The preference for distributed helping

Sharps, Daron L.; Schroeder, Juliana

doi:10.31234/osf.io/hnvgf

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…spend more effort, time and money resources in other prosocial behaviour categories). This preference for diversifying across type of prosocial behaviours is in line with the emerging literature on prosocial resource distribution (Peetz & Howard, 2021; Sharps & Schroeder, 2019; Weisz & Cikara, 2020) and in line with general tendencies of variety seeking (e.g. Kessler et al, 2009; Read & Loewenstein, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In the present research, we examine whether the type of yesterday's prosocial behaviour might matter to which type of prosocial behaviour is performed today. In line with a tendency to distribute help across different help recipients (Peetz & Howard, 2021; Sharps & Schroeder, 2019), we expect a preference for diversifying prosocial behaviour across different types of prosocial behaviour. In other words, we expect decreased prosocial behaviour for the same type of prosocial behaviour the next day but increased prosocial behaviour for other types of prosocial behaviour the next day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Several plausible mechanisms may explain why we observed this pattern in our studies. Processes underlying the preference for distributed helping across help recipients are fairness (Sharps & Schroeder, 2019) and expected greater utility of distributed help (Peetz & Howard, 2021). These are unlikely to be the underlying processes here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When allocating prosocial resources, people prefer to distribute help across multiple help recipients rather than concentrate help on fewer help recipients (Sharps & Schroeder, 2019; Weisz & Cikara, 2020). Participants making allocation decisions in a donation paradigm showed a clear preference to distribute help (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants making allocation decisions in a donation paradigm showed a clear preference to distribute help (i.e. money) across more requesters rather than concentrate it among fewer requesters (Sharps & Schroeder, 2019). Similarly, viewing multiple requests for monetary aid rather than a single donation request increased the amount of help (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

People prefer to diversify across different types of prosocial behaviour

Peetz

Howard

2022

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most individuals' daily lives, there are many opportunities for prosocial behaviour on any given day. Prosocial behaviour describes any actions to benefit others (Dovidio et al., 2017), including small acts of kindness, such as holding a door open, buying someone a drink or a meal, donating to charity, doing chores for someone else, providing emotional support by listening or giving advice. Given the manifold opportunities for prosocial behaviour, how do people decide how to help? A wealth of research has identified situational factors about the prosocial opportunity at hand (e.g. the perceived need of the

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

People prefer to diversify across different types of prosocial behaviour

Peetz

Howard

2022

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The many obstacles to effective giving

Caviola

Schubert²,

Nemirow³

2020

Judgm. decis. mak.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people donate, they rarely give to the charities that do the most good per dollar. Why is this? One possibility is that they do not know how to give effectively. Another possibility is that they are not motivated to do so. Across six tasks (Studies 1a, 1b), we found support for both explanations. Among lay donors, we observed multiple misconceptions—regarding disaster relief, overhead costs, donation splitting, and the relative effectiveness of local and foreign charities—that reduced the effectiveness of their giving. Similarly, we found that they were unfamiliar with the most effective charities (Studies 2a, 2b). Debunking these misconceptions and informing people about effectiveness boosted effective donations; however, a portion of lay donors continued to give ineffectively to satisfy their personal preferences. By contrast, a sample of self-identified effective altruists gave effectively across all tasks. They exhibited none of the misconceptions that we observed among lay donors and overwhelmingly favored the most effective option in their choice set (Study 3). Taken together, our studies imply that donors need to be both informed and motivated to give effectively on a consistent basis.

show abstract

Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness

Caviola

Schubert

Teperman³

et al. 2020

Judgm. decis. mak.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some charities are much more cost-effective than other charities, which means that they can save many more lives with the same amount of money. Yet most donations do not go to the most effective charities. Why is that? We hypothesized that part of the reason is that people underestimate how much more effective the most effective charities are compared with the average charity. Thus, they do not know how much more good they could do if they donated to the most effective charities. We studied this hypothesis using samples of the general population, students, experts, and effective altruists in five studies. We found that lay people estimated that among charities helping the global poor, the most effective charities are 1.5 times more effective than the average charity (Studies 1 and 2). Effective altruists, in contrast, estimated the difference to be factor 50 (Study 3) and experts estimated the factor to be 100 (Study 4). We found that participants donated more to the most effective charity, and less to an average charity, when informed about the large difference in cost-effectiveness (Study 5). In conclusion, misconceptions about the difference in effectiveness between charities is thus likely one reason, among many, why people donate ineffectively.

show abstract

The preference for distributed helping

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

People prefer to diversify across different types of prosocial behaviour

People prefer to diversify across different types of prosocial behaviour

The many obstacles to effective giving

Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About