Kind, Nice, and Caring, Oh My! Investigating Differences in How Individuals Interpret Prosocial Language

Abstract Although prosocial behaviors benefit both actors and recipients, individuals report engaging in these behaviors less frequently than they would like. One potential barrier is that individuals may perceive common prosocial terms, such as kind , nice , and caring , differently. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, differing interpretations may influence willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors. This study addresses two questions: (1) are there differences in how individuals perceive the terms kind , nice , and caring , and (2) what contextual characteristics lead individuals to characterize behaviors as kind , nice , or caring versus not kind , nice , nor caring ? Participants ( N = 736) were presented with seven vignettes depicting prosocial behavior that varied on contextual dimensions associated with perceptions of prosociality (e.g., warmth, cost, anonymity). Participants rated each vignette on whether the person performing the behavior was kind , nice , and caring. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed no significant differences in perceptions of kind and nice , while individuals had a higher threshold for labeling behaviors as caring. Regression analyses revealed that across all three terms, behaviors characterized as higher in warmth and planning and lower in expected obligation were rated as more prosocial. Higher cost behaviors were perceived as nicer and more caring, while behaviors directed toward known recipients were rated as more caring. These findings suggest that although kind , nice , and caring are perceived similarly, there are varying situational differences that may assist with promoting prosocial behavior through using terms that align with the expectations of prosocial programs and interventions.