IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v48y2022i5p775-795..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Class Shapes Donation Allocation Preferences
[Similarity and Empathy: The Experience of Rape]

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Vieites
  • Rafael Goldszmidt
  • Eduardo B Andrade

Abstract

When considering a charitable act, consumers must often decide on how to allocate their resources across a multitude of possible causes. This article assesses how the relative “urgency” of the causes under consideration (i.e., how critical to human survival the causes are) shapes preferences for specific causes among higher and lower social class consumers. Across a series of studies in a highly unequal socioeconomic environment (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), we demonstrate that lower-class consumers prefer to donate to urgent causes (e.g., alleviating hunger) compared to non-urgent causes (e.g., encouraging cultural activities), whereas the effect reverses among higher-class consumers. Contrasting experiences with scarcity across social classes vary the consumers’ intrinsic sympathy toward people’s unmet basic needs, which in turn shapes donation allocation preferences. Consistent with this theoretical rationale, class differences in charitable allocations decrease when (a) vivid contextual cues induce sympathy among both higher- and lower-class consumers or (b) the experience with scarcity is similar across social classes. Thus, although class differences in preferences for specific causes can be shifted with relative ease, our findings suggest that those who have the most to give do not spontaneously prioritize what is most urgently needed in society.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Vieites & Rafael Goldszmidt & Eduardo B Andrade, 2022. "Social Class Shapes Donation Allocation Preferences [Similarity and Empathy: The Experience of Rape]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 48(5), pages 775-795.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:48:y:2022:i:5:p:775-795.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucab033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Saving, Fungibility, and Mental Accounts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 193-205, Winter.
    2. Jonathan T. Rothwell & Douglas S. Massey, 2010. "Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(s1), pages 1123-1143.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    5. Holt, Douglas B, 1998. "Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(1), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Deborah A. Small & Uri Simonsohn, 2008. "Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 532-542, December.
    7. Bige Saatcioglu & Julie L. Ozanne, 2013. "Moral Habitus and Status Negotiation in a Marginalized Working-Class Neighborhood," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(4), pages 692-710.
    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. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    2. Mengyuan Zhou, 2019. "The Effect of the Source of Inheritance on Bequest Attitudes: Evidence from Japan," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-018, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    3. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2017. "Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1971-2005.
    4. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    5. Jozsef Sakovics, 2007. "Reference price distortion," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 177, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    6. Waidler, Jennifer, 2016. "On the fungibility of public and private transfers: A mental accounting approach," MERIT Working Papers 2016-060, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    8. Nava Ashraf & Dean Karlan & Wesley Yin, 2006. "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 635-672.
    9. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2009. "Mental Accounting in Portfolio Choice: Evidence from a Flypaper Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2085-2095, December.
    10. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo, 2008. "The Brain as a Hierarchical Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1312-1346, September.
    11. Cherry, Todd L., 2001. "Mental accounting and other-regarding behavior: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 605-615, October.
    12. Jun Yao & Harmen Oppewal & Di Wang, 2020. "Cheaper and smaller or more expensive and larger: how consumers respond to unit price increase tactics that simultaneously change product price and package size," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1075-1094, November.
    13. Nicolas Brisset, 2017. "What Do We Learn from Market Design?," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-03, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    14. Degeorge, Francois & Jenter, Dirk & Moel, Alberto & Tufano, Peter, 2004. "Selling company shares to reluctant employees: France Telecom's experience," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 169-202, January.
    15. Dewitte, Siegfried, 2013. "From willpower breakdown to the breakdown of the willpower model – The symmetry of self-control and impulsive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 16-25.
    16. Shankar Ghimire & Kul Prasad Kapri, 2020. "Does the Source of Remittance Matter? Differentiated Effects of Earned and Unearned Remittances on Agricultural Productivity," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Sezer Ülkü & Chris Hydock & Shiliang Cui, 2020. "Making the Wait Worthwhile: Experiments on the Effect of Queueing on Consumption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1149-1171, March.
    18. Antonides, Gerrit & Manon de Groot, I. & Fred van Raaij, W., 2011. "Mental budgeting and the management of household finance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 546-555, August.
    19. James Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte Madrian, 2008. "The Flypaper Effect in Individual Investor Asset Allocation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2560, Yale School of Management.
    20. Rachel Griffith & Sarah Smith & Stephanie von Hinke Kessler Scholder, 2014. "Getting a healthy start? Nudge versus economic incentives," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 14/328, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.

    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:oup:jconrs:v:48:y:2022:i:5:p:775-795.. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.