IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v56y2016icp126-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context

Author

Listed:
  • Erlandsson, Arvid
  • Västfjäll, Daniel
  • Sundfelt, Oskar
  • Slovic, Paul

Abstract

It is known that both the characteristics of the victims one can help and the existence of victims one cannot help influence economic helping decisions in suboptimal ways. The aim of this study was to systematically test if these two aspects interact with each other. In Studies 1 and 2, we created hypothetical charity appeals related to the Syrian refugee crisis and factorially manipulated characteristics of victims possible to help (one identified child/nine non-identified children) and presence of statistical information about the scope and nature of the problem (information-box absent/present). We found a significant interaction effect both when using self-rated helping intention (Study 1), and when using actual donation behavior as the dependent variable (Study 2). Statistical information decreased helping intentions toward a single identified child but had no, or even a small positive effect on helping nine non-identified children. In Study 3, non-student participants reading a charity appeal with both a story about one identified child and statistical information donated less often than participants reading appeals with either only a story about one identified child or only statistical information. We suggest that both emotional arguments (e.g., a story and picture of an identified child in need) and analytical arguments (e.g., detailed statistical information about the scope and nature of the problem) can make us more motivated to help refugees, but that mixing different argument-types can make charity appeals internally inconsistent and decrease donations.

Suggested Citation

  • Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:56:y:2016:i:c:p:126-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.06.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487016300538
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2016.06.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alain Samson & Benjamin G. Voyer, 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(2), pages 48-71, December.
    2. Tine Hjernø Lesner & Ole Dahl Rasmussen, 2014. "The identifiable victim effect in charitable giving: evidence from a natural field experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(36), pages 4409-4430, December.
    3. Small, Deborah A & Loewenstein, George, 2003. "Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-16, January.
    4. Agerström, Jens & Carlsson, Rickard & Nicklasson, Linda & Guntell, Linda, 2016. "Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 147-153.
    5. Petty, Richard E & Cacioppo, John T & Schumann, David, 1983. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(2), pages 135-146, September.
    6. Bischoff, Ivo & Krauskopf, Thomas, 2015. "Warm glow of giving collectively – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 210-218.
    7. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:297-306 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Glazer, Amihai & Konrad, Kai A, 1996. "A Signaling Explanation for Charity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 1019-1028, September.
    10. Harbaugh, William T., 1998. "What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 269-284, February.
    11. Bartels, Daniel M., 2006. "Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 76-95, May.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:79-95 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2007. ""One of us": Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 150-157, November.
    14. Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic & Marcus Mayorga & Ellen Peters, 2014. "Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, June.
    15. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    16. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    17. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
    18. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    19. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    20. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    21. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    22. Samson, Alain & Voyer, Benjamin G., 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47252, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hajdi Moche & Tom Gordon-Hecker & Tehila Kogut & Daniel Västfjäll, 2022. "Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 14-30, January.
    2. Li, Meng-Ran & Yin, Cheng-Yue, 2022. "Facial expressions of beneficiaries and donation intentions of potential donors: Effects of the number of beneficiaries in charity advertising," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:14-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    5. Cheng Hong & Cong Li, 2020. "How to turn lurkers into donors? A study of online social support interactions between nonprofit organizations and their followers," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 17(4), pages 527-547, December.
    6. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    2. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    6. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic, 2016. "Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    8. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    9. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:187-198 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Tehila Kogut & Ruth Beyth-Marom, 2008. "Who helps more? How self-other discrepancies influence decisions in helping situations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(8), pages 595-606, December.
    14. Abhishek Bhati & Ruth K. Hansen, 2020. "A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    15. Marta Caserotti & Enrico Rubaltelli & Paul Slovic, 2019. "How decision context changes the balance between cost and benefit increasing charitable donations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 187-198, March.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Pellegrin, Claire & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel & Napoleone, Claude, 2018. "Does the Identifiable Victim Effect Matter for Plants? Results From a Quasi-experimental Survey of French Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 106-113.
    18. André Mata, 2016. "Proportion dominance in valuing lives: The role of deliberative thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 441-448, September.
    19. Small, Deborah A., 2010. "Reference-dependent sympathy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 151-160, July.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    22. Metzger, Laura & Günther, Isabel, 2019. "Is it what you say or how you say it? The impact of aid effectiveness information and its framing on donation behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    23. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    24. Ezra M. Markowitz & Paul Slovic & Daniel Vastfjall & Sara D. Hodges, 2013. "Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 397-406, July.
    25. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    26. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    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:eee:joepsy:v:56:y:2016:i:c:p:126-140. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    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.