel UJJ, Brosch T. Feel good, stay green: positive affect promotes pro-environmental behaviors and mitigates compensatory mental bookkeeping effects. J Env Psychol. 2018;56:3\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewark DA, Bohns VK, Flynn FJ. A helping hand is hard at work: help-seekers\u0026rsquo; underestimation of helpers\u0026rsquo; effort. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2017;139:18\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaskin E, Wakslak CJ, Trope Y, Novemsky N. Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: a construal-level approach to gift giving. J Consum Res. 2014;41:169\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCavanaugh LA, Gino F, Fitzsimons GJ. When doing good is bad in gift giving: mis-predicting appreciation of socially responsible gifts. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2015;131:178\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchumpe B, Leander N. Rebels for a reason: how psychological reactance is goal-directed. Motiv Sci. 2025;11:213\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000364.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmerson RM. Power-dependence relations. Power Mod. Soc., London: Routledge; 2019, p. 48\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShen H, Wan F, Wyer RS Jr. Cross-cultural differences in the refusal to accept a small gift: the differential influence of reciprocity norms on asians and north americans. J Soc Psychol. 2011;100:271\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021201.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Help-seeking, Gift giving, Misprediction, Giver-recipient asymmetry","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeople often underestimate others' willingness to provide help and may therefore offer a gift before making a request to build rapport and pave the way for their appeal. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is unclear, as givers may mispredict how such a gift is perceived.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePurpose\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present research aimed to investigate whether a giver-recipient asymmetry exists in the context of help-seeking, whereby gift-givers overestimate the positive impact of gifting before (vs. after) a request is fulfilled. We also sought to identify the underlying psychological mechanism and downstream consequences of this potential bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix studies were conducted. Studies 1a and 1b test the giver-recipient asymmetry using different scenarios with tea and cash gifts. Study 2 test whether givers' overestimation is due to their underestimation of the perceived coercion on the part of the recipient. Studies 3 and 4 systematically ruled out alternative explanations of anticipated regret and social desirability. Study 5 examined the downstream consequences of pre-help gifting on future interactions. Finally, Study 6 explored a practical intervention to mitigate the negative effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrated that: (1) Gift-givers systematically overestimated the positive effects of pre-help gifting, believing recipients would evaluate the gift and the giver more favorably than they actually did. (2) This misprediction was mediated by perceived coercion; givers underestimated the degree to which recipients felt their autonomy was threatened by the pre-help gift. (3) Experiencing a pre-help gift (vs. a post-help gift) reduced recipients' willingness to help the same person in the future. (4) Explicitly stating the help-seeking intention when giving the gift mitigated these negative effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research identifies a novel giver-recipient asymmetry error in gift-giving, extending the literature on giver-recipient asymmetries and psychological reactance. The findings offer practical guidance, suggesting that while pre-help gifting can be a counterproductive strategy, its negative impact can be alleviated by transparently communicating one's intentions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Clutching Buddha's feet in crisis: Gift Givers overestimate the Benefits of Pre‑help Gifting when Help‑Seeking","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-11 22:05:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-31T09:46:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-08T06:57:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T08:47:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T08:47:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-10-01T15:30:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4b926f6a-f3be-43a8-bc37-75f8407a25d8","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-11T22:05:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-11 22:05:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7760964","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7760964","identity":"rs-7760964","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}