“Put a Little Love in Your Heart”: Acceptance of Paternalistic and Ally Political Discourses Both Predict Pro-Roma Solidarity Intentions Through Moral Inclusion

The way politicians talk about minorities institutes the normative context of intergroup relations. We investigated how endorsement of different political discourses predicts donation and collective action intentions by majority members toward the Roma in five European countries. The survey was conducted online using samples demographically similar to the populations of Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, France, and Ireland (N = 5,054). First, results showed that accepting paternalistic discourse versus discourse promoting allyship were not distinguishable; both promoted higher moral inclusion which in turn predicted higher prosocial intentions. Second, donations (i.e., immediate relief) and collective action (i.e., social change action) were driven by identical factors. Third, acceptance of openly hostile political discourse neither predicted moral exclusion, nor lower prosocial intentions. In summary, our research provides important evidence that when it comes to Roma—non-Roma relations, the previously established distinction between solidarity intentions that aim to solidify status relations versus bring about social change is completely blurred, presumably because of the social context in which any positive message communicates moral inclusion challenging the hostile status quo.     

Encouraging Prosocial Decisions: The Role of Fairness Salience and Uncertainty

Although the decision to engage in prosocial behavior has received research attention, the literature offers a limited understanding of fairness and uncertainty as antecedents. We propose that one can encourage prosocial decision making simply by invoking the notion of fairness because of its effects on the perceived trustworthiness of the invoking party. We also elucidate the complex role of uncertainty in prosocial decisions in that it has a negative effect while also serving to strengthen the positive effect of fairness salience. Our ideas are tested in two prosocial decision contexts, including participative pricing (i.e., “pay what you want”) and charitable giving. Data from an archival study of a naturally occurring event and two controlled experiments offer support for our arguments. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Identified Donor Effect: Disclosure of the Donor’s Name Shapes the Recipient’s Behavior

Previous research on charitable donations has examined the costs and benefits of anonymity from the perspectives of donors and charities. However, it is unclear how anonymity affects the recipients of a donation. This research examines how donor name disclosure affects recipients’ behaviors. The findings demonstrate that recipients of donations from named individuals (vs. recipients of anonymous donations) tend to regulate their behaviors to be more in line with the general goal of the donation. This occurs because name disclosure increases the salience of the donor’s identity in the mind of the recipient, which in turn leads to an increased feeling of obligation. Six lab and online studies (including two preregistered studies) and one field study assess this effect. The implications of these findings for charities, individual donors, and public policymakers are discussed.     

Affective motivations to help others: A two‐stage model of donation decisions

Emotional reactions are an important element in the motivation to help others. Our research examined the role of affective vs. deliberative information processing in the genesis and use of emotional reactions in decisions to provide financial aid to people in distress. In two studies, we investigated whether information processing mode influenced participants' donations, affective reactions, and the relationship between the two. Information processing was manipulated by a priming procedure and a cognitive load paradigm. Participants' empathic emotions were assessed by self‐reported sympathy, compassion, and distress. Additionally, we measured how much better a donation would make participants feel and their anticipated regret for not donating, which were taken as indicators of their motivation to donate as a form of mood management. Results suggest that different mechanisms govern the initial decision to donate money (Stage 1) compared to later decisions on how much money to donate (Stage 2). Motivations for mood management were primarily predictive of donation decisions, whereas empathic feelings were predictive of the donation amount. The potentially disruptive effects of deliberative processing on prosocial behavior are discussed in light of a two‐stage processing model of donations. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Principle of Care and Giving to Help People in Need

Theories of moral development posit that an internalized moral value that one should help those in need—the principle of care—evokes helping behaviour in situations where empathic concern does not. Examples of such situations are helping behaviours that involve cognitive deliberation and planning, that benefit others who are known only in the abstract, and who are out‐group members. Charitable giving to help people in need is an important helping behaviour that has these characteristics. Therefore we hypothesized that the principle of care would be positively associated with charitable giving to help people in need, and that the principle of care would mediate the empathic concern–giving relationship. The two hypotheses were tested across four studies. The studies used four different samples, including three nationally representative samples from the American and Dutch populations, and included both self‐reports of giving (Studies 1–3), giving observed in a survey experiment (Study 3), and giving observed in a laboratory experiment (Study 4). The evidence from these studies indicated that a moral principle to care for others was associated with charitable giving to help people in need and mediated the empathic concern–giving relationship. © 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology     

“This is my only request” – using the ‘Omega’ strategy to boost the success of charity drives

IntroductionThe Omega strategy described by Knowles is comprised of techniques applied with the goal of breaking down an individual's resistance to taking decisions (involving the purchase of a product, donations to charity, support for an idea, etc.).ObjectiveThe article describes two experiments designed to test a hypothesis on the usefulness of applying the Omega strategy in seeking donations for charitable organizations. The studies examines how adding the phrase “this is my only request” after announcing the primary request impacts the tendency to fulfil it. We tested both the willingness to help (experiment 1 and 2) as well as its declared size (experiment 2).MethodIn first experiment, 106 participants were asked in control and experimental conditions to make a donation to a children's hospice. In a second experiment, randomly assigned pedestrians (n = 80) were asked to help in writing and sending Christmas postcards to prisoners.ResultsThe results of both experiments demonstrate that the formula “this is my only request” is effective in increasing the chances that people will give donations.ConclusionWe may suspect that adding this phrase softens resistance among those who fear a more difficult request will come after the first one is fulfilled (and thus are wary of the mechanism applied in the foot-in-the-door technique).     

Eliciting donations to disaster victims: Psychological considerations

Predictors of monetary donations to victims of humanitarian disasters were examined. Participants (N = 219) chose between donating to different scenarios and justified their choices in an open response format. This was followed by a questionnaire. The perceived extent of the victims’ Need, the Impact of a potential donation, and the Amount donated by others all influenced donation decisions. There was a three‐way interaction between these factors: The perceived Need for help only mattered if the perceived Impact of a donation was high, and the perceived Amount donated by others was small. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.     

‘Three is better than two’: Increasing donations with the attraction effect

Five experiments (N_total = 2,503) tested the attraction effect and its boundary conditions in the context of helping behaviour. Participants could choose one donation appeal in a set of either two or three alternatives. The three alternatives set included a decoy – an alternative that resembled but was clearly inferior to a target (i.e., the most beneficial) alternative. A clear and consistent pattern emerged: Participants chose the target alternative more frequently and perceived it as more beneficial (and somewhat less costly) when the decoy was present compared to when it was absent. This finding was robust when the attribute ratings of the alternatives were unclear, when the target alternative offered a bundle of unrelated products, and when participants could refrain from donating altogether, or contribute any amount they wished. Our findings offer concrete and simple strategies that charities can implement at zero cost to increase giving and the perceived benefits that people’s good deed bring about to those in need.