Donation Behavior toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity

Winterich, Karen Page; Mittal, Vikas; Ross, William T.

doi:10.1086/596720

Cited by 321 publications

(295 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

244

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While this can explain the effect we observe on donations, this explanation is not relevant to the behavior of the participants making the affect ratings, to whom we made no mention of donations. Second, the images of foreign victims may trigger group identity and men are known to act less positively towards out-group members than women (Winterich et al, 2009).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of the Affect Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving

Grossman

Weele

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous economic experiments on dual-process reasoning in altruistic decisions have yielded inconclusive results. However, these studies do not create a conflict between affective and cognitive motives, resulting in imperfect identification. We interact standard cognitive and affective manipulations in a giving task, and hypothesize that the affective manipulation has stronger effects when we simultaneously put the cognitive system under load. In line with earlier results, we find little evidence for dual-process reasoning in giving. Our independent treatment checks cast doubt on the effectiveness of standard treatment manipulations and show that both cognitive and affective manipulations consistently have opposite effects on the two sexes. We discuss the implications of our findings for economic experiments in this nascent research field.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of the Affect Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving

Grossman

Weele

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, MI is one important type of employee identity that may impact employee attitudes and behaviors in organizations (e.g., McFerran et al 2010;Shao et al 2008;Skarlicki et al 2008;Weaver 2006). Second, most previous research on MI mainly focuses on its impact on altruistic (or extra-role) types of behaviors (e.g., Aquino et al 2009Aquino et al , 2011Reed et al 2007;Reynolds and Ceranic 2007;Vitell et al 2009;Winterich et al 2009). We believe it is also of importance to assess how MI influences employees' 'in-role' behaviors and performance in a work setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace procedural justice is an important motivator for employee work attitude and performance. This research examines how procedural justice affects employee engagement. We developed three propositions. First, based on the group engagement model, we hypothesized that procedural justice enhances employee engagement through employee organizational identification. Second, employees with stronger moral identity centrality are more likely to be engaged in their jobs. Third, procedural justice compensates for the effect of moral identity centrality on employee engagement. Specifically, when procedural justice is higher, employee moral identity centrality plays a less significant role in employee engagement; whilst when procedural justice is lower, the effect of moral identity centrality on employee engagement is stronger. Research findings based on an employee survey in a leading financial service organization provide support for the above propositions.

show abstract

“…In this situation the self-benefiting package also offers greater total benefits. Building on research on interpersonal closeness (Fitzsimons and Kay 2004;Kurt, Inman, and Argo 2011;Ward and Broniarczyk 2011;Winterich and Barone 2011;Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 2009), we explore the possibility that consumers would be more likely to choose a self-benefiting package when the other person is close rather than distant. In other words, consumers would be more likely to take away some benefit from a close (as opposed to distant) other in exchange for a lot more benefit for themselves.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research documents "the friendly taking effect" in choosing consumption packages for the self and others, interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting package when this package also offers greater total benefit to the self-other collective (studies 1 and 2). We propose that a friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit) underlies the friendly taking effect; therefore, people both take more from and give more to a close (vs. distant) other when doing so offers greater benefits in total (study 3), and people are cognitively tuned in to (e.g., acquire, remember) information about the total benefit more when choosing a package for themselves and a close (vs. distant) other (study 4). Moreover, the importance people place on the total benefit mediates the impact of closeness on people's preference for self-benefiting packages (study 5). We explore boundary conditions (study 6) and implications for marketers of consumption packages (study 7).

show abstract

Donation Behavior toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity

Cited by 321 publications

References 40 publications

A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving

A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About