Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas

Arvid Erlandsson · Fredrik Björklund · Martin Bäckström

22 citations0/0 files storedJudgment and Decision Making

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Abstract

Abstract How do donors reason and justify their choices when faced with dilemmas in a charitable context? In two studies, Swedish students were confronted with helping dilemmas based on the identifiable victim effect, the proportion dominance effect and the ingroup effect. Each dilemma consisted of two comparable charity projects and participants were asked to choose one project over the other. They were then asked to provide justifications of their choice by stating the relative importance of different types of reasons. When faced with an identified victim dilemma, participants did not choose the project including an identified victim more often than the project framed statistically, but those who did emphasized emotional reasons (e.g., “Because I had more empathic feelings”), but not any other reasons, more than those choosing the statistical project. When faced with a Proportion dominance dilemma, participants more often chose the project with a high rescue proportion (e.g., you can save 100% out of 30) than the project with a low rescue proportion (e.g., you can save 4% out of 800), and those who did emphasized efficacy reasons (e.g., “Because my money can make a greater difference there”), but no other reasons, more than those favoring the low recue proportion project. Finally, when faced with an Ingroup dilemma, participants more often chose the project that could help ingroup-victims over the project that could help outgroup victims, and those who did emphasized responsibility reasons (e.g., “Because I have a greater obligation”), but no other reasons, more than those favoring outgroup projects. These results are consistent with and extend previous findings about how different helping effects are related to different psychological processes.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

1990Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving 2010Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review.2006Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims 2003Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability 2007“If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide 2005The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual?2017The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior 1997Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect

Cited by

2018The importance of group‐focused transformational leadership and felt obligation for helping and group performance 2020Mental budgeting and the malleability of decision-making

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.