Pseudoinefficacy: negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped

The effect of herd immunity thresholds on willingness to vaccinate

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, media and policymakers openly speculated about the number of immune citizens needed to reach a herd immunity threshold. What are the effects of such numerical goals on the willingness to vaccinate? In a large representative sample (N = 1540) of unvaccinated Swedish citizens, we find that giving a low (60%) compared to a high (90%) threshold has direct effects on beliefs about reaching herd immunity and beliefs about how many others that will get vaccinated. Presenting the high threshold makes people believe that herd immunity is harder to reach (on average about half a step on a seven-point scale), compared to the low threshold. Yet at the same time, people also believe that a higher number of the population will get vaccinated (on average about 3.3% more of the population). Since these beliefs affect willingness to vaccinate in opposite directions, some individuals are encouraged and others discouraged depending on the threshold presented. Specifically, in mediation analysis, the high threshold indirectly increases vaccination willingness through the belief that many others will get vaccinated (B = 0.027, p = 0.003). At the same time, the high threshold also decreases vaccination willingness through the belief that the threshold goal is less attainable (B = -0.053, p < 0.001) compared to the low threshold condition. This has consequences for ongoing COVID-19 vaccination and future vaccination campaigns. One message may not fit all, as different groups can be encouraged or discouraged from vaccination.

Motivated Down-Regulation of Emotion and Compassion Collapse Revisited

Compassion collapse is a phenomenon where feelings and helping behavior decrease as the number of needy increases. But what are the underlying mechanisms for compassion collapse? Previous research has attempted to pit two explanations: Limitations of the feeling system vs. motivated down-regulation of emotion, against each other. In this article, we critically reexamine a previous study comparing these two accounts published in 2011 and present new data that contest motivated down-regulation of emotion as the primary explanation for compassion collapse.

Helping Others in Virtual Reality Increases Prosocial Self-understanding Among Adolescents

Reflection on prosocial experiences may be helpful for adolescents highly attentive to their internal states (i.e., high private self-consciousness) to gain prosocial self-knowledge, yet adolescents with low private self-consciousness may not benefit from it. The current study proposed and examined that engaging in helping behavior would be beneficial for those with low private self-consciousness in self-understanding. Two experimental studies using immersive virtual environment technology were conducted to simulate helping situations. A total of 140 middle school students (n = 59, 47.5% female, M_age = 13.98, SD = 0.89, in Study 1; n = 81, 44.4% female, M_age = 15.31, SD = 1.18, in Study 2) completed the experiments. In both studies, adolescents engaging in helping behaviors identified themselves as more prosocial than those who did not engage in helping behaviors. In Study 2, adolescents' positive prosocial self-concept would increase more through engaging in prosocial behavior than by reflecting on past prosocial experiences. Furthermore, adolescents with high private self-consciousness can gain self-understanding both from self-reflection and engaging in prosocial behavior, whereas adolescents with low private self-consciousness benefit only from engaging in prosocial behavior. The findings suggest the need to consider individual differences and adopt appropriate ways of self-understanding when assisting adolescents' prosocial self-formation.

The Influence of Proportion Dominance and Global Need Perception on Donations

Many donation-raising platforms request that first-time donors choose the charitable causes they most care about so that future campaign recommendations can best match donors’ charitable preferences. While matching charitable campaigns to donors’ reported preferences has its benefits, little is known about other effects that choosing charitable causes may evoke. We focus on how choosing charitable causes influences charitable behavior. We find two effects of the number of charitable causes donors choose on their subsequent charitable behavior. In studies 1 and 2, we show that a reference number of the maximum charitable causes donors can choose has a negative effect on charitable behavior. A small (versus large) reference number yields a greater likelihood to donate and a higher donation amount. This effect is aligned with the proportion dominance rationalization. In studies 3 and 4, we show that the number of charitable causes donors voluntarily choose as important to them is positively associated with subsequent charitable behavior. This association is mediated by global need perception. As the number of causes donors choose increases, donors experience an escalation in their perception of global neediness, which in turn motivates their willingness to donate and the donation amount. In Study 5, we show how the two effects together shape charitable behavior. These effects are observed while controlling the donors’ inherent prosocial attitudes toward help giving. With more than 1.5 million registered non-profit organizations operating in the United States (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2019), it has become almost impossible for donors to easily choose which charitable campaigns to support. Online charitable fundraising platforms (e.g., One Today by Google, Round Up, and Charity Miles), websites (e.g., AmazonSmile) and crowdfunding platforms (e.g., Fundly, JustGiving, and GoFundMe) try to ease donors’ search and decision processes by offering them personalized charitable options. First-time donors are asked to indicate the charitable causes they care most about, and then asked to donate to charitable campaigns that best match their preferences. Interestingly, little is known about how this initial stage of choosing charitable causes influences subsequent donation behavior. In this research, we ask how choosing the charitable causes one cares most about influences subsequent response to a charitable appeal. Obviously, the mere selection of preferred causes enables charities to offer personalized campaigns and create a better fit between non-profits and donors, which has a generally positive effect on charitable giving. However, in this research we focus on an overlooked aspect of these practices. We examine how the number of charitable causes donors indicate as important to them influences their donation giving. We test two opposite effects: the proportion dominance effect, an effect driven by prior research, and the global need perception effect, a new effect identified in this article. Both effects are driven by the number of causes donors choose.

Look Behind Me! Highly Informative Picture Backgrounds Increase Stated Generosity Through Perceived Tangibility, Impact, and Warm Glow

In this study, we investigated whether background information of a visual charity appeal can influence people’s motivation to donate and the hypothetical amount donated. Specifically, participants were presented with a charity appeal to help a local hospital respond to the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) emergency depicting a man sitting on a bed in a hospital room. The number of visual details (i.e., medical equipment) depicted in the background was manipulated according to three conditions: (1) “High information” condition (i.e., a room full of medical equipment), (2) “low information” condition (i.e., room with few pieces of medical equipment), and (3) “no information” condition (i.e., non-contextual background). We investigated whether the number of visual background details would have increased the tangibility of the cause measured as the hospital’s adequate preparedness to deal with the COVID-19 emergency and severity of the patient’s medical conditions. We also investigated whether increased tangibility, elicited by a higher amount of background information, would heighten participants’ perceived impact of their donation and warm glow, which in turn would have led to increased motivation to donate and the amount donated. We found no significant direct effect of condition on the donated amount. However, path models revealed that more background information positively influenced participants’ motivation to donate and the amount donated indirectly through increased tangibility, impact, and warm glow. Finally, we showed that a higher risk perception of COVID-19 was associated with higher donations. Results are discussed in line with relevant literature.

Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice

In ten studies (N = 9187), I systematically investigated the direction and size of seven helping effects (the identifiable-victim effect, proportion dominance effect, ingroup effect, existence effect, innocence effect, age effect and gender effect). All effects were tested in three decision modes (separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice), and in their weak form (equal efficiency), or strong form (unequal efficiency). Participants read about one, or two, medical help projects and rated the attractiveness of and allocated resources to the project/projects, or choose which project to implement. The results show that the included help-situation attributes vary in their: (1) Evaluability – e.g., rescue proportion is the easiest to evaluate in separate evaluation. (2) Justifiability – e.g., people prefer to save fewer lives now rather than more lives in the future, but not fewer identified lives rather than more statistical lives. (3) Prominence – e.g., people express a preference to help females, but only when forced to choose.

The Psychology of (In)Effective Altruism

The most effective charities are hundreds of times more effective than typical charities, yet few donors prioritize effectiveness. Why is that? How might we increase the effectiveness of charitable giving? We review the motivational and epistemic causes of (in)effective giving. Many donors view charitable giving as a matter of personal preference, which favors decisions based on emotional appeal rather than effectiveness. In addition, while many donors are motivated to give effectively, they often have misconceptions and cognitive biases that reduce effective giving. Nearly all research on charitable giving interventions focuses on increasing donation amounts. However, to increase societal benefit, donation effectiveness is likely to be more important. This underscores the need for research on strategies to encourage effective giving.

Victim Number Effects in Charitable Giving: Joint Evaluations Promote Egalitarian Decisions

Studies of victim number effects in charitable giving consistently find that people care more and help more when presented with an appeal to help an individual compared with an appeal to help multiple people in need. Across three online experiments (N = 1,348), Bayesian estimation revealed the opposite pattern when people responded to multiple appeals to help targets of different sizes (1, 2, 5, 7, and 12). In this joint evaluation context, participants donated more to larger groups, when appeals were presented in both ascending order (Study 1) and random order (Study 2). The pattern held whether or not participants saw an overview of all appeals at the start of the study and when a single individual was added to the array (Study 3). These results clarify how compassion fade findings typical of separate evaluations may not generalize to contexts in which people encounter multiple appeals within a short temporal window.

Opportunity Cost in Monetary Donation Decisions to Non-identified and Identified Victims

Do people consider alternative uses of money (i.e., opportunity cost) when asked to donate to a charitable cause? To answer this question, we examined the effect of providing versus not providing participants with an opportunity cost reminder when they are asked to donate money to causes with identified and non-identified victims. The results of two studies show that when making one-time donation decisions, people become less willing to donate to charity when reminded of opportunity cost, but mainly for non-identified victims. Moreover, framing the opportunity cost reminder as prosocial versus proself did not influence willingness to donate. Overall, our evidence suggests that opportunity cost reminders influence people's donation behavior depending on whether charities identify supported victims or not.

The Effect of Participation Effort on CSR Participation Intention: The Moderating Role of Construal Level on Consumer Perception of Warm Glow and Perceived Costs

Consumer participation typically reduces consumer skepticism and leads to a positive response to corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Although many companies are encouraging consumers to participate in CSR activities, there is still insufficient research on the effectiveness of this strategy. That is, prior studies do not provide guidelines on the effectiveness of requiring consumers to participate in CSR activities. We examine the impact of the required participation effort on CSR participation intention, focusing on the differences in consumers’ perception of a warm glow feeling and costs according to their construal level. For this study, 107 participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk. We tested hypotheses using a 2 (CSR participation effort) × 2 (construal level) between-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA), planned contrast analysis, and mediation analysis. The results indicate that for consumers with high construal levels who perceive participation efforts as warm glow, participation efforts have a positive impact on CSR participation intention. However, for those with low construal levels who perceive participation efforts as costs, high required efforts have a negative impact on their participation intention. Finally, we discuss the implications of these results, discuss the limitations, and suggest future research directions.

How decision context changes the balance between cost and benefit increasing charitable donations

Recent research on charitable donations shows that donors evaluate both the impact of helping and its cost. We asked whether these evaluations were affected by the context of alternative charitable causes. We found that presenting two donation appeals in joint evaluation, as compared to separate evaluation, increased the perceived benefit of the cause ranked as more important (Study 1), and decreased its perceived cost, regardless of the relative actual costs (Study 2). Finally, we try to reconcile an explanation based on perceived cost and benefit with previous work on charitable donations.

The elusive power of the individual victim: Failure to find a difference in the effectiveness of charitable appeals focused on one compared to many victims

Previous research has offered conflicting findings regarding the influence of help appeals that feature an individual victim compared to a group of victims. Studies examining emotional responses and donation behavior have generally found that help appeals focusing on a single victim elicit more prosocial responses, while studies examining policy support have found the opposite. The present studies investigate these effects while addressing potential confounds that may have arisen in previous research. Study 1 (N = 924) compares the effects of help appeals that focus on either a) an identified individual, b) an identified group, c) statistics describing many individuals, or d) statistics paired with an individual. Study 1 also examines how the location of the individual(s) in need moderates observed effects. Study 2 (N = 1,085) compares the effects of help appeals that describe either an identified individual or statistics about many individuals, while fully crossing the text manipulation with either a) no imagery, b) an image of an individual, or c) a map indicating areas of poverty. In both Study 1 and Study 2 no significant differences were found between the individual and the group conditions.

Local versus Global Perceptual Scope, Empathic Concern, and Helping Preferences in Multiple-Victim Situations

Previous research on the one-among-others effect has shown that inducing empathic concern towards a victim presented alongside with a small number of other victims enhances (a) the perception of this set of victims as separate and different individuals (instead of as a group), and (b) the preference to help them individually (rather than collectively). We propose that inducing a local (vs. global) perceptual scope increases (vs. lessens) these two outcomes. In this work, participants first reported their perception of an ad that showed a victim depicted as one-among-others and, afterwards, were unexpectedly asked to indicate their preference for giving the victims either "individualized", "collective", or "equal" assistance. In Experiment 1 (N = 48), we manipulated the participants' local (vs. global) perceptual scope and allowed empathy concern to occur naturally. In Experiment 2 (N = 213), we manipulated both the perceptual scope and empathy concern. Overall, results showed that the combined presence of local scope and empathic concern increased the awareness of others (η p 2 = .203 and .047, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.35] and [0.03, 0.13], ps < .03) and the preference for individualized assistance (zs = 2.08 and 2.74, ps < .02). Lastly, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of perceiving a set of victims as individuals (rather than as a group) in need.

Anticipated Guilt for Not Helping and Anticipated Warm Glow for Helping Are Differently Impacted by Personal Responsibility to Help

One important motivation for people behaving prosocially is that they want to avoid negative and obtain positive emotions. In the prosocial behavior literature however, the motivations to avoid negative emotions (e.g., guilt) and to approach positive emotions (e.g., warm glow) are rarely separated, and sometimes even aggregated into a single mood-management construct. The aim of this study was to investigate whether anticipated guilt if not helping and anticipated warm glow if helping are influenced similarly or differently when varying situational factors related to personal responsibility to help. Helping scenarios were created and pilot tests established that each helping scenario could be formulated both in a high-responsibility version and in a low-responsibility version. In Study 1 participants read high-responsibility and low-responsibility helping scenarios, and rated either their anticipated guilt if not helping or their anticipated warm glow if helping (i.e., separate evaluation). Study 2 was similar but here participants rated both their anticipated guilt if not helping and their anticipated warm glow if helping (i.e., joint evaluation). Anticipated guilt was clearly higher in the high-responsibility versions, but anticipated warm glow was unaffected (in Studies 1a and 1b), or even higher in the low-responsibility versions (Study 2). In Studies 3 (where anticipated guilt and warm glow were evaluated separately) and 4 (where they were evaluated jointly), personal responsibility to help was manipulated within-subjects. Anticipated guilt was again constantly higher in the high-responsibility versions but for many types of responsibility-manipulations, anticipated warm glow was higher in the low-responsibility versions. The results suggest that we anticipate guilt if not fulfilling our responsibility but that we anticipate warm glow primarily when doing over and beyond our responsibility. We argue that future studies investigating motivations for helping should measure both anticipated negative consequences for oneself if not helping, and anticipated positive consequences for oneself if helping.

The Arithmetic of Emotion: Integration of Incidental and Integral Affect in Judgments and Decisions

Research has demonstrated that two types of affect have an influence on judgment and decision making: incidental affect (affect unrelated to a judgment or decision such as a mood) and integral affect (affect that is part of the perceiver’s internal representation of the option or target under consideration). So far, these two lines of research have seldom crossed so that knowledge concerning their combined effects is largely missing. To fill this gap, the present review highlights differences and similarities between integral and incidental affect. Further, common and unique mechanisms that enable these two types of affect to influence judgment and choices are identified. Finally, some basic principles for affect integration when the two sources co-occur are outlined. These mechanisms are discussed in relation to existing work that has focused on incidental or integral affect but not both.

Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving

One of the puzzling phenomena in philanthropy is that people can show strong compassion for identified individual victims but remain unmoved by catastrophes that affect large numbers of victims. Two prominent findings in research on charitable giving reflect this idiosyncrasy: The (1) identified victim and (2) victim number effects. The first of these suggests that identifying victims increases donations and the second refers to the finding that people’s willingness to donate often decreases as the number of victims increases. While these effects have been documented in the literature, their underlying psychological processes need further study. We propose a model in which identified victim and victim number effects operate through different cognitive and affective mechanisms. In two experiments we present empirical evidence for such a model and show that different affective motivations (donor-focused vs. victim-focused feelings) are related to the cognitive processes of impact judgments and mental imagery. Moreover, we argue that different mediation pathways exist for identifiability and victim number effects.