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.     

Giving,Fast and Slow: Reflection Increases Costly (but Not Uncostly) Charitable Giving

Are people intuitively generous or stingy? Does reflection make people more willing to give generous amounts to charity? Findings across the literature are mixed, with many studies finding no clear relationship between reflection and charitable giving (e.g., Hauge, Brekke, Johansson, Johansson‐Stenman, & Svedsäter, 2016 ; Tinghög et al., 2016 ), while others find that reflection negatively affects giving (e.g., Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007 ), and still others find that reflection is positively associated with giving (e.g., Lohse, Goeschl, & Diederich, 2014 ). I demonstrate that reflection consistently increases costly giving to charity. In Study 1, people were initially reluctant to give costly amounts of money to charity, but those who reflected about the decision were more willing to give. In Studies 2–3, I isolated the role of costly stakes by randomly assigning people to either an uncostly donation (Are people intuitively generous or stingy? Does reflection make people more willing to give generous amounts to charity? Findings across the literature are mixed, with many studies finding no clear relationship between reflection and charitable giving (e.g., Hauge, Brekke, Johansson, Johansson‐Stenman, & Svedsäter, 2016 ; Tinghög et al., 2016 ), while others find that reflection negatively affects giving (e.g., Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007 ), and still others find that reflection is positively associated with giving (e.g., Lohse, Goeschl, & Diederich, 2014 ). I demonstrate that reflection consistently increases costly giving to charity. In Study 1, people were initially reluctant to give costly amounts of money to charity, but those who reflected about the decision were more willing to give. In Studies 2–3, I isolated the role of costly stakes by randomly assigning people to either an uncostly donation ($0.40) or costly donation condition (e.g., $100), and randomly assigning them to decide under time pressure or after reflecting. Reflection increased their willingness to give costly amounts, but did not influence their willingness to give uncostly amounts. Similarly, the relationship between decision time and giving was positive when the stakes were costly but was relatively flat when the stakes were uncostly (Study 4). Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the wisdom and utility of (under)sociality: A consumer psychology perspective

Kumar and Epley (2023) review robust evidence for an intriguing hypothesis: That people fail to appreciate the benefits of everyday social behaviors and thus hesitate to connect with others in ways that would increase well-being. In this commentary, we discuss how consumer research can enrich theory and application in this emerging line of inquiry. We suggest (a) that the hedonic implications of undersociality can be integrated with reputational signaling insights to generate new questions about the wisdom and utility of social behavior, and (b) that undersociality has interesting implications for a consumption domain of particular interest to maximizing welfare: charitable giving.     

网络募捐中求助者的面部表情对捐助意愿的影响：有中介的调节模型

基于框架效应和共情–助人行为假说,以82名大学生为被试,通过实验探讨了网络募捐中求助者的面部表情对捐助意愿的影响,并考察了目标框架的调节作用以及共情的中介作用。结果表明：目标框架调节了求助者的面部表情对捐助者的共情和捐助意愿的影响。在积极框架下,消极面部表情对捐助者的共情和捐助意愿的积极影响显著高于积极面部表情;而在消极框架下,两种面部表情对捐助者的共情和捐助意愿的影响均无显著差异。研究还发现了有中介的调节作用模型,共情在求助者的面部表情对捐助意愿的影响中发挥中介作用,而目标框架是有中介的调节变量。     

Experimentally distinguishing elevation from gratitude: Oh,the morality

Elevation has garnered empirical support as the emotional response to witnessing moral beauty. The current studies investigated elevation’s construct validity by experimentally testing whether feelings of elevation are distinct from gratitude, another moral and ‘other-praising’ emotion. Study 1 demonstrated that feelings of elevation are distinct from gratitude, serenity (i.e. a secondary comparison condition), and boredom (i.e. a control condition). Study 2 added a behavioral outcome measure in the form of monetary donations to a moral charity. The third study expanded on Study 2 by randomly assigning participants to an elevation or gratitude mood induction and then randomly assigning them to have the opportunity to donate to either a moral or an amoral charity. Together, these studies support Haidt’s conceptualization of elevation, clarify Algoe and Haidt’s qualitative assessment of the emotional differences between elevation and gratitude, and reveal that elevation results in different behavioral responses than gratitude.     

真实急病情境下共情对大学生慈善捐助的影响:有调节的中介效应

基于真实急病情境,采用道德强度、道德认同、共情和慈善捐助问卷对462名大学生进行调查,探讨了共情影响大学生慈善捐助的内在机制。结果显示:(1)女生在真实急病情境下比男生更容易对主人公的不幸事件产生共情反应;大学生真实急病情境下的共情反应随年级关系的疏远而逐渐降低;(2)共情在道德强度与慈善捐助的关系中具有部分中介作用,即道德强度通过共情对慈善捐助产生间接影响;(3)道德认同对共情的中介作用具有调节效应,具体而言,相对于低道德认同的个体,高道德认同的个体表现出更多的慈善捐助,并且共情对道德强度和慈善捐助的中介效应也显著增强。研究结论对于理解慈善捐助的内在机制具有理论价值,对于慈善捐助的教育和干预具有现实启示意义。     

Motives and barriers to bequest giving

Much is known about motivations for giving to charities generally. However, much less has been identified about bequestors as a unique type of charitable donor. This paper explores the motives and barriers for charitable bequest giving. Hypotheses are drawn from the general philanthropic literature and tested using survey data from Australia, a nation distinguished by very high lifetime (inter vivos) giving but low estate (post mortem) giving. The results show that belief in the efficacy of charitable organizations is requisite for leaving a bequest, as the deceased donor has no control over the enactment of the gift. This effect is mediated by the perceived difficulty of making a charitable bequest, which forms an important barrier for leaving such a legacy. Having family whose financial needs are perceived as not taken care of and the perception of financial inability to make a difference also form barriers for bequest giving. The results confirm that bequests constitute a distinctive charitable behaviour, with unique motives and barriers compared to other types of inter vivos giving. While charitable behaviour in general is driven by altruistic attitudes and political and religious values, as well as social reputation, these factors do not affect charitable bequest making as expected. Surprisingly, we find a negative relationship between financial resources and the inclination to leave a charitable bequest. The article ends with suggestions for ways charities might connect more meaningfully with their bequestors or with donors who might consider bequeathing to them. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Fear-then-relief,legitimizing a paltry contribution,and charity

IntroductionThe compliance literature describes multiple techniques of social influence. Some of them have proven effective at inducing compliance in the charity domain. One such technique is referred to as legitimizing a paltry contribution (LPC). There are theoretical grounds on which it can be assumed that this technique will be particularly effective in conditions in which a person feels relief from fear.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to examine whether people who experience fear-relief sequences are more susceptible to the LPC technique than those in a neutral emotional state.MethodIn two field studies, some people experienced relief from fear, while others remained in a neutral emotional state. The participants were then asked to donate to a worthy cause. A request was formulated either in a standard way, or with the phrase “even a penny will help”.ResultsThe two experiments yielded consistent results. It turned out that the LPC technique was particularly effective when participants had experienced relief from fear.ConclusionsThe aforementioned pattern of results is important for the development of theoretical knowledge about techniques of social influence, and has direct practical implications.