No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Extant research and practitioner advice tout that organizations should give people choice to increase their prosociality. With three preregistered experiments across field and online settings (N=25,399), we challenge this assumption, identify conditions under which choice can be helpful versus harmful, and uncover the underlying psychological processes. We first show that relative to no choice, a choice framed as “what to give” (e.g., a “Basic Needs Basket” or a “Survivor’s Kit”) increases donation interest by elevating a sense of agency. However, framing that same choice as “who to help” (e.g., “Help a Child” or “Help a Trafficked Girl”) as opposed to “what to give” reduces donation interest as it causes decision discomfort. Importantly, the two competing mechanisms of agency and decision discomfort may cancel out when a choice framed as “who to help” is compared to not giving choice. This research provides a framework to understand the nuanced effects of giving choice on prosociality. While choice can enhance feelings of agency and satisfy individuals’ quest for a “warm glow”, facing a tradeoff between two recipient populations may instead elicit a “cold chill”, freezing the likelihood of donating at all.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.