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.     

An operant analysis of human altruistic responding

Human altruistic responding (called give responding), which delivered a reinforcer to someone other than the responder, was compared to responding where the responder was the recipient of the reinforcer (called earn responding). The same type of response (button pressing), the same reinforcer (a point representing a penny), and the same reinforcer contingency (a 40-response fixed-ratio schedule) were used for both give and earn responding. Since points representing pennies were used to reinforce give and earn responding, responding for points not worth money was also assessed. Give, earn, and point responding were arranged as concurrent incompatible operants. Lowest rates were obtained for point responding. Compared to earn responding, give responding occurred at lower rates, was more susceptible to cessation when point responding was possible, extinguished more rapidly in the absence of money, and produced less responding during reconditioning compared to conditioning when reconditioning followed a period of nonreinforcement. Give responding was less when it reduced the giver's opportunity to earn. Finally, histories of getting reinforcement from others were shown to determine give responding.     

The Power to Feel Fear and The One to Feel Happiness are the Same

The centre of Adorno's Critical Theory is occupied by the theme of happiness. He speaks of the impaired life, of the unjustness of society, of murderous prejudices, of the atrocities in history, of the dissonance in art, of the unhappy consciousness, because something better can only be described from a point of opposition. Happiness cannot be objectified as possession, it always needs to be experienced subjectively, somatically. (With happiness it is like with truth: One does not have it, one is in it.) Happiness cannot be prescribed and ordered; nothing can be done to guarantee happiness. (Happiness goes beyond doing.) Happiness (like fear) has to do with being open to experience which can overwhelm the self. Sexual and aesthetical experience are models for such overwhelming happiness. The sensation of happiness always is very personal, but in this experience the individual leaves its particularity behind. One has to differentiate between goal and object: Happiness may be a goal, but not it itself, only what obstructs it, can be an object of Critical Theory.     

Gift Recipients’ Beliefs About Occasion-based and Nonoccasion-based Gifts: The Importance of Signaling Care and Meeting Expectations in Gift Giving

Most gifts are occasion-based as opposed to nonoccasion-based. That is, most gifts are given in the presence of a special occasion, rather than in the absence of one. Across a series of scenario-based studies, the present research demonstrates that, despite occasion-based gifts being much more common, recipients anticipate that their happiness levels will be quite high when receiving nonoccasion-based gifts, varying little with gift quality. In contrast, they anticipate that their happiness levels will not always be high when receiving occasion-based gifts, varying greatly with gift quality. These diverging outcomes arise because the caliber of gift that is required to signal care and thus meet a recipient’s expectation is much lower for nonoccasion-based gifts than for occasion-based ones. Critically, givers misforecast recipients’ anticipated positive reactions to nonoccasion-based gifts, helping to explain why these gifts are, unfortunately, rather rare.     

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.     

Combining Emotion Appraisal Dimensions and Individual Differences to Understand Emotion Effects on Gift Giving

Multiple studies have revealed that emotion appraisal dimensions can predict the effects of emotions on decision making. For example, givers' intention to buy gifts depends on whether they feel positive or negative (valence) and on whether the feeling is caused by the givers themselves or by gift receivers (agency). However, there is little understanding of how the effects of such appraisal dimensions might depend on individual characteristics. The current research addresses this gap by studying the interaction effects of emotions and individual characteristics on gift giving. Study 1 demonstrates that emotion effects on gift‐giving behavior are explained by two things: the cause of those emotions (self or others, agency) and whether those emotions are positive or negative (valence). Moreover, four studies reveal that these effects depend on the givers' interpersonal orientation. For high interpersonally oriented givers, who care mostly about interpersonal relationships, emotion effects on gift giving depend on both valence and agency. In contrast, for low interpersonally oriented givers, who care mostly about their own gains, emotion effects on gift giving depend only on valence. Together, these findings suggest that although a focus on appraisal dimensions can be useful, individual characteristics should also be taken into account when trying to understand emotion effects on gift giving, in particular, and on decision making, in general. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dementia care‐giving in black and Asian populations: reviewing and refining the research agenda

Despite the increased prevalence of dementia little work has been done to explore the extent and nature of care‐giving in black or Asian‐UK populations. Evidence that does exist suggests that the consequences of care‐giving are significant but different from those experienced by white carers and are mediated by a number of culture‐related factors. These include: ethnically specific conceptualisations of dementia; expectations of family duty; religiosity; the adoption of positive re‐appraisal strategies, and beneficial outcomes. Present approaches to research are narrow, do not take account of cultural dimensions and employ terminology and care‐giving frameworks which are of limited relevance. That the evidence base is characterised by small‐scale studies, and weak methodology further undermines its validity. Research deficits are systemic and fundamental and are both conceptual and methodological. A key contribution would be the development of a multi‐dimensional theoretical model that takes account of the role played by culture, ethnicity and structural inequality in shaping care‐giving experiences and profiles. Incorporating the perspectives of black and Asian carers, and the influence of the life course of individuals and communities and employing qualitative methods would also influence the direction of research, improve its quality and generate knowledge in this underdeveloped field. Copyright © 2005 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。