IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v8y2013i6p678-690_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving

Author

Listed:
  • Hysenbelli, Dorina
  • Rubaltelli, Enrico
  • Rumiati, Rino

Abstract

Because of the large amount of information and the difficulty in selecting an appropriate recipient in the context of charitable giving, people tend to make extensive use of heuristics, which sometimes leads them to wrong decisions. In the present work, we focused on exploring how individuals are influenced by anchoring heuristics and how group membership interacts with this heuristic. In Experiment 1, two different groups of participants were informed about low versus high average donations of other people, and a third control group did not receive any information about the others’ donations. The results showed that participants were willing to donate significantly more in the high-anchor condition compared to the low-anchor condition, as well as about the same amount of money in the low-anchor condition and no-anchor condition. Experiment 2 and 3 showed that high anchors are more effective when the information about others’ donations reflects members of the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Other variables related to these results are further discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Hysenbelli, Dorina & Rubaltelli, Enrico & Rumiati, Rino, 2013. "Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(6), pages 678-690, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:678-690_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000471X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:678-690_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.