Helping behaviors are often driven by emotional reactions to the suffering of particular individuals, but these behaviors do not seem to be upregulated when many people need help. In this article, we consider if these reactions are also “innumerate” to information about how charities spend their money. Across six experiments, we examined how images of identified victims interact with information about charity efficiency (money toward program) and effectiveness (program outcome). We further examined if the images primarily get people to donate (yes/no), while efficiency/effectiveness might provide a tuning mechanism for how much to give. Results showed that images influenced the propensity to donate and induced participants donate their full bonuses, indicating heuristic effects. Efficiency and effectiveness information had no effects on donations.
BatsonC. D.DuncanB. D.AckermanP.BuckleyT.BirchK. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290–302. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290
2.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973. doi:10.1177/0899764010380927
3.
BermanJ. Z.BaraschA.LevineE. E.SmallD. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29, 834–844. doi:10.1177/0956797617747648
4.
BloomP. (2016). Against empathy. Harper Collins.
5.
BowmanW. (2006). Should donors care about overhead costs? Do they care?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 288–310. doi:10.1177/0899764006287219
6.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A. C.SavulescuJ.KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 303–316.
7.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
8.
CialdiniR. B.GriskeviciusV. (2010). Social influence. In BaumeisterR.FinkelE. (Eds.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 385–417). Oxford University Press.
9.
CryderC. E.LoewensteinG.ScheinesR. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.002
10.
CryderC. E.LoewensteinG.SeltmanH. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1078–1083. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.003
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
13.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
14.
DovidioJ. F.AllenJ. L.SchroederD. A. (1990). Specificity of empathy-induced helping: Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.249
15.
DovidioJ. F.PilliavinJ. A.SchroederD. A.PennerL. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
DurkinS.BrennanE.WakefieldM. (2012). Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: An integrative review. Tobacco Control, 21, 127–138. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050345
17.
ErlandssonA.BjörklundF.BäckströmM. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003
FarrellyM. C.DukeJ. C.DavisK. C.NonnemakerJ. M.KamyabK.WillettJ. G.JusterH. R. (2012). Promotion of smoking cessation with emotional and/or graphic antismoking advertising. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, 475–482. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.023
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. doi:10.1111/spc3.12267
24.
GordonT. P.KnockC. L.NeelyD. G. (2009). The role of rating agencies in the market for charitable contributions: An empirical test. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28, 469–484. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.08.001
25.
HseeC. K.LoewensteinG. F.BlountS.BazermanM. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576–590. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576
KarlanD.WoodD. H. (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.05.005
28.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167. doi:10.1002/bdm.492
29.
LeeD. S. (2009). Training, wages, and sample selection: Estimating sharp bounds on treatment effects. The Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1071–1102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00536.x
30.
LeeS.FeeleyT. H. (2016). The identifiable victim effect: A meta-analytic review. Social Influence, 11, 199–215. doi:10.1080/15534510.2016.1216891
31.
LesnerT. H.RasmussenO. D. (2014). The identifiable victim effect in charitable giving: evidence from a natural field experiment. Applied Economics, 46, 4409–4430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.962226
32.
LevinT.LevittS.ListJ. (2016). A glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Working paper, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
ParsonsL. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures on contributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 179–196. doi:10.2308/bria.2007.19.1.179
PrestonS. D.de WaalF. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018
37.
RandD. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow. Psychological Science, 27, 1192–1206. doi:10.1177/0956797616654455
38.
RandD. G.GreeneJ. D.NowakM. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430. doi:10.1038/nature11467
39.
SibickyM. E.SchroederD. A.DovidioJ. F. (1995). Empathy and helping: Considering the consequences of intervention. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 435–453. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1604_3
40.
SingerP. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. Yale University Press.
41.
SingerT.KlimeckiO. M. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology, 24, R875–R878. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054
42.
SlovicP. (2010). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. In RoeserS. (Ed.), Emotions and risky technologies (Vol. 5, pp. 37–59). Springer.
43.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
44.
SlovicP.VästfjällD.ErlandssonA.GregoryR. (2017). Iconic photographs and the ebb and flow of empathic response to humanitarian disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 640–644. doi:10.1073/pnas.1613977114
45.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG.SlovicP. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005
46.
SteinbergR. (1986). Should donors care about fundraising? In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 347–366). Oxford University Press.
47.
SteinbergR.MorrisD. (2010). Ratio discrimination in charity fundraising: The inappropriate use of cost ratios has harmful side-effects. Voluntary Sector Review, 1, 77–95. doi:10.1332/204080510X497028
48.
TebbensR. J. D.PallanschM. A.CochiS. L.WassilakS. G. F.LinkinsJ.SutterR. W.…ThompsonK. M. (2010). Economic analysis of the global polio eradication initiative. Vaccine, 29, 334–343. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.10.026
49.
TinghögG.AnderssonD.BonnC.BöttigerH.JosephsonC.LundgrenG.…JohannessonM. (2013). Intuition and cooperation reconsidered. Nature, 498, E1–E2. doi:10.1038/nature12194
50.
YörükB. K. (2016). Charity ratings. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 25, 195–219. doi:10.1111/jems.12139
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
