Unintentional Unfair Behavior Promotes Charitable Donation

Ohtsubo, Yohsuke; Watanabe, Esuka

doi:10.5178/lebs.2013.24

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As we stated in the introduction section, the state shame score was indistinguishable from the state guilt score. As shown in Table 1, only shame-proneness predicted post-transgression state shame and guilt (for similar results, see Giner-Sorolla et al, 2011;Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2013). The lack of significant correlation between guilt-proneness and state guilt might be attributable to the experimental procedure (i.e., no chance of reconciliation) that deemphasized the role of guilt.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…After omitting this participant, self-punishment was correlated with shame proneness at a marginally significant level, r (47) = .24, p < .10. To confirm the reliability of the result, we also combined this dataset with previous datasets (Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2013; Watanabe & Ohtsubo, 2012, Study 3) after standardizing the self-punishment scores within each experiment. The correlation between shame-proneness and self-punishment was significant, r (144) = .18, p = .030…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shame-prone people are more likely to punish themselves: A test of the reputation-maintenance explanation for self-punishment.

Tanaka

Yagi

Komiya

et al. 2015

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent experimental studies have accumulated evidence about self-punishment. In accordance with the evolutionary perspective that shame has a reputation-maintenance function, we speculated that shame would promote self-punishment. Accordingly, we tested whether proneness to shame would predict self-punishment. In the first phase of the experiment, 98 undergraduates completed the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA), a standard measure of proneness to shame and guilt. About two months later, 50 of the original participants took part in a self-punishment experiment, in which they all unintentionally made an unfair resource allocation, and then had the opportunity to inflict self-punishment by abandoning some of the money they had allocated to themselves. The amount of money the participants relinquished was significantly correlated with their shame-proneness. The intensity of post-transgression shame mediated the effect of shame-proneness on self-punishment. These results provide support for the evolutionary theorization of shame as a reputation-maintenance emotion.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shame-prone people are more likely to punish themselves: A test of the reputation-maintenance explanation for self-punishment.

Tanaka

Yagi

Komiya

et al. 2015

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Liu and Aaker () found that priming a donation appeal with an initial request for volunteering time, “How much time would you like to donate to the American Cancer Society?” (p. 546), engaged an emotional mindset—as contrasted with a mindset focused on money and economic utility—and consequently generated more donations at the end of the experiment. Similarly, others have found that experimentally inducing emotions, such as sadness (Kandrack & Lundberg, ), guilt (Darlington & Macker, ; Ohtsubo & Watanabe, ), or anger (Kandrack & Lundberg, ) prior to a charitable request increased donations. Simply displaying the word “love” (Guéguen & Lamy, ) or a heart shape (Guéguen, Jacob, & Charles‐Sire, ) increased donations in field experiments.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 86%

Describing complex charitable giving instruments: Experimental tests of technical finance terms and tax benefits

James

2018

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planned giving, including charitable remainder trusts, charitable gift annuities, remainder interest deeds, donor advised funds, and gifts of appreciated stocks and bonds, can offer substantial benefits to donors and provide needed support to charities. However, presenting complex charitable planning options creates unique challenges. Past experimental work demonstrates that social or emotional concerns motivate charitable giving decisions, but that financial or monetary reminders promote a market‐exchange mentality reducing both social concern and charitable donations. Consequently, some recommend eliminating references to tax benefits when introducing charitable planning options. Yet, tax benefits may be a motivational and socially acceptable form of donor benefit because they cost the charity nothing. A series of experiments measuring interest in pursuing various planned giving arrangements demonstrates that although using technical financial terms—including even the technically correct name of the instrument—does reduce interest, referencing tax benefits increases interest. Gratuitous technical finance references may engender a market‐exchange mindset and thereby reduce charitable interest. However, a simple description of donor tax benefits—a socially acceptable benefit also relevant for a market‐exchange mindset—can still motivate charitable giving. The experimental results suggest that when initially describing complex charitable options, practitioners should avoid technical financial terminology, but should mention, and even lead with, tax benefits.

show abstract

“…However, Krishna (2011) argues prosocial spending may function differently in the case of purchasing cause-related products, as the purchase may be perceived as an egoistic act, and therefore not increase happiness. Another study found evidence of increased giving as a method of guilt reduction (Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2013).…”

Section: Altruism Altruistic Values and Warm Glowmentioning

confidence: 99%

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Bhati

Hansen

2020

JBPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between 2007-2019. Interest in studying fundraising spans many disciplines, each of which tends to focus on different aspects, supporting earlier claims that fundraising has no single academic “home.” Most of the literature focuses on two key areas: the philanthropic environment in which fundraising occurs, largely focused on potential donors’ experiences, preferences, and motivations; and testing fundraising tactics and techniques that result in different behavior by potential donors. More than 40% of the experiments were published in Economics journals. Correspondingly, topics such as warm glow and mechanisms such as lotteries, raffles, and auctions are well represented. Experimental studies largely omit the practical and the ethical considerations of fundraisers and of beneficiaries. For instance, studies focusing on the identified victim phenomenon often stereotype beneficiaries in order to foster guilt among donors and thereby increase giving. We identify several opportunities for research to examine new questions to support ethical and effective fundraising practice and nonprofit administration.

show abstract

Unintentional Unfair Behavior Promotes Charitable Donation

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

Shame-prone people are more likely to punish themselves: A test of the reputation-maintenance explanation for self-punishment.

Shame-prone people are more likely to punish themselves: A test of the reputation-maintenance explanation for self-punishment.

Describing complex charitable giving instruments: Experimental tests of technical finance terms and tax benefits

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About