Despite widespread conviction that neediness should be a top priority for charitable giving, this research documents a “charity beauty premium” in which donors often choose beautiful, but less needy, charity recipients instead. The authors propose that donors hold simultaneous yet incongruent preferences of wanting to support beautiful recipients (who tend to be judged as less needy), but believing they should support needy recipients. The authors also posit that preferences for beautiful recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are intuitive, whereas preferences for needy recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are deliberative. These propositions are tested in several ways. First, when a beautiful recipient is included in basic choice sets, this recipient becomes the most popular option and increases donor satisfaction. Second, heightening deliberation steers choices away from beautiful recipients and toward needier ones. Third, donors explicitly state that they “want” to give to beautiful recipients but “should” give to less beautiful, needier ones. Taken together, these findings reconcile and extend previous and sometimes conflicting results about beauty and generosity.
AharonItzhak, EtcoffNancy, ArielyDan, ChabrisChristopher F., O’ ConnorEthan, and BreiterHans C. (2001), “Beautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value: fMRI and Behavioral Evidence,”Neuron, 32 (3), 537–51.
2.
AndreoniJames (1990), “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving,”Economic Journal (Oxford), 100 (401), 464–77.
3.
AndreoniJames, RaoJustin M., and TrachtmanHannah (2011), “Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving,”No. w17648, National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
BatsonC. Daniel (1998), “Altruism and Prosocial Behavior,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, GilbertDaniel T., FiskeSusan T., and LindzeyGardner, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 282–316.
5.
BatsonC. Daniel, LishnerDavid A., CookJennifer, and SawyerStacey (2005), “Similarity and Nurturance: Two Possible Sources of Empathy for Strangers,”Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27 (1), 15–25.
6.
BazermanMax H., TenbrunselAnn E., and Wade-BenzoniKimberly (1998), “Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences,”Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 225–41.
7.
BeckerGary (1957), The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BlochPeter H., BrunelFrederic F., and ArnoldTodd J. (2003), “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 551–65.
10.
BussDavid, and SchmittDavid (1993), “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating,”Psychological Review, 100 (2), 204–32.
11.
CainDaylian M., DanaJason, and NewmanGeorge E. (2014), “Giving vs. Giving In,”Academy of Management Annals, 8, 505–33.
12.
ChaikenShelly, and TropeYaacov (1999), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
13.
ChoiJinhee, KimB. Kyu, ChoiIncheol, and YiYoujae (2006), “Variety-Seeking Tendency in Choice for Others: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Causes,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 590–95.
14.
CialdiniRobert B., SchallerMark, HoulihanDonald, ArpsKevin, FultzJim, and BeamanArthur L. (1987), “Empathy-Based Helping: Is It Selflessly or Selfishly Motivated?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749–58.
15.
CryderCynthia E., LoewensteinGeorge, and ScheinesRichard (2013), “The Donor Is in the Details,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 15–23.
16.
DickertStephan, and SlovicPaul (2009), “Attentional Mechanisms in the Generation of Sympathy,”working paper.
17.
DionKaren K., BerscheidEllen, and WalsterElaine (1972), “What Is Beautiful Is Good,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24 (3), 285–90.
18.
DunnElizabeth W., AkninLara B., and NortonMichael I. (2008), “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness,”Science, 319 (5870), 1687–88.
19.
EpsteinSeymour (1994), “Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious,”American Psychologist, 49 (8), 709–24.
20.
EvansJonathan S.B., and StanovichKeith E. (2013), “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition Advancing the Debate,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3), 223–41.
21.
FisherRobert J., and MaYu (2014), “The Price of Being Beautiful: Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Empathy for Children in Need,”Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 436–50.
GenevskyAlexander, VästfjällDaniel, SlovicPaul, and KnutsonBrian (2013), “Neural Underpinnings of the Identifiable Victim Effect: Affect Shifts Preferences for Giving,”Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (43), 17188–96.
Giving USA (2015), The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2014. Chicago: Giving USA Foundation.
26.
GrantAdam (2007), “Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference,”Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.
27.
HalberstadtJamin, and RhodesGillian (2000), “The Attractiveness of Nonface Averages: Implications for an Evolutionary Explanation of the Attractiveness of Average Faces,”Psychological Science, 11 (4), 285–89.
28.
HamermeshDaniel S., and BiddleJeff E. (1994), “Beauty and the Labor Market,”American Economic Association, 84 (5), 1174–94.
29.
HatfieldElaine, CacioppoJohn T., and RapsonRichard L. (1994), Emotional Contagion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
HseeChristopher K. and RottenstreichYuval (2004), “Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 23 (1), 234–37.
31.
KahnemanDaniel (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
32.
KahnemanDaniel, and FrederickShane (2002), “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment,” in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, GilovichT., GriffinD. and KahnemanD., eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 49–81.
33.
KogutTehila, and RitovIlana (2005), “The Identified Victim Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18 (3), 157–67.
34.
KubovyMichael (2000), “Visual Aesthetics,” in Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol. 8, KazdinA.E., ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 188–93.
35.
LandryCraig, LangeAndreas, ListJohn A., PriceMichael K., and RuppNicholas G. (2005), “Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment,”No. w11611, National Bureau of Economic Research.
36.
LandyDavid, and SigallHarold (1974), “Beauty Is Talent: Task Evaluation as a Function of the Performer's Physical Attractiveness,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (3), 299–304.
37.
LangloisJudith H., KalakanisLisa, RubensteinAdam J., LarsonAndrea, HallamMonica, and SmootMonica (2000), “Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review,”Psychological Bulletin, 126 (3), 390–423.
38.
LederHelmut, BelkeBenno, OeberstAndries, and AugustinDorothee (2004), “A Model of Aesthetic Appreciation and Aesthetic Judgments,”British Journal of Psychology, 95 (4), 489–508.
39.
LernerJennifer S., and TetlockPhilip E. (1999), “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability,”Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 255–75.
40.
LoewensteinGeorge (1996), “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65 (3), 272–92.
41.
LoewensteinGeorge, and SmallDeborah A. (2007), “The Scarecrow and the Tin Man: The Vicissitudes of Human Sympathy and Caring,”Review of General Psychology, 11 (2), 112–26.
42.
MacAskillWilliam (2015), Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference. New York: Gotham.
43.
MilkmanKatherine L., ChughDolly, and BazermanMax H. (2009), “How Can Decision Making Be Improved?”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (4), 379–83.
44.
MilkmanKatherine L., RogersTodd, and BazermanMax H. (2008), “Harnessing Our Inner Angels and Demons: What We Have Learned About Want/Should Conflicts and How That Knowledge Can Help Us Reduce Short-Sighted Decision Making,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (4), 324–38.
45.
MilkmanKatherine L., RogersTodd, and BazermanMax H. (2009), “Highbrow Films Gather Dust: Time-Inconsistent Preferences and Online DVD Rentals,”Management Science, 55 (6), 1047–59.
46.
MillerArthur G. (1970), “Role of Physical Attractiveness in Impression Formation,”Psychonomic Science, 19 (4), 241–43.
47.
MimsPatricia R., HartnettJohn J., and NayW. Robert (1975), “Interpersonal Attraction and Help Volunteering as a Function of Physical Attractiveness,”Journal of Psychology, 89 (1), 125–31.
48.
MobiusMarkus M., and RosenblatTanya S. (2006), “Why Beauty Matters,”American Economic Review, 96 (1), 222–35.
49.
MorewedgeCarey K., and KahnemanDaniel (2010), “Associative Processes in Intuitive Judgment,”Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (10), 435–40.
50.
MulfordMatthew, OrbellJohn, ShattoCatherine, and StockardJean (1998), “Physical Attractiveness, Opportunity, and Success in Everyday Exchange,”American Journal of Sociology, 103 (6), 1565–92.
51.
NewmanGeorge E., and BloomPaul (2012), “Art and Authenticity: The Importance of Originals in Judgments of Value,”Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141 (3), 558–69.
52.
NormanDonald A. (2004), Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
53.
OppenheimerDaniel M., MeyvisTom, and DavidenkoNicolas (2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72.
PolmanEvan (2012), “Self-Other Decision Making and Loss Aversion,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119 (2), 141–50.
56.
RatnerRebecca K., and KahnBarbara E. (2002), “The Impact of Private Versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 246–57.
57.
RatnerRebecca K., and MillerDale T. (2001), “The Norm of Self-Interest and Its Effects on Social Action,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (1), 53–62.
58.
ReberRolf, SchwarzNorbert, and WinkielmanPiotr (2004), “Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience?”Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.
59.
ReimannMartin, ZaichkowskyJudith, NeuhausCarolin, BenderThomas, and WeberBernd (2010), “Aesthetic Package Design: A Behavioural, Neural, and Psychological Investigation,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 431–41.
60.
RhodesGillian (2006), “The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty,”Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.
61.
ShivBaba, and AlexanderFedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 278–92.
62.
SingerPeter (2009), The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House.
SmallDeborah A., and CryderCynthia (2016), “Prosocial Consumer Behavior,”Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 107–11.
65.
SmallDeborah A., LoewensteinGeorge, and SlovicPaul (2007), “Sympathy and Callousness: The Impact of Deliberative Thought on Donations to Identifiable and Statistical Victims,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 143–53.
66.
SmallDeborah A., and SimonsohnUri (2008), “Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 532–42.
67.
SmallDeborah A., and VerrochiNicole M. (2009), “The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (December), 777–87.
68.
SmithRobert W., FaroDavid, and BursonKatherine A. (2013), “More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 961–76.
69.
StanovichKeith E. (2009), “Distinguishing the Reflective, Algorithmic, and Autonomous Minds: Is It Time for a Tri-Process Theory,” in In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, EvansJonathan St. B.T. and FrankishKeith, eds. Oxford University Press, 33–54.
70.
StanovichKeith E., and WestRichard F. (2000), “Advancing the Rationality Debate,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23 (5), 701–17.
71.
TownsendClaudia, and ShuSuzanne B. (2010), “When and How Aesthetics Influences Financial Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 452–58.
72.
TownsendClaudia, and SoodSanjay (2012), “Self-Affirmation Through the Choice of Highly Aesthetic Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 415–28.
73.
WestStephen G., and BrownT. Jan (1975), “Physical Attractiveness, the Severity of the Emergency and Helping: A Field Experiment and Interpersonal Simulation,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11 (6), 531–38.
74.
WispéLauren (1986), “The Distinction Between Sympathy and Empathy: To Call Forth a Concept a Word Is Needed,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (2), 314–21.
75.
ZaatariDarine, PalestisBrian G., and TriversRobert (2009), “Fluctuating Asymmetry of Responders Affects Offers in the Ultimatum Game Oppositely According to Attractiveness or Need as Perceived by Proposers,”Ethology, 115 (7), 627–32.
76.
ZhaoXinshu, LynchJohn G., and ChenQimei (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About Mediation Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 197–206.
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.
