Beneficiary effects in prosocial decision making: Understanding unequal valuations of lives

 

To understand human prosocial behavior, one must consider not only the helpers and the requesters, but also the characteristics of the beneficiaries. This article reviews research on beneficiary effects in prosocial decision making, which implies that some human lives are valued higher than others. We focus on eight beneficiary attributes that increase willingness to help: (1) Temporal proximity, (2) Young age, (3) Female gender, (4) Misery, (5) Innocence, (6) Ingroup, (7) Identifiability (8) High proportion. We demonstrate that different psychological mechanisms explain different beneficiary effects and conclude by discussing theoretical, moral, and applied aspects of beneficiary effects.

​

Erlandsson, A., Dickert, S., Moche, H., Västfjäll, D., & Chapman, C. (2023). Beneficiary effects in prosocial decision making: Understanding unequal valuations of lives. European Review of Social Psychology, 1-48. ​https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2272238 

Donors' self- and other-oriented motives for selecting charitable causes

​

Millions of charities compete for charitable donations, yet the underlying factors influencing individuals' preferences remain poorly understood. To understand whether charitable behaviors are more altruistically or egoistically motivated, this study employs a community survey (N = 987) to identify the various motivations relevant to donors' decision-making processes. We find that self-oriented motives are associated with preferences for environmental and research causes, while other-oriented motives exhibit a strong link with preferences for housing and development causes. We find a complex interplay of self and other motives shapes preferences for health, social services, emergency, and international causes.

 

Thottam, A. K., Chapman, C. M., & Leszczyc, P. P. (2024). Donors' self‐and other‐oriented motives for selecting charitable causes. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114620

Philanthropy during COVID-19: Learnings and recommendations for philanthropic organizations navigating crisis

​

Which actions can philanthropic organizations take to best support community needs during times of crisis? To answer this question, this article synthesizes information about how philanthropic organizations responded during the early COVID-19 crisis (spring―fall 2020) across 11 countries: Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Sweden, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America. Based on these learnings, the article recommends four key actions that philanthropic organizations can take during times of crisis: (1) Assess community needs; (2) engage with volunteers and donors; (3) communicate effectively and strategically with volunteers, donors, and the public; and (4) focus on equity.

​

Hampton, D., Wiepking, P., Chapman, C., McHugh, L. H., Arnesen, D., Carrigan, C., Feit, G., Grönlund, H., Hrafnsdóttir, S., Ivanova, N., Katz, H., Sung-Ju, K., Kristmundsson, Ó., Litofcenko, J., Mersianova., I., Neumayr., M., Pessi, A.B., Scaife, W., Sivesind, K.H., Vamstad, J. & Yang, Y. (2023). Philanthropy during COVID‐19: Learnings and recommendations for philanthropic organizations navigating crisis. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1814 

We usually give like this: Social norms describe typical charitable causes supported by group members

​

We surveyed 1735 people in 117 countries and asked them which types of causes different social groups typically give to. Overall, we found significant differences in the patterns of normative causes between groups, with varying degrees of consensus. For example, five times as many men as women said their gender group typically supports political organizations, while twice as many progressives as conservatives said their political group typically supports environmental causes. Some causes were relatively universally approved of or avoided. Results can inform nonprofit fundraising strategy around segmentation and targeting.

 

Chapman, C. M., Dixon, L., Wallin, A., Young, T., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2023). We usually give like this: Social norms describe typical charitable causes supported by group members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231160467

Rage donations and mobilization: Understanding the effects of advocacy on collective giving responses

​

Advocacy is intended to change people's attitudes and behavior. But is advocacy effective? Across 3 experiments (combined N = 934) in the contexts of debates around racial discrimination and abortion, we investigated if and how exposure to advocacy can influence collective giving responses. Results show that advocacy can simultaneously mobilize and demobilize support. In this paper we also investigate the idea of “rage donations” whereby people donate out of anger. Only modest support was found for the notion of rage giving.

​

Chapman, C. M., Lizzio-Wilson, M., Mirnajafi, Z., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2022). Rage donations and mobilization: Understanding the effects of advocacy on collective giving responses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(3), 882-906. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12522 

Give where you live: A social network analysis of charitable donations reveals localized prosociality donations and mobilization: Understanding the effects of advocacy on collective giving responses

​

Millions of charities compete for donations, yet no empirical study has examined patterns of shared giving behavior across the nonprofit sector. To understand which types of charities are more likely to share donors, we conducted a social network analysis using behavioral data from 1,504,848 donors to 52 large charities in Australia. We considered how patterns of shared donations may be determined by charity sub-type, type of beneficiaries, or geographic focus. Results indicate that patterns of shared giving are strongly shaped by geography: international charities typically share donors, as do charities operating in the same local region. A key managerial implication is that the practice of supporter list swapping may be most beneficial when lists are shared between organizations that both operate in the same geographic region rather than between organizations that both operate as the same subtype of charity or both share similar beneficiaries.

​

​Chapman, C. M., Louis, W. R., Masser, B. M., Hornsey, M. J., & Broccatelli, C. (2022). Give where you live: A social network analysis of charitable donations reveals localized prosociality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(5), 1106-1120.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2058 

Charitable Triad Theory: How donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers influence charitable giving age donations and mobilization: Understanding the effects of advocacy on collective giving responses

​

Nonprofits address some of the world's most pressing problems, and many rely on donations to fund their essential work. Research on giving has largely focused on identifying the characteristics that make people generous but has generated inconsistent findings. To address this, we propose Charitable Triad Theory which asserts that giving is triadic because the characteristics of three actors—donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers—influence charitable decisions. A systematic review of 1337 empirical articles published between 1980 and 2020 helps evidence seven key propositions of the theory, which articulate the ways in which donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and the dyadic and triadic relationships between them, can affect charitable behavior. 

​

Chapman, C. M., Louis, W. R., Masser, B. M., & Thomas, E. F. (2022). Charitable Triad Theory: How donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers influence charitable giving. Psychology & marketing, 39(9), 1826-1848.

https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21701 

Identity motives in charitable giving: Explanations for charity preferences from a global donor survey 

​

Millions of charities compete for donor dollars, yet why people prefer to give to particular charities remains poorly understood. We analyzed open‐ended responses from a global donor survey (N = 1,849 from 117 countries) to understand why participants see their favorite charity as important, and how identities influence charity preferences. Results indicate that donors gave in relation to “Self” or “Other”. Specifically, donors were more likely to explain giving to religious and research charities in relation to the self, but to explain giving to social service, animal, or international charities in relation to the other. This article also documents the identities that donors most often use to inform their giving choices.

​

Chapman, C. M., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2020). Identity motives in charitable giving: Explanations for charity preferences from a global donor survey. Psychology & marketing, 37(9), 1277-1291.

https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21362

Identifying (our) donors: Toward a social psychological understanding of charity selection in Australia 

​

In this paper, two studies provide evidence that different people give to different kinds of causes. We infer that people give in ways that align with the values of their important social groups.

​

Chapman, C. M., Louis, W. R., & Masser, B. M. (2018). Identifying (our) donors: Toward a social psychological understanding of charity selection in Australia. Psychology & marketing, 35(12), 980-989.

https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21150 

​

International media coverage promotes donations to a climate disaster

​

The Australian bushfires in 2019–20 triggered massive amounts of charitable giving from the community. This study examined if and how disaster news coverage influenced public donations in response to the crisis. A survey of 949 Australians found that people perceived news coverage of the event to be a strong influence on the amount they donated to bushfire appeals. Next, a textual analysis of international news coverage of the event (N = 30,239 unique articles) was conducted. Compared to a control corpus of text, news coverage of the disaster used words related to ‘money’ and ‘support’ at disproportionately high frequencies. Together, the studies suggest that the media plays an agenda-setting role in determining how and to what extent people give to disaster appeals.

​

Chapman, C. M., Hornsey, M. J., Fielding, K. S., & Gulliver, R. (2022). International media coverage promotes donations to a climate disaster. Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12557 

​