Abstract
Abundant literature shows the effects of negative emotions on motivations to engage in collective action (i.e., to collectively mobilize personal resources to achieve a common objective), as well as their influence on the creation of shared identities. In this proposal, we focus on the possible role of Self-Transcendent Emotions (STEs) defined as positive-valence emotions that have been key in the creation and maintenance of collective identities, as well as in promoting individuals well-being. In detail, we examine their influence in (a) strengthening a global identification, (b) increasing willingness to collectively help others, and (c) improving people’s wellbeing. For this reason, we conducted a preliminary literature review of k = 65 independent studies on the effects of STEs on connection to others. Through this review (fully available in Supplementary Materials), we selected a sample of STEs (Awe, Elevation, and Kama Muta) and elicitors to conduct a video-base study. In it, 1,064 university students from 3 different cultural regions (from Spain and Ecuador) were randomized to answer one of three STE scales (i.e., each measuring one of the selected STEs), and evaluate three videos in random order (i.e., each prototypical for the selected STEs). Participants also answered a measure of global identification and intentions to collectively help others (after each video), as well as self-transcendent and well-being (at the end of the survey). Results from SEM analyses show these STEs motivated a fusion of identity with all humanity, as well as collective intentions to help others, even controlling for individuals’ value orientations. In addition, the three of them indirectly increased participants’ well-being through a higher global identity. While there are differences among them, these three STEs share common elements and their effects are constant across the different cultural regions. It is concluded that Awe, Elevation, and Kama Muta, even individually experienced, have a significant potential to influence people’s behavior. Specifically, in various forms of collective action aimed at helping others.
Highlights
Why do some people engage in prosocial behaviors toward strangers? Why would I feel motivated to participate and help others? Questions like these have deeply intrigued thinkers of social behavior, and the topic of helping others, especially nonkin, has been considered an “altruism puzzle”; when trying to explain the factors that have influenced these behaviors to evolve (e.g., Hamilton, 1964; Fehr and Fischbacher, 2003; Van Vugt and Van Lange, 2006; Jensen et al, 2014)
In each condition, participants watched three videos aimed at eliciting Awe, Elevation and Kama Muta, based on a prototypical stimulus, and, after watching each one, they completed the scale assigned to their condition
With each CFA, adequate goodness-of-fit indexes were found for Awe (X2(73) = 190.88, CFI = 0.962, RMSEA = 0.067, 95% CI [0.058, 0.067]), Elevation (X2(145) = 395.85, CFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.071, 95% CI [0.064, 0.078]), and Kama Muta (X2(222) = 551.48, CFI = 0.927, RMSEA = 0.064, 95% CI [0.058, 0.069])
Summary
Why do some people engage in prosocial behaviors toward strangers? Why would I feel motivated to participate and help others? Questions like these have deeply intrigued thinkers of social behavior, and the topic of helping others, especially nonkin, has been considered an “altruism puzzle”; when trying to explain the factors that have influenced these behaviors to evolve (e.g., Hamilton, 1964; Fehr and Fischbacher, 2003; Van Vugt and Van Lange, 2006; Jensen et al, 2014). From a perspective centered on collective behaviors, prosociality toward others (i.e., to mobilize personal resources to help non-ingroup members such as the underprivileged, social minorities, etc.) has been largely studied under the form of different forms of collective action (i.e., collectively behave with a common objective). For this reason, there is currently a great amount of theoretical and empirical works oriented at analyzing its antecedents, processes, and consequences (Klandermans and Roggeband, 2010). They have been usually addressed as possible mediators or mechanisms that arise in collective participation (Jasper, 1998; van Troost et al, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
