Giving (in) to help an identified person

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104557
Linh Vu , Catherine Molho , Ivan Soraperra , Susann Fiedler , Shaul Shalvi
{"title":"Giving (in) to help an identified person","authors":"Linh Vu ,&nbsp;Catherine Molho ,&nbsp;Ivan Soraperra ,&nbsp;Susann Fiedler ,&nbsp;Shaul Shalvi","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People give more to a person in need when this person's identity is known. Such altruistic behaviors may arise from a genuine concern for the person, leading people to <em>give</em>. Alternatively, altruistic behavior may also arise from one's attempt to reduce the guilt of not giving, leading people to <em>give in</em>. Is the increased altruism towards an identified (vs. unidentified) charity recipient driven by a genuine concern for the person or by guilt? The current registered report addressed this question in two experiments (<em>N</em> = 3671), in which participants made allocation decisions in transparent vs. ambiguous settings with a predetermined (versus undetermined; Study 1) or an identified (versus unidentified; Study 2) child in need as the recipient. Consistent with our pre-registered hypothesis, results revealed that participants gave significantly less to undetermined/unidentified children in an ambiguous, compared with a transparent setting. However, in contrast to our predictions, predetermined/identified children did not receive more than undetermined/unidentified children in transparent settings in which they know how their choice impacts the children. Accordingly, the predicted interaction between identification and ambiguity was not significant. Exploratory analyses revealed that participants who willingly resolve the ambiguity surrounding the impact of their choice gave more compared to those who were given transparent information by default. The results suggest that some people give in when making their donation decisions, but the tendency to give in is independent of whether the recipient is identified or not.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 104557"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001142/pdfft?md5=25dd76c4ad8a490c5a0c3d3cbc06c6f2&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103123001142-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001142","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People give more to a person in need when this person's identity is known. Such altruistic behaviors may arise from a genuine concern for the person, leading people to give. Alternatively, altruistic behavior may also arise from one's attempt to reduce the guilt of not giving, leading people to give in. Is the increased altruism towards an identified (vs. unidentified) charity recipient driven by a genuine concern for the person or by guilt? The current registered report addressed this question in two experiments (N = 3671), in which participants made allocation decisions in transparent vs. ambiguous settings with a predetermined (versus undetermined; Study 1) or an identified (versus unidentified; Study 2) child in need as the recipient. Consistent with our pre-registered hypothesis, results revealed that participants gave significantly less to undetermined/unidentified children in an ambiguous, compared with a transparent setting. However, in contrast to our predictions, predetermined/identified children did not receive more than undetermined/unidentified children in transparent settings in which they know how their choice impacts the children. Accordingly, the predicted interaction between identification and ambiguity was not significant. Exploratory analyses revealed that participants who willingly resolve the ambiguity surrounding the impact of their choice gave more compared to those who were given transparent information by default. The results suggest that some people give in when making their donation decisions, but the tendency to give in is independent of whether the recipient is identified or not.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
给予(帮助)一个确定的人
当人们知道一个人的身份时,人们会给有需要的人更多的钱。这种利他行为可能源于对他人的真正关心,导致人们给予。另外,利他行为也可能源于一个人试图减少不给予的罪恶感,导致人们屈服。对已确定的(或未确定的)慈善接受者的利他行为的增加是出于对这个人的真正关心还是出于内疚?目前已登记的报告在两个实验中解决了这个问题(N = 3671),其中参与者在透明和模糊的环境中做出分配决策,预先确定(相对于不确定;研究1)或确定的(相对于未确定的;研究有需要的孩子作为接受者。与我们预先登记的假设一致,结果显示,与透明设置相比,参与者在模糊设置中对未确定/身份不明的儿童的给予显着减少。然而,与我们的预测相反,在透明的环境中,他们知道自己的选择如何影响孩子,预先确定/确定的孩子并没有比未确定/未确定的孩子得到更多。因此,识别和歧义之间的预测交互作用不显著。探索性分析显示,与默认提供透明信息的参与者相比,愿意解决围绕其选择影响的模糊性的参与者给出了更多的信息。结果表明,有些人在做出捐赠决定时做出了让步,但这种让步的倾向与接受者是否被识别出来无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
期刊最新文献
People reward others based on their willingness to exert effort Black racial phenotypicality: Implications for the #BlackLivesMatter Movement Certainty improves the predictive validity of Honesty-Humility and Dark Triad traits on cheating behavior Narcissistic vigilance to status cues Avoidance of altruistic punishment: Testing with a situation-selective third-party punishment game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1