نوع دوستی سطح نازل: تنزیل توجه بازیگران اجتماعی را تحت تاثیر قرار می دهد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33022||2012||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6140 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 117, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 269–274
Are charitable donors always perceived as charitable? Three studies suggest that although having a personal connection to a cause motivates much charitable giving, donors who have been personally affected by the target cause are given less “credit” for their donations, i.e., are perceived as less intrinsically charitable. These donors are perceived as having selfish motivations even when they have nothing economic or social to gain from the donation. More specifically, personally-affected donors are perceived as driven by emotional selfishness, or a desire to improve their own hedonic state rather a desire to improve the welfare of others, which lessens the charitable credit that they receive. In addition, although donors who have been personally affected by the target cause are seen as less charitable, they are perceived more favorably in other ways (e.g., more loyal).
Imagine two donors to a leukemia charity. The first has a sibling with leukemia and the second does not. Who is more charitable? Because the first may be genetically predisposed to leukemia, she can potentially benefit from her donation. Therefore, one can logically conclude that the second donor is more charitable. Now imagine that the first donor has a friend who currently suffers from leukemia and the second donor does not. Who is more charitable? In this case, the first donor may still benefit if her friend feels indebted and reciprocates the kind action (Trivers, 1971). Therefore, it is likewise logical to conclude that the second donor is more charitable. Now imagine that the first donor lost her best friend to leukemia, and the second donor has not known anyone with leukemia. Who is more charitable? Neither donor will benefit by supporting this cause. But the first has been personally affected by the cause. This paper explores how donors’ personal connections to a cause influence perceptions of their charitable traits and behavior. We use the term charitable credit to refer to the perception that a donor is a benevolent person whose prosocial behavior is untainted by self-interest. When donors get credit is an important question because research has shown that people perceived as charitable enjoy higher status ( Flynn, 2003 and Hardy and Van Vugt, 2006) and more respect ( Price, 2006), and that expectations of social rewards can motivate prosocial actors ( Grant and Gino, 2010 and Griskevicius et al., 2010). It is therefore critical to investigate when and why credit is granted. We examine this question in the context of donors’ personal connections to the target cause. Personal connections to causes are strongly related to charitable giving (Small & Simonsohn, 2008). Although a personal connection is often confounded with direct self-interest, Small and Simonsohn (2008) found an effect on giving even without any possible economic or social gain. Specifically, people who know someone who suffered from a particular misfortune are more caring towards other victims of the same misfortune even when they get nothing in return. We theorize that a personal connection to a charitable cause cheapens the prosocial act in the eyes of others, thus diminishing the actor’s image of benevolence. Importantly, such acts are cheapened even in the absence of potential economic or social gain. Logically, it makes sense to grant less credit when a donor expects such a gain. For instance, in the context of a donor’s relationship with a victim, a donor to a leukemia charity who has a family history of leukemia may indeed be incentivized to give. A friend of a woman with leukemia might also gain from donating if her friend feels indebted to reciprocate. In these cases, observers may reasonably perceive a selfish motivation that cheapens such helpers’ generous actions. In contrast, friends of deceased victims do not directly benefit by supporting the cause that claimed their friend’s life yet their charitable choices are tied selectively to their personal experience. In sum, we predict that donors who have been personally affected by a cause are given less credit for their donations. In other words, the very thing that empirically increases charitable giving nevertheless makes donors appear less charitable. Background Behavioral decision research and related disciplines have explored a wide variety of determinants of charitable giving. Research has focused on characteristics of the cause description (Kogut and Ritov, 2005 and Small and Verrochi, 2009) and on characteristics of successful donation request strategies (Briers et al., 2007, Liu and Aaker, 2008 and Shang and Croson, 2006). Other research has sought to understand the fundamental motives driving charitable giving. Psychologists and economists have long debated whether prosocial behavior is ever caused by pure altruism or whether such behavior, however altruistic in appearance, can be explained by self-interest. One alternative explanation for altruistic-appearing behavior is that the actors are benefiting in some emotionally selfish, rather than economically or socially selfish way ( Andreoni, 1990 and Manucia et al., 1984). Specifically, it has been argued people are motivated to relieve their own sadness upon witnessing suffering rather than to relieve victim’s suffering ( Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973) and that people experience a “warm glow” from the act of helping others ( Andreoni, 1990). On the other hand, there is also evidence that empathy can cause people to want to help others without concern for potential self-benefit ( Batson, 1991). In spite of this ongoing interest, almost no work has explored folk psychological beliefs about those motivations. In other words, regardless of whether prosocial actors are actually motivated by altruism or self-interest, when do others think they are? This paper explores this question in the context of evaluating donors to a charity who have been personally affected by the target cause.