Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving : Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving

Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a one-time small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims. Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need.Funding Agencies: National Science Foundation (NSF)[1757315]</p

Pittarello et al (2015) - Part 1

Do justifications create blind spots during ethical decision-making dilemmas

Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving : Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving

Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a one-time small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims. Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need.Funding Agencies: National Science Foundation (NSF)[1757315]</p

Buy-one-get-one-free deals attract more attention than percentage deals

Promotion deals and price reductions are common strategies retailers use to attract consumers. We investigate which of two common types of deals better captures consumers’ attention. By tracing eye movements, we examine participants’ attention allocation when deciding between “buy-one-get-one free” (BOGO) deals versus deals that offer an equivalent price reduction. Results show that people prefer BOGO deals, and they tend to choose them over price reductions even when the deals are equal in terms of net value. The preference is amplified when the discount is relatively high: In these cases, BOGO deals attract more attention than percentage deals. Overall, our findings can help retailers develop promotional strategies to capture potential consumers’ attention in online commerce. At the same time, our results warn consumers to better evaluate their options and not be lured by the first BOGO deal that captures their attention, as it might not be the best deal available

Not taking responsibility:Equity trumps efficiency in allocation decisions

When allocating resources, equity and efficiency may conflict. When resources are scarce and cannot be distributed equally, one may choose to destroy resources and reduce societal welfare to maintain equity among its members. We examined whether people are averse to inequitable outcomes per se or to being responsible for deciding how inequity should be implemented. Three scenario-based experiments and one incentivized experiment revealed that participants are inequity responsibility averse: when asked to decide which of the 2 equally deserving individuals should receive a reward, they rather discarded the reward than choosing who will get it. This tendency diminished significantly when participants had the possibility to use a random device to allocate the reward. The finding suggests that it is more difficult to be responsible for the way inequity is implemented than to create inequity per se. (PsycINFO Database Recor