The way people express emotions while helping others can have a profound impact on whether their assistance is welcomed, resented, or reciprocated, according to new research from Washington State University’s Carson College of Business. In essence, it’s not just about the act of helping, but also how we help that shapes our relationships and the likelihood of getting help in return.

A study led by Stephen Lee, assistant professor of management, found that helpers who express emotions like gratitude and sympathy are more likely to be seen as having genuine motives and foster trust and future collaboration. On the other hand, when helpers display pride or contempt, their motives are often questioned, weakening relationships and reducing the likelihood of reciprocation.

In the workplace, we often encourage helping behaviors without considering how they might be perceived differently by others. However, this research suggests that recipients actively interpret emotional cues when deciding whether to trust and reciprocate help. It’s not just about whether you help, but also the emotions you express that shape how people respond.

The study’s findings are based on three studies involving working adults and student participants. Across all the studies, socially engaging emotions consistently led to perceptions of prosocial motives, stronger relationships, and greater willingness to reciprocate.

For leaders and managers, this research highlights the role of emotional expressions in shaping a culture of collaboration. Rather than encouraging helping behavior for its own sake, Lee recommends fostering a workplace environment where employees feel genuine gratitude for their colleagues and develop a natural sense of sympathy for others’ challenges.

Helping that stems from gratitude or concern for others is more likely to create positive, lasting relationships. When we express genuine emotions like gratitude and sympathy, we’re not just benefiting ourselves; we’re strengthening our workplace relationships and building a more resilient culture of collaboration.

The article “Personalizing Bipolar Disorder Treatment: Unlocking the Potential of Personality Tests” reveals a groundbreaking study that suggests personality tests might help tailor care for people with bipolar disorder. Researchers from the University of Michigan’s Heinz C. Prechter Bipolar Research Program analyzed data from over 2,500 individuals with bipolar disorder who took part in two long-term studies. They identified certain combinations of personality traits, or styles, which could raise or lower a person’s risk of repeated depressive episodes and poor functioning in everyday life.

The study found that some personality styles were associated with higher risk for depression, while others were protective against it. Notably, all the styles involving high scores on neuroticism (prone to emotional instability and negative thinking) raised the risk of depression. Conversely, styles with low levels of neuroticism appeared to be protective.

The researchers also discovered that other personality traits not related to neuroticism could influence a person’s risk for frequent depressive episodes. This was similarly observed in predicting poor life functioning, where low levels of neuroticism were particularly beneficial.

In the second part of the study, which used data from over 2,000 individuals with bipolar disorder participating in the STEP-BD trial, two-thirds of the personality styles that predicted higher risk for depression and nine out of sixteen styles associated with protection were replicated. This replication strengthened the researchers’ confidence in their model.

Lead author Kelly Ryan notes that it’s not just individual personality traits but rather the interaction between them and the balance between protective and risk-increasing ones that appear to matter most. This knowledge can be used clinically to help individuals with bipolar disorder have fewer depressive episodes and higher life functioning.
The study highlights the potential for personalized treatment planning in bipolar disorder, where clinicians could take into account an individual’s personality traits when making decisions about their care. Patients themselves could also use these insights to better understand their experiences and work with clinicians to modify traits that might raise their long-term risk of depression and poor life management.

This is particularly significant given the growing recognition that personality traits can change over time through therapy or coaching, as exemplified by someone who scores low on the “openness” trait being guided therapeutically to seek out new experiences.