Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving
Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s1930297500009001
复制
发表时间：
2022-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Hajdi Moche;Tom Gordon-Hecker;Tehila Kogut;D. Västfjäll
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hajdi Moche;Tom Gordon-Hecker;Tehila Kogut;D. Västfjäll
当捐赠是冲动的时候，深思熟虑能增加慈善捐赠吗？一次小礼物，以回应立即呼吁）？我们在以色列和瑞典进行了两项研究，以比较两种形式的审议，无指导和有指导，在他们的能力，以减少奇点效应（即，给予一个人比给予许多受害者更多），通常在冲动给予中很明显。在无指导的商议下，参与者被要求在做出捐赠决定之前努力思考，而在有指导的商议条件下，参与者被要求思考有多少不同的预先指定的决策属性应该影响他们的决定。我们发现，这两种类型的审议减少了奇点效应，因为人们不再重视单一的受害者高于受害者群体。重要的是，这是由于在审议中只减少了对单个受害者的捐款，而不是对受害者群体的捐款。因此，深思熟虑通过掩盖情感反应而对捐赠产生负面影响，特别是在影响最大的情况下（即，一个受害者）。最后，研究结果表明，无论是哪种类型的审议显着扭转了单一的效果，因为人们没有帮助群体显着超过单一的受害者。这意味着深思熟虑降低了帮助的整体意愿，导致对需要帮助的人的整体评价较低。
Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a one-time small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims. Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need.