Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving? The Effects of Advertising Content

References

• Anderson E, Simester D (2004) Long run effects of promotion depth on new versus established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Sci. 23(1):4–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (2006) Philanthropy. Kolm SC, Ythier JM, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Vol. 2 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1201–1269.Google Scholar
• Bagozzi RP, Moore DJ (1994) Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. J. Marketing 58(1):56–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bart Y, Stephen AT, Sarvary M (2014) Which products are best suited to mobile advertising? A field study of mobile display advertising effects on consumer attitudes and intentions. J. Marketing Res. 51(3):270–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Batson DC, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E, Imhoff HJ (1997) Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 72(1):105–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bendapudi N, Singh SN, Bendapudi V (1996) Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. J. Marketing 60(3):33–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Karlan D, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zinman J (2010) What’s advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing field experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 125(1): 263–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB, Gardner WL (1996) Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 71(1):83–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• CBS News (2011) Baby Jessica turns 25, gains trust fund access. (March 25). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/baby-jessica-turns-25-gains-trust-fund-access/.Google Scholar
• Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Chandy RK, Tellis GJ, MacInnis DJ, Thaivanich P (2001) What to say when: Advertising appeals in evolving markets. J. Marketing Res. 38(4):399–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Li SX (2009) Group identity and social preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):431–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coke J, Batson D, McDavis K (1978) Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 36(7):752–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuddy AJC, Rock M, Norton MI (2007) Aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 10(1):107–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Della Vigna S, Gentzkow M (2010) Persuasion: Empirical evidence. Annual Rev. Econom. 2(1):643–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Della Vigna S, List J, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1): 1–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dovidio JF (1984) Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17 (Academic Press, New York), 361–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Johnson C, Johnson B, Howard A (1997) On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 33(5):510–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eastlack JO Jr, Rao AG (1989) Advertising experiments at the Campbell soup company. Marketing Sci. 8(1):57–71.Link, Google Scholar
• Evans FB (1963) Selling as a dyadic relationship: A new approach. Amer. Behavioral Scientists 6(7):76–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferraro R, Bettman JR (2005) Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die: Effects of mortality salience and self-esteem on self-regulation in consumer choice. J. Consumer Res. 32(1):65–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishbein M (1967) Attitude and the prediction of behavior. Fishbein M, ed. Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (Wiley, New York), 477–492.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. J. Consumer Psych. 8(3):277–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2011) Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Sci. 30(3):389–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Gönül FF, Shi M (1998) Optimal mailing of catalogs: A new methodology using estimable structural dynamic programming models. Management Sci. 44(9):1249–1262.Link, Google Scholar
• Gourville JT (1998) Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. J. Consumer Res. 24(4):395–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jenni KE, Loewenstein GF (1997) Explaining the “identifiable victim” effect. J. Risk Uncertainty 14(3):235–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, New York), 49–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(5):1774–1793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaul A, Wittink DR (1995) Empirical generalizations about the impact of advertising on price sensitivity and price. Marketing Sci. 14(3):G151–G160.Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut T, Ritov I (2005a) The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? J. Behavioral Decision Making 18(3):157–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut T, Ritov I (2005b) The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 97(2):106–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut T, Ritov I (2007) One of us: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 104(2):150–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacetera N, Macis M, Slonim R (2014) Rewarding volunteers: A field experiment. Management Sci. 60(5):1107–1129.Link, Google Scholar
• Landry CE, Lange A, List JA, Price MK, Rupp NG (2006) Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):747–782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• LaTour SA, Manrai AK (1989) Interactive impact of informational and normative influences on donations. J. Marketing Res. 26(3):327–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine M, Thompson K (2004) Identity, place, and bystander intervention: Social categories and helping after natural disasters. J. Soc. Psych. 144(3):229–245.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine M, Cassidy C, Brazier G, Reicher S (2002) Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 32(7):1452–1463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econom. Perspectives 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liaukonyte J (2012) Is comparative advertising an active ingredient in the market for pain relief? Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
• List JA (2011) The market for charitable giving. J. Econom. Perspectives 25(2):157–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Lucking-Reiley D (2002) The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. J. Political Econom. 110(1):215–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lodish LM, Abraham M, Kalmenson S, Livelsberger J, Lubetkin B, Richardson B, Stevens ME (1995) How TV advertising works: A meta-analysis of 389 real world split cable TV advertising experiments. J. Marketing Res. 32(2):125–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynch JG, Bradlow ET, Huber JC, Lehmann DR (2015) Reflections on the replication corner: In praise of conceptual replications. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 32(4):333–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajan SI (2006) Population aging and health in India. Technical report, Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes, Mumbai, India, http://www.cehat.org/humanrights/rajan.pdf.Google Scholar
• Sahni NS (2015) Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments. Quant. Marketing Econom. 13(3):203–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sargeant A, Shang J (2008) Identification, death and bequest giving. Association of Fundraising Professionals, http://www.afpnet.org/files/contentdocuments/sargeant_final_report.pdf.Google Scholar
• Schelling TC (1968) The life you save may be your own. Chase SB Jr, ed. Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis (The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC), 127–162.Google Scholar
• Sethuraman R, Tellis GJ, Briesch RA (2011) How well does advertising work? Generalizations from meta-analysis of brand advertising elasticities. J. Marketing Res. 48(3):457–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shang J, Croson R (2009) Field experiments in charitable contribution: The impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econom. J. 119(540):1422–1439.Google Scholar
• Sherman SJ, Beike DR, Ryalls KR (1999) Dual-processing accounts of inconsistencies in responses to general versus specific cases. Chaiken S, Trope Y, eds. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (Guilford Press, New York), 203–227.Google Scholar
• Silk A, Berndt ER (2003) Scale and scope economies in the global advertising and marketing services business. NBER Working Paper 9965, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P (2007) If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment Decision Making 2(2):79–95.Google Scholar
• Small DA (2010) Reference-dependent sympathy. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 112(2):151–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small DA (2011) Sympathy biases and sympathy appeals: Reducing social distance to boost charitable contributions. Oppenheimer DM, Olivola CY, eds. Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (Taylor & Francis, New York), 149–160.Google Scholar
• Small DA, Loewenstein G (2003) Helping the victim or helping a victim: Altruism and identifiability. J. Risk Uncertainty 26(1): 5–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small DA, Loewenstein G (2005) The devil you know: The effect of identifiability on punitiveness. J. Behavioral Decision Making 18(5):311–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small DA, Loewenstein G, Slovic P (2007) Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(2):143–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soetevent AR (2005) Anonymity in giving in a natural context–a field experiment in thirty churches. J. Public Econom. 89(11–12): 2301–2323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Song J (2002) Every dog has its day—But at what price? The Register Guard (April 26):15A.Google Scholar
• Spence C (2006) Mismatching money and need. Stanford Soc. Innovation Rev. 4(1):49.Google Scholar
• Stone B, Jacobs R (2008) Successful Direct Marketing Methods (McGraw Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Sturmer S, Snyder M, Omoto AM (2005) Prosocial emotions and helping: The moderating role of group membership. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 88(3):532–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Austin WG, Worchel S, eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA), 33–47.Google Scholar
• Tellis GJ (1988) The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. J. Marketing Res. 25(4): 331–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 4(3):199–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. 95(3):371–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watson T (2006) Consumer philanthropy: Nonprofits spend billions to reach consumers. Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-watson/consumer-philanthropy-non_b_36261.html.Google Scholar
• Webb DJ, Green CL, Brashear TG (2000) Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 28(2):299–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wind Y, Sharp B (2009) Advertising empirical generalizations: Implications for research and action. J. Advertising Res. 49(2): 246–252.Crossref, Google Scholar