Third parties intervene in others' behaviors in various ways, such as punishing a harmdoer and/or helping a victim. Moreover, third parties may reward generous altruists. As such, various types of third-party intervention strategies are conceivable. Nevertheless, researchers have disproportionately focused on third-party punishment. In the present study, 87 undergraduate students were exposed to unfair, fair, and generous allocators and their recipients, and were allowed to punish, help, and/or reward the players. The results indicated that participants were more likely to punish unfair allocators than fair allocators
more likely to help recipients of unfair allocators than those of fair allocators
and more likely to reward generous allocators than fair allocators. Examinations of intraindividual associations of these strategies revealed that 2 prosocial strategies (third-party help and third-party reward) were strongly tied to each other (i.e., participants who helped victims of unfair allocators were more likely to reward generous allocators). However, third-party punishment was not significantly associated with the other 2 strategies. The emotional correlates of the 3 intervention strategies were also investigated. Third-party punishment was correlated with moral outrage and reduced empathic concern for unfair allocators. Third-party help was correlated with empathic concern for the victim. Third-party reward was correlated with empathic concern for generous allocators.