The size and distribution of donations: Effects of number of recipients

Whereas much literature exists on ``choice overload'', less is known about effects of numbers of alternatives in donation decisions. We hypothesize that donations increase with the number of recipients, albeit at a decreasing rate, and reflect donors' knowledge of the recipients. Donations involve different concepts of fairness---equity and equality---and these can interact with numbers of alternatives. In two experiments, respondents indicated how they would donate lottery winnings of 50 Euros. Results showed, first, that more was donated to non-governmental organizations and campaigns that respondents knew better. Second, total donations increased with the number of recipients albeit at a decreasing rate. Third, when limited to giving to only one of multiple alternatives, donors gave less than when this restriction did not apply. Fourth, variability of donations can both increase and decrease with the number of potential recipients. We comment on theoretical and practical implications as well as suggesting issues for future research.

[1]  S. Iyengar,et al.  The Discriminating Consumer: Product Proliferation and Willingness to Pay for Quality , 2012 .

[2]  P. Slovic,et al.  Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[3]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  The generality of the emotion effect on magnitude sensitivity , 2011 .

[4]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  The science of giving : experimental approaches to the study of charity , 2011 .

[5]  B. Payne,et al.  Escaping affect: how motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. , 2011, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  The impact of excess choice on deferment of decisions to volunteer , 2011 .

[7]  P. Slovic,et al.  Affective Motivations to Help Others: A Two-Stage Model of Donation Decisions , 2011 .

[8]  P. Todd,et al.  Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload , 2010 .

[9]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Satisfaction in choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When “goods satiate” , 2009 .

[10]  P. Todd,et al.  What Moderates the Too-Much-Choice Effect? , 2009 .

[11]  J. Baron,et al.  Heuristics and Biases in Charity , 2009 .

[12]  J. Randal,et al.  How is Donation Behaviour Affected by the Donations of Others , 2008 .

[13]  F. Schweitzer,et al.  The Epidemics of Donations: Logistic Growth and Power-Laws , 2008, PloS one.

[14]  R. Bekkers.  Measuring Altruistic Behavior in Surveys: The All‐Or‐Nothing Dictator Game , 2007 .

[15]  J. Andreoni.  Giving gifts to groups: How altruism depends on the number of recipients , 2007 .

[16]  G. Wolford,et al.  Buying Behavior as a Function of Parametric Variation of Number of Choices , 2007, Psychological science.

[17]  Deborah A. Small,et al.  Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. , 2007 .

[18]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  The ''Identified Victim'' Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual? , 2005 .

[19]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations , 2005 .

[20]  Wen-Chun Chang.  DETERMINANTS OF DONATIONS: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TAIWAN , 2005 .

[21]  C. Sabbagh.  Toward a Multifaceted Model of the Structure of Social Justice Judgments , 2005 .

[22]  B. Schwartz.  The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[23]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Gur Huberman,et al.  How Much Choice is Too Much?: Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans , 2003 .

[25]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Parental investment: how an equity motive can produce inequality. , 2002, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. , 2002, Psychological review.

[27]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[28]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[29]  C. Sabbagh,et al.  The Structure of Social Justice Judgments: A Facet Approach , 1994 .