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

References

• Ahn, H.-K., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal, P. (2014). Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science, 25(1), 224–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613496823
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allred, A. T., & Amos, C. (2018). Disgust images and nonprofit children’s causes. Journal of Social Marketing, 8(1), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-01-2017-0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, P. A., Erlandsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2022). Norm avoiders: The effect of optional descriptive norms on charitable donations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(1), e2244. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, P. A., Erlandsson, A., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2020). Prosocial and moral behavior under decision reveal in a public environment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 87, 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607–1636.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2011). Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The science of giving (pp. 3–14). Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J.,Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachke, M. E., Alfnes, F., & Wik, M. (2014). Eliciting donor preferences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9347-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Back, S., & Lips, H. M. (1998). Child sexual abuse: Victim age, victim gender, and observer gender as factors contributing to attributions of responsibility. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(12), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00098-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J. (1997). Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007796310463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J. (2012). Parochialism as a result of cognitive biases. In A. Woods, R. Goodman, & D. Jinks (Eds.), Understanding social action, promoting human rights (pp. 203–243). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, J., & Miller, J. G. (2000). Limiting the scope of moral obligations to help: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(6), 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031006003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J., Ritov, I., & Greene, J. D. (2013). The duty to support nationalistic policies. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, J., & Szymanska, E. (2011). Heuristics and biases in charity. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 215–235). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, D. M. (2006). Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, D. M., & Burnett, R. C. (2011). A group construal account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy preference and moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 50–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekkers, R., & Ottoni-Wilhelm, M. (2016). Principle of care and giving to help people in need. European Journal of Personality, 30(3), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R., & Kottasz, R. (2000). Advertisement style and the recruitment of charity volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 8(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v08n02_05
   Google Scholar
• Bergh, R., & Reinstein, D. (2021). Empathic and numerate giving: The joint effects of victim images and charity evaluations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., & Small, D. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747648
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhati, A., & Hansen, R. (2020). A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.129
   Google Scholar
• Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L., Capraro, V., Celadin, T., & DiPaolo, R. (2020). “Do the right thing” for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bischoff, C., & Hansen, J. (2016). Influencing support of charitable objectives in the near and distant future: Delay discounting and the moderating influence of construal level. Social Influence, 11(4), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1232204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Body, A., & Breeze, B. (2016). What are ‘unpopular causes’ and how can they achieve fundraising success? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2018). Does observability affect prosociality? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1875), 20180116. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2019). When the relatively poor prosper: The underdog effect on charitable donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018794305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brañas-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bravo Vergel, Y., & Sculpher, M. (2008). Quality-adjusted life years. Practical Neurology, 8(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1136/pn.2007.140186
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burum, B., Nowak, M. A., & Hoffman, M. (2020). An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butts, M. M., Lunt, D. C., Freling, T. L., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, D. M., Dana, J., & Newman, G. E. (2014). Giving versus giving in. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 505–533. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.911576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns, J. A., & van Der Pol, M. M. (1997). Saving future lives. A comparison of three discounting models. Health Economics, 6(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<341:AID-HEC277>3.0.CO;2-Y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, C. D., Harris, L. T., & Payne, B. K. (2015). The emotional cost of humanity: Anticipated exhaustion motivates dehumanization of stigmatized targets. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615604453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M., & de Pol, I. V. (2019). Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 11880. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Capraro, V., & Perc, M. (2021). Mathematical foundations of moral preferences. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(175), 20200880. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capraro, V., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment & Decision Making, 13(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008858
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, L. S., White, M. P., & Pahl, S. (2011). The impact of excess choice on deferment of decisions to volunteer. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casale, D., & Baumann, A. (2015). Who gives to international causes? A sociodemographic analysis of US donors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013507141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo, M., Petrie, R., & Wardell, C. (2014). Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 114, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caviola, L., Schubert, S., & Greene, J. D. (2021). The psychology of (in) effective altruism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(7), 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caviola, L., Schubert, S., & Mogensen, A. (2021). Should you save the more useful? The effect of generality on moral judgments about rescue and indirect effects. Cognition, 206, 104501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caviola, L., Schubert, S., & Nemirow, J. (2020). The many obstacles to effective giving. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caviola, L., Schubert, S., Teperman, E., Moss, D., Greenberg, S., & Faber, N. S. (2020). Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(4), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 089976402311604. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231160467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, G. B., & Elstein, A. S. (1995). Valuing the future: Temporal discounting of health and money. Medical Decision Making, 15(4), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9501500408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, C. M., Hornsey, M. J., & Gillespie, N. (2021). To what extent is trust a prerequisite for charitable giving? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(6), 1274–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211003250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, C. M., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2019). The champion effect in peer-to-peer giving: Successful campaigns highlight fundraisers more than causes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(3), 572–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018805196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnysh, V., Lucas, C., & Singh, P. (2015). The ties that bind: National identity salience and pro-social behavior toward the ethnic other. Comparative Political Studies, 48(3), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014543103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chasteen, A. L., & Madey, S. F. (2003). Belief in a just world and the perceived injustice of dying young or old. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 47(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.2190/W7H7-TE9E-1FWN-B8XD
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropper, M. L., Aydede, S. K., & Portney, P. R. (1992). Rates of time preference for saving lives. The American Economic Review, 82(2), 469–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropper, M. L., Aydede, S. K., & Portney, P. R. (1994). Preferences for life saving programs: How the public discounts time and age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cryder, C. E., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Responsibility: The tie that binds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 441–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Seltman, H. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1078–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry, T. R., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703256265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d’Adda, G., Capraro, V., & Tavoni, M. (2017). Push, don’t nudge: Behavioral spillovers and policy instruments. Economics Letters, 154, 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.02.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S., & Handgraaf, M. J. (2011). Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(4), 1262–1266. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015316108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2011). Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 638–650. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy. Judgment & Decision Making, 4(4), 297–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickert, S., Västfjäll, D., Kleber, J., & Slovic, P. (2012). Valuations of human lives: Normative expectations and psychological mechanisms of (ir)rationality. Synthese, 189(S1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0137-4
   Google Scholar
• Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401864
   Google Scholar
• Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/674976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Generosity, anonymity, gender. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2159–2180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00037-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., & Dolan, P. (2012). Public preferences for responsibility versus public preferences for reducing inequalities. Health Economics, 21(12), 1416–1426. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ein‐Gar, D., Levontin, L., & Kogut, T. (2021). The adverse effect of choice in donation decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010385949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elinder, M., & Erixson, O. (2012). Gender, social norms, and survival in maritime disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(33), 13220–13224. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207156109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A. (2014). Underlying psychological mechanisms of helping effects: Examining the when× why of charitable giving. [ Doctoral Dissertation, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A. (2021). Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 16(5), 1113–1154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2014). Perceived utility (not sympathy) mediates the proportion dominance effect in helping decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2017). Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Hohle, S. M., Løhre, E., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). The rise and fall of scary numbers: The effect of perceived trends on future estimates, severity ratings, and help-allocations in a cancer context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(11), 618–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Jungstrand, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2016). Anticipated guilt for not helping and anticipated warm glow for helping are differently impacted by personal responsibility to help. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1475). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01475
   Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Lindkvist, A., Lundqvist, K., Andersson, P. A., Dickert, S., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2020). Moral preferences in helping dilemmas expressed by matching and forced choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(4), 452–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., Tinghög, G., Andersson, D., & Västfjäll, D. (2019). Donations to outgroup charities, but not ingroup charities, predict helping intentions toward street-beggars in Sweden. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 814–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018819872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Västfjäll, D., Sundfelt, O., & Slovic, P. (2016). Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Wingren, M., Andersson, P. A., (2020). Type and amount of help as predictors for impression of helpers. PloS One, 15(12), e0243808. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evangelidis, I., & Van den Bergh, B. (2013). The number of fatalities drives disaster aid: Increasing sensitivity to people in need. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2226–2234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(15). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2017). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: A review of the evidence. Ecological Economics, 140, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny, S., & Clarke, M. (2007). What determines Australia’s response to emergencies and natural disasters? Australian Economic Review, 40(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8462.2007.00439.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fehse, K., Silveira, S., Elvers, K., & Blautzik, J. (2015). Compassion, guilt and innocence: An fMRI study of responses to victims who are responsible for their fate. Social Neuroscience, 10(3), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.980587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S., & Friedrich, J. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007744326393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., Harris, C., & Schott, M. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests–an analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler, S., Hellmann, D. M., Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2018). Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin and North America. Judgment & Decision Making, 13(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & and Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fong, C. M. (2007). Evidence from an experiment on charity to welfare recipients: Reciprocity, altruism and the empathic responsiveness hypothesis. The Economic Journal, 117(522), 1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02076.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, Z., Law, K. F., & Gaesser, B. (2021). Against empathy bias: The moral value of equitable empathy. Psychological Science, 32(5), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620979965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederick, S. (2003). Measuring intergenerational time preference: Are future lives valued less? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022298223127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedrich, J., Barnes, P., Chapin, K., Dawson, I., Garst, V., & Kerr, D. (1999). Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_05
   Google Scholar
• Friedrich, J., & Dood, T. L. (2009). How many casualties are too many? Proportional reasoning in the valuation of Military and civilian lives 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), 2541–2569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00537.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5(3), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534511003707352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). The subtlety of white racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.10.691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garinther, A., Arrow, H., & Razavi, P. (2022). Victim number effects in charitable giving: Joint evaluations promote egalitarian decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220982734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. P., & Benforado, A. (2015). Judging the goring ox: Retribution directed toward animals. Cognitive Science, 39(3), 619–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. P., & Landy, J. F. (2014). Valuing different human lives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 778–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032796
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon-Hecker, T., Choshen-Hillel, S., Shalvi, S., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2017). Resource allocation decisions: When do we sacrifice efficiency in the name of equity?. In M. Li & D. P. Tracer (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice (pp. 93–105). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Goswami, I., & Urminsky, O. (2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, K., & Wronski, J. (2021). Helping the homeless: The role of empathy, race and deservingness in motivating policy support and charitable giving. Political Behavior, 43(2), 585–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09562-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody’s watching?: Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern, S. D., Truog, R. D., & Miller, F. G. (2020). Cognitive bias and public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jama, 324(4), 337–338. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.11623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., Lane, D., Chinn, S., & Dickert, S. (2018). The elusive power of the individual victim: Failure to find a difference in the effectiveness of charitable appeals focused on one compared to many victims. PloS One, 13(7), e0199535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog, S. (2017). Experimental analysis of attitudes: The factorial-survey approach. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.51011
   Google Scholar
• Holm, H., & Engseld, P. (2005). Choosing bargaining partners—an experimental study on the impact of information about income, status and gender. Experimental Economics, 8(3), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-005-1463-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. S. (2017). In a moral dilemma, choose the one you love: Impartial actors are seen as less moral than partial ones. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(3), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, T. K., & Zagefka, H. (2017). The effects of group memberships of victims and perpetrators in humanly caused disasters on charitable donations to victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(8), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenni, K., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007740225484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannesson, M., & Johansson, P.-O. (1997). Saving lives in the present versus saving lives in the future—is there a framing effect? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007786418821
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson, H., Persson, E., Perini, I., Yngve, A., Heilig, M., & Tinghög, G. (2021). Acute effects of alcohol on social and personal decision making. Neuropsychopharmacology, 47(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01218-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawai, N., Kubo, K., & Kubo‐Kawai, N. (2014). “Granny dumping”: Acceptability of sacrificing the elderly in a simulated moral dilemma. Japanese Psychological Research, 56(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, J. B., & Milkman, K. L. (2018). Identity in charitable giving. Management Science, 64(2), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleber, J., Dickert, S., Peters, E., & Florack, A. (2013). Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T. (2011). Someone to blame: When identifying a victim decreases helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 748–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Kogut, E. (2013). Exploring the relationship between adult attachment style and the identifiable victim effect in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). “One of us”: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2015). Target dependent ethics: Discrepancies between ethical decisions toward specific and general targets. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.005
   Google Scholar
• Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un) accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacetera, N., Macis, M., & Slonim, R. (2014). Rewarding volunteers: A field experiment. Management Science, 60(5), 1107–1129. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K., & Rupp, N. G. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 747–782. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., & Feeley, T. H. (2016). The identifiable victim effect: A meta-analytic review. Social Influence, 11(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1216891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross, W. T. (2014). I’m moral, but I won’t help you: The distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678–696. https://doi.org/10.1086/677226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesner, T. H., & Rasmussen, O. D. (2014). The identifiable victim effect in charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Applied Economics, 46(36), 4409–4430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.962226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, M., & Thompson, K. (2004). Identity, place, and bystander intervention: Social categories and helping after natural disasters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.3.229-245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, P., & Charny, M. (1989). Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can’t treat both? Journal of Medical Ethics, 15(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.15.1.28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2009). “100% of anything looks good”: The appeal of one hundred percent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., & Hsee, C. K. (2019). Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindersson, L., Guntell, L., Carlsson, R., & Agerström, J. (2019). Reassessing the impact of descriptive norms on charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 24(1), e1617. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, M., Vietri, J., Galvani, A. P., & Chapman, G. B. (2010). How do people value life? Psychological Science, 21(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacAskill, W. (2015). Doing good better: Effective altruism and a radical new way to make a difference. Guardian Faber Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Majumder, R., Tai, Y. L., Ziano, I., & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the impact of singularity on the identified victim effect: An unsuccessful replication and extension of Kogut and Ritov (2005a). Study 2. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9QCPJ
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2017). Partisan differences in nonpartisan activity: The case of charitable giving. Political Behavior, 39(4), 839–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9382-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mata, A. (2016). Proportion dominance in valuing lives: The role of deliberative thinking. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(5), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000454X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McManus, R. M., Kleiman-Weiner, M., & Young, L. (2020). What we owe to family: The impact of special obligations on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 31(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619900321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.432
   Google Scholar
• Moche, H. (2022). Unequal valuations of lives and what to do about it: The role of identifiability, numbers, and age in charitable giving. [ Ph.D. dissertation, Linköping University.
   Google Scholar
• Moche, H., Erlandsson, A., Andersson, D., & Västfjäll, D. (2020). Opportunity cost in monetary donation decisions to non-identified and identified victims. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3035–3035. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moche, H., Erlandsson, A., Dickert, S., & Västfjäll, D. (2023). The potential and pitfalls of unit asking in reducing scope insensitivity. Judgment and Decision Making, 18, e28. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moche, H., Gordon-Hecker, T., Kogut, T., & Västfjäll, D. (2022). Thinking, good and bad? Deliberative thinking and the singularity effect in charitable giving. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500009001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moche, H., & Västfjäll, D. (2021). Helping the child or the adult? Systematically testing the identifiable victim effect for child and adult victims. Social Influence, 16(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2021.1995482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadler, A. (2002). Inter–group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, G. E., & Cain, D. M. (2014). Tainted altruism: When doing dome good is evaluated as worse than doing no good at all. Psychological Science, 25(3), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, A., Erlandsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2020). Moral foundations theory and the Psychology of charitable giving. European Journal of Personality, 34(3), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2015). Present bias: Lessons learned and to be learned. American Economic Review, 105(5), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmore, E. (2005). Three decades of research on ageism. Generations, 29(3), 87–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., & Yalcin, G. (2020). Fewer but poorer: Benevolent partiality in prosocial preferences. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(2), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrault, E. K., Silk, K. J., Sheff, S., Ahn, J., Hoffman, A., & Totzkay, D. (2015). Testing the identifiable victim effect with both animal and human victims in anti-littering mmessages. Communication Research Reports, 32(4), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1089857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieters, R. (2017). Meaningful mediation analysis: Plausible causal inference and informative communication. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 692–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittarello, A., Motsenok, M., Dickert, S., & Ritov, I. (2023). When the poor give more than the rich: The role of resource evaluability on relative giving. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(1), e2293. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raihani, N. J., & Power, E. A. (2021). No good deed goes unpunished: The social costs of prosocial behaviour. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2021.35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raihani, N. J., & Smith, S. (2015). Competitive helping in online giving. Current Biology, 25(9), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, E., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). The social value of health programmes: Is age a relevant factor? Health Economics, 9(7), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1050(200010)9:7<611:AID-HEC540>3.0.CO;2-R
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubaltelli, E., Hysenbelli, D., Dickert, S., Mayorga, M., & Slovic, P. (2020). Asymmetric cost and benefit perceptions in willingness‐to‐donate decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sah, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). More affected = more neglected: Amplification of bias in advice to the unidentified and many. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611422958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito, Y., Ueshima, A., Tanida, S., & Kameda, T. (2019). How does social information affect charitable giving?: Empathic concern promotes support for underdog recipient. Social Neuroscience, 14(6), 751–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2019.1599421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967612
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, D. A., Dovidio, J. F., Sibicky, M. E., Matthews, L. L., & Allen, J. L. (1988). Empathic concern and helping behavior: Egoism or altruism? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(88)90024-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Shea, P., & Simmons, R. T. (1991). Egoism, parochialism, and universalism: Experimental evidence from the layered prisoners’ dilemma. Rationality and Society, 3(1), 106–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463191003001007
   Google Scholar
• Seacat, J. D., Hirschman, R., & Mickelson, K. D. (2007). Attributions of HIV onset controllability, emotional reactions, and helping intentions: Implicit effects of victim sexual orientation 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1442–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00220.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, K. J., Hopkins, C. D., Carlson, L., & Raymond, M. A. (2012). Depictions of self-inflicted versus blameless victims for nonprofits employing print advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367410304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharps, D. L., & Schroeder, J. (2019). The preference for distributed helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 954–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shurka, E., Siller, J., & Dvonch, P. (1982). Coping behavior and personal responsibility as factors in the perception of disabled persons by the nondisabled. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27(4), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver, I., & Silverman, J. (2022). Doing good for (maybe) nothing: How reward uncertainty shapes observer responses to prosocial behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 168, 104113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.104113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., Erlandsson, A., & Gregory, R. (2017). Iconic photographs and the ebb and flow of empathic response to humanitarian disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(4), 640–644. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613977114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A. (2010). Reference-dependent sympathy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping the victim or helping a victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1086/527268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.6.777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1086/666470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. W., & Schwarz, N. (2012). When promoting a charity can hurt charitable giving: A metacognitive analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 558–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sole, K., Marton, J., & Hornstein, H. A. (1975). Opinion similarity and helping: Three field experiments investigating the bases of promotive tension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(75)80004-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, M. A., Crow, R., Cain, L., & Milford, C. (2005). Living and giving: Older Australians and charitable donations. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 24(1), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2005.00062.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stürmer, S., & Snyder, M. (Eds.). (2010). The Psychology of prosocial behavior. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial emotions and helping: The moderating role of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 2004. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-16
   Google Scholar
• Tappin, B. M., & Capraro, V. (2018). Doing good vs. avoiding bad in prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality preference hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, B., Kirchner, G., & Jacobs, J. (1991). Influence of a photograph on a charitable appeal: A picture may be worth a thousand words when it has to speak for itself. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(6), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00529.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.2.281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. (2020). The moral psychology of obligation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2012). Construal level theory. In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 118–134). Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya, A., Dolan, P., & Shaw, R. (2003). Measuring people’s preferences regarding ageism in health: Some methodological issues and some fresh evidence. Social Science & Medicine, 57(4), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00418-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel, P. A., DeKay, M. L., Baron, J., & Asch, D. A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints—is it equitable? New England Journal of Medicine, 334(18), 1174–1177. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199605023341807
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614556679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Doesum, N. J., Tybur, J. M., & Van Lange, P. A. (2017). Class impressions: Higher social class elicits lower prosociality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, P. A., Tybur, J. M., Leal, A., & Van Dijk, E. (2022). People from lower social classes elicit greater prosociality: Compassion and deservingness matter. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(4), 1064–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220982072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Esch, P., Cui, Y., & Jain, S. P. (2021). COVID-19 charity advertising: Identifiable victim message framing, self-construal, and donation intent. Journal of Advertising, 50(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1927911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Teunenbroek, C., Bekkers, R., & Beersma, B. (2020). Look to others before you leap: A systematic literature review of social information effects on donation amounts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019869537
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2013). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02093.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., & Mayorga, M. (2015). Pseudoinefficacy: Negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., Peters, E., & Lamm, C. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PloS One, 9(6), e100115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade‐Benzoni, K. A. (2008). Maple trees and weeping willows: The role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions. Negotiation & Conflict Management Research, 1(3), 220–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00014.x
   Google Scholar
• Wade Benzoni, K. A., & Tost, L. P. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309339317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, M., Koehler, C., & Schnauber-Stockmann, A. (2019). Why should I help you? Man up! Bystanders’ gender stereotypic perceptions of a cyberbullying incident. Deviant Behavior, 40(5), 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1431183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. American Psychologist, 48(9), 957–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.9.957
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner, B. (1995). Inferences of responsibility and social motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 1–47). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiepking, P. (2010). Democrats support international relief and the upper class donates to art? How opportunity, incentives and confidence affect donations to different types of charitable organizations. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X649379
   Google Scholar
• Wiss, J., Andersson, D., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2015). The influence of identifiability and singularity in moral decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagefka, H., Noor, M., & Brown, R. (2013). Familiarity breeds compassion: Knowledge of disaster areas and willingness to donate money to disaster victims. Applied Psychology, 62(4), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00501.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., de Moura, G. R., & Hopthrow, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, X., Kim, S., Wang, L., Morwitz, V., & Aggarwal, P. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 953–972. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zlatev, J. J., & Miller, D. T. (2016). Selfishly benevolent or benevolently selfish: When self-interest undermines versus promotes prosocial behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar