When the poor give more than the rich: The role of resource evaluability on relative giving

Five experiments examined the role of resource evaluability on giving. We systematically varied participants' resources they and another potential donor received and whether they could donate to a recipient either by themselves or with the other donor. Participants in the relative advantage condition received more resources than the other donor, and those in the relative disadvantage condition received fewer resources than the other donor. The presence of the other donor made participants' resources evaluable and shaped giving: Relatively disadvantaged participants were proportionally more generous than advantaged participants but only when they could evaluate their resources. Neither the mere presence of others nor reputational concerns could explain the results. Exploratory mediation and moderation analyses further showed that relatively disadvantaged participants give proportionally more the higher and the more equal they perceive their status to the advantaged donor. This shows that the generosity of those who have less does depend on how they evaluate their status compared to other donors. Our results provide insights into the question of why and when resource asymmetries between donors result in prosocial giving and can influence fundraising strategies of charitable organizations.     

STATED WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR PUBLIC GOODS:

Abstract— In the contingent valuation method for the valuation of public goods, survey respondents are asked to indicate the amount they are willing to pay (WTP) for the provision of a good. We contrast economic and psychological analyses of WTP and describe a study in which respondents indicated their WTP to prevent or to remedy threats to public health or to the environment, attributed either to human or to natural causes. WTP was significantly higher when the cause of a harm was human, though the effect was not large. The means of WTP for 16 issues were highly correlated with the means of other measures of attitude, including a simple rating of the importance of the threat. The responses are better described as expressions of attitudes than as indications of economic value, contrary to the assumptions of the contingent valuation method.     

The role of expectations in comparisons

Expectations are proposed as a unifying framework for explaining a variety of findings on comparative judgment. Expectations may pertain to either the features of each separate object or their simultaneous occurrence in all relevant objects. Two experiments demonstrate that inducing expectations by varying the frequency with which a component occurs, as well as the frequency with which it is shared by the compared objects, results in augmented weighting of unexpected components. Expectations can arise not only from experienced frequencies but also from an inferred set of alternatives. Features of cohesive stimuli are shown to be more expected than features of noncohesive stimuli, in the latter sense. The relatively higher weighting of distinctive features in cohesive stimuli, as well as the higher weight assigned to structurally aligned differences, could thus reflect modifications in feature expectedness. Further experiments show how task-dependent weighting interacts with expectations to produce asymmetries between similarity and difference judgments. Finally, it is argued that changes in expectations regarding objects' attributes can explain context effects across different domains, including some types of preference reversals.     

The Duty to Support Nationalistic Policies

We demonstrate that citizens perceive a duty to support policies that benefit their nation, even when they themselves judge that the consequences of the policies will be worse on the whole, taking outsiders into account. In terms of actions, subjects think they would do their perceived duty rather than violate it for the sake of better consequences. The discrepancy between duty and judged consequences does not seem to result from self‐interest alone. When asked for reasons, many subjects felt an obligation to help their fellow citizens before others, and they also thought that they owed something to their nation, in return for what it did for them. The obligation to help fellow citizens was the strongest predictor of perceived duty. In an experiment with Israeli and Palestinian students, group membership affected both perceived overall consequences and duty, but the effect of group on perceived consequences did not account for the effect on perceived duty. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How beliefs influence the relative magnitude of pleasure and pain

Loss aversion is an economic assumption about utility—people value giving up a good more than they value getting it. It also has hedonic meaning—the pain of a loss is greater in magnitude than the pleasure of a comparable gain. But value and pleasure are not necessarily identical. We test the hedonic interpretation of loss aversion in experimental markets. With hedonic forecasts, sellers imagine the pain of losing their endowment, and buyers imagine the pleasure of being endowed. With hedonic experiences, sellers rate the pleasure of having the endowment, and buyers rate the pain of being without it. Contrary to loss aversion, predicted pleasure is greater in magnitude than predicted pain, and experienced pleasure surpasses experienced pain. We show that the relative magnitude of pleasure and pain depends on beliefs about the likelihood of outcomes, as well as utilities. Surprise makes gains more pleasurable and losses more painful. With surprising gains and expected losses, pleasure can surpass pain. But when gains and losses are equally likely (or losses are surprising and gains are expected), the opposite pattern can occur. Finally, within‐group and between‐group prices are significantly correlated with hedonic experiences. Sellers who feel better with their endowments assign higher selling prices, and buyers who feel worse about the absence of endowment assign higher buying prices. Despite the fact that hedonic experiences deviate from loss aversion, these emotions predict the endowment effect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Missed opportunity for creating value in negotiations: reluctance to making Integrative Gambit Offers

In the present study we address a multi‐issue negotiation agenda, where several issues are under consideration and parties have different priorities among these issues. We suggest that in such agendas loss aversion and within issue anchoring may constrain the configuration of offers that parties propose to each other during the course of negotiation. We specifically focus on offers in which negotiators self‐propose to give the other party more than was demanded on one of the issues, while still maintaining or improving their overall value. We term such offers Integrative Gambit Offers (“IGO”s) and show that although making such offers improves integrative negotiation outcome, the frequency of making them is relatively low, and does not increase as negotiators gain experience with the task. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“One of us”: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot

Willingness to help victims unrelated to oneself, in situations where reciprocity is irrelevant, is a common form of altruism. Prior research showed that people are more willing to extend such help when the victims are identified, particularly when the target of help is a single individual. However, in the present research we found that only when the perceivers regard the victims as belonging to their own in-group, willingness to help a single identified individual is greater than willingness to help a group of individuals: identifying tsunami victims by name increased actual contributions only when the specified target was a single compatriot. The role of perceived shared social group in promoting the victim singularity advantage in contributions was mirrored in ratings of emotions, thus supporting an affective account of helping behavior.     

DECISION AFFECT THEORY:

Abstract— How do people feel about the outcomes of risky options? Results from two experiments demonstrate that the emotional reaction to a monetary outcome is nor a simple function of the utility of that outcome Emotional responses also depend on probabilities and unobtained outcomes Unexpected outcomes have greater emotional impact than expected outcomes Furthermore any given outcome is lets pleasant if an unobtained outcome is better We propose an account of emotional experiences associated with outcomes of decisions called decision affect theory. It incorporates utilities expectations and counterfactual companions into hedonic responses. Finally, we show that choices between risky options can be described as the maximization of expected emotional experiences as predicted by decision affect theory That is people choose the risky option for which they expect to feel better on average.     

Category-bounded emotional enhancement: spillover effects in the valuation of public goods

ABSTRACT

We examined whether enhancing (vs. not enhancing) the emotionality of a referent public good influences the subsequent valuation of a target public good. We predicted that it would and that the directionality of its impact would depend on a fundamental cognitive process – categorisation. If the target and referent goods belong to the same domain, we expected that the effect on the target would be in the same direction as the emotional enhancement of the referent (assimilation effect). However, if the target and referent goods belong to different domains, we expected that the effect on the target would be either negligible or in the opposite direction to that of the emotional enhancement of the referent (null or contrast effect). In Experiment 1 we examined the impact of emotionally enhancing a referent public good on feelings towards a target public good, whereas in Experiment 2 on the willingness to contribute towards a target public good. The results support the predicted interaction, which was driven by an assimilation effect for same-domain goods and a null effect for different-domain goods. In doing so, the present findings highlight the interplay between cognition and emotion in the valuation of public goods. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.