The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations
Section snippets
Experiment 1
The present experiment contrasts the effect of identification of a single victim with the effect of identification of a group of victims on people’s actual contributions to those victims. Our main hypothesis is that contributions to save identified victims will be greater than contributions to save unidentified ones, predominantly when the target is a single individual. We further predict that across identification levels, contributions for a single victim will be greater than contributions for
Experiment 2
The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated the effect of the singularity of identified victims: the mean contribution for saving a group of eight identified children was significantly lower than that for saving a single identified child. In that study, the two cases, saving a single identified victim and saving a group of identified victims, were evaluated separately. The two options were presented in isolation and evaluated by different people. The present experiment was designed to examine the
Experiment 3
In the present experiment, we further explore the boundaries of the identified single victim effect, by examining the effect of the targets’ identification on the intention to contribute, when these targets are not necessarily in a grave predicament. The targets, in this case, were again children. However, in this experiment they were described as gifted children who were eligible to participate in a special 16-year long, highly expensive study program. In one version, the children were
General discussion
The present research provides further evidence for the identified victim effect. Unless willingness to contribute is driven by a special personal attachment to the particular identified victim, the greater contribution to an identified victim may not serve the contributor’s goals to the best extent, as it is unlikely that social benefits will be maximized when resources are made available to identified victims more than to unidentified ones. Thus, understanding the sources and boundaries for
References (35)
Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?
- et al.
The inconsistent role of comparison others and procedural justice in reactions to hypothetical job descriptions: Implications for job acceptance decisions
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1994) - et al.
Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
(1999) - et al.
Goals as reference points
Cognitive Psychology
(1999) The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996)- et al.
Protected values and omission bias
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1999) Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions
Psychological Bulletin
(1997)- et al.
Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence
Journal of Experimental Psychology
(1996) - et al.
Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1991) - et al.
Immorality from empathy—induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1995)