How does social information affect charitable giving?: Empathic concern promotes support for underdog recipient

ABSTRACT Charitable giving represents a unique cooperative characteristic of humans. In today’s environment with social media, our charitable decisions seem to be influenced by social information such as a project’s popularity. Here we report three experiments that examined people’s reactions to social information about a charitable endeavor and their psychophysiological underpinnings. Participants were first solicited to make donations to either the Africa or Syria project of UNICEF. Then participants were provided an opportunity to learn social information (i.e., how much each project had raised from previous participants) and change their decision if desired. Contrary to expectation, participants who learned that their initial preferences were consistent with the majority of previous participants’ choices exhibited a sizable tendency to switch to the less popular project in their final choices. This anti-conformity pattern was robust across the three experiments. Eye-tracking data (gaze bias and pupil dilation) indicated that these “Changers” were more physiologically aroused and formed more differential valuations between the two charity projects, compared to “Keepers” who retained their initial preferences after viewing the social information. These results suggest that social information about relative popularity may evoke empathic concern for the worse-off target, in line with the human tendency to avoid unequal distributions.

[1]  L. Festinger A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[2]  M. Crockett,et al.  Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism , 2015, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[3]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Anterior insular cortex and emotional awareness , 2013, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[4]  Deanna S. Kempf Attitude formation from product trial: Distinct roles of cognition and affect for hedonic and functional products , 1999 .

[5]  R. Trivers The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[6]  S. Sara,et al.  Orienting and Reorienting: The Locus Coeruleus Mediates Cognition through Arousal , 2012, Neuron.

[7]  J. List,et al.  Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving , 2009, The quarterly journal of economics.

[8]  S. Kitayama,et al.  Voluntary settlement and the spirit of independence: evidence from Japan's "Northern frontier". , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  D. Mobbs,et al.  Overlapping and distinct representations of advantageous and disadvantageous inequality , 2013, Human brain mapping.

[10]  Maria K. Eckstein,et al.  Beyond eye gaze: What else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development? , 2016, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  R. Boyd,et al.  The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. , 1998 .

[12]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[13]  M. Haruno,et al.  Activity in the amygdala elicited by unfair divisions predicts social value orientation , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  R. Boyd,et al.  In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small- Scale Societies , 2001 .

[15]  Jacob L. Orquin,et al.  Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[16]  Jen Shang,et al.  A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods , 2009 .

[17]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  Social influence: compliance and conformity. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[18]  R. O’Connell,et al.  Pupil diameter covaries with BOLD activity in human locus coeruleus , 2014, Human brain mapping.

[19]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[20]  J. Andreoni Toward a Theory of Charitable Fund‐Raising , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[21]  Simon J. Büchner,et al.  Gaze behaviour during space perception and spatial decision making , 2011, Psychological Research.

[22]  E. Hess,et al.  Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity during Simple Problem-Solving , 1964, Science.

[23]  Lise Vesterlund,et al.  The informational value of sequential fundraising , 2003 .

[24]  Tatsuya Kameda,et al.  Is consensus-seeking unique to humans? A selective review of animal group decision-making and its implications for (human) social psychology , 2012 .

[25]  Mark H. Davis Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. , 1983 .

[26]  Reid Hastie,et al.  Democracy Under Uncertainty: The ‘Wisdom of Crowds’ and the Free-Rider Problem in Group Decision Making , 2010, Psychological review.

[27]  L. Doob The psychology of social norms. , 1937 .

[28]  H. Gintis,et al.  A Cooperative Species , 2013 .

[29]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[30]  Kate Wong The age of empathy: nature's lessons for a kinder society. , 2009 .

[31]  Daniel T. Knoepfle,et al.  Value Computations in Ventral Medial Prefrontal Cortex during Charitable Decision Making Incorporate Input from Regions Involved in Social Cognition , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  Daisuke Nakanishi,et al.  Does social/cultural learning increase human adaptability?: Rogers's question revisited , 2003 .

[33]  M. Bradley,et al.  The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[34]  W. Einhäuser,et al.  Fronto-insula network activity explains emotional dysfunctions in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: Combined evidence from pupillometry and fMRI , 2015, Cortex.

[35]  S. Quartz,et al.  The Right and the Good: Distributive Justice and Neural Encoding of Equity and Efficiency , 2008, Science.

[36]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

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

[38]  Reid Hastie,et al.  The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. , 2005, Psychological review.

[39]  Jens Hainmueller,et al.  Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  Anne E. Urai,et al.  Pupil-linked arousal is driven by decision uncertainty and alters serial choice bias , 2017, Nature Communications.

[41]  Brian Knutson,et al.  Neural Underpinnings of the Identifiable Victim Effect: Affect Shifts Preferences for Giving , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  The Dynamics of Decision Making in Risky Choice: An Eye-Tracking Analysis , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[43]  Haim Mano,et al.  Affect and persuasion: The influence of pleasantness and arousal on attitude formation and message elaboration , 1997 .

[44]  Klaus M. Schmidt,et al.  A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation , 1999 .

[45]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research , 2011 .

[46]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  The time course of gaze bias in visual decision tasks , 2009 .

[47]  Daisuke Nakanishi,et al.  Cost–benefit analysis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary uncertain environment: An evolutionary simulation and an experiment with human subjects , 2002 .

[48]  Adriaan R. Soetevent,et al.  Anonymity in Giving in a Natural Context : A Field Experiment in 30 Churches , 2005 .

[49]  H. Gintis,et al.  A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution , 2011 .

[50]  S. Asch Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[51]  Timothy L. Mullett,et al.  Implications of Visual Attention Phenomena for Models of Preferential Choice , 2016, Decision.

[52]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[53]  Joachim Vandekerckhove,et al.  Pupil-Linked Arousal Determines Variability in Perceptual Decision Making , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[54]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Gaze bias: Selective encoding and liking effects , 2010 .

[55]  Hackjin Kim,et al.  Rawlsian maximin rule operates as a common cognitive anchor in distributive justice and risky decisions , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[56]  Soo Hong Chew,et al.  Computational substrates of social norm enforcement by unaffected third parties , 2016, NeuroImage.