IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0252278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Happy to help—if it’s not too sad: The effect of mood on helping identifiable and unidentifiable victims

Author

Listed:
  • Hagit Sabato
  • Tehila Kogut

Abstract

People’s preference to help single victims about whom they have some information is known as the identifiable victim effect. Previous research suggests that this effect stems from an intensive emotional reaction toward specific victims. The findings of two studies consistently show that the identifiability effect is attenuated when the subject is in a positive mood. Study 1 (along with a pilot study) demonstrate causal relationships between mood and identifiability, while using different manipulations to induce moods. In both studies, donations to identified victims exceeded donations to unidentified people—in the Negative Mood manipulations—while participants in the Positive Mood conditions showed no such preference. In Study 2, individual differences in people’s moods interacted with the recipient’s identifiability in predicting donations, demonstrating that the identifiability effect is attenuated by a positive mood. In addition, emotional reactions toward the victims replicate the donation pattern, suggesting emotions as a possible explanation for the observed donation pattern.

Suggested Citation

  • Hagit Sabato & Tehila Kogut, 2021. "Happy to help—if it’s not too sad: The effect of mood on helping identifiable and unidentifiable victims," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0252278
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252278
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252278&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0252278?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bartels, Daniel M., 2006. "Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 76-95, May.
    2. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2007. ""One of us": Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 150-157, November.
    3. Hanna Fromell & Daniele Nosenzo & Trudy Owens, 2020. "Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 979-1001, December.
    4. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Capraro, Valerio & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2018. "Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 19-23.
    5. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    6. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:297-306 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Robert W. Smith & David Faro & Katherine A. Burson, 2013. "More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(5), pages 961-976.
    9. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    10. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Meng-Ran & Yin, Cheng-Yue, 2022. "Facial expressions of beneficiaries and donation intentions of potential donors: Effects of the number of beneficiaries in charity advertising," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. Perroni, Carlo & Scharf, Kimberley & Smith, Sarah & Talavera, Oleksandr & Vi, Linh, 2024. "Local Crime and Prosocial Attitudes: Evidence from Charitable Donations," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 706, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    4. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    5. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Abhishek Bhati & Ruth K. Hansen, 2020. "A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    8. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    9. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic, 2016. "Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    11. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    12. Lalin Anik & Lara B Aknin & Michael I Norton & Elizabeth W Dunn & Jordi Quoidbach, 2013. "Prosocial Bonuses Increase Employee Satisfaction and Team Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-8, September.
    13. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2016. "Social responsibility, human morality and public policy," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/20, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    14. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Thomas H. Allison & Blakley C. Davis & Jeremy C. Short & Justin W. Webb, 2015. "Crowdfunding in a Prosocial Microlending Environment: Examining the Role of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Cues," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(1), pages 53-73, January.
    18. Hasford, Jonathan & Farmer, Adam & Waites, Stacie F., 2015. "Thinking, feeling, and giving: The effects of scope and valuation on consumer donations," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 435-438.
    19. Diane Reyniers & Richa Bhalla, 2013. "Reluctant altruism and peer pressure in charitable giving," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(1), pages 7-15, January.
    20. Johnson, Samuel G.B. & Park, Seo Young, 2021. "Moral signaling through donations of money and time," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 183-196.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:50-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Metzger, Laura & Günther, Isabel, 2019. "Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 18-33.
    23. Hagit Sabato & Sapir Bar-Ilan, 2023. "Pleasure or Meaning: Subjective Well-Being Orientations and the Willingness to Help Close Versus Distant Others," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 2013-2037, August.
    24. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2011. "Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 638-650, October.
    25. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:4:p:303-315 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0252278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.