Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving
Because of the large amount of information and the difficulty in selecting an appropriate recipient in the context of charitable giving, people tend to make extensive use of heuristics, which sometimes leads them to wrong decisions. In the present work, we focused on exploring how individuals are in...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2013-11-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000471X/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797697916500967424 |
|---|---|
| author | Dorina Hysenbelli Enrico Rubaltelli Rino Rumiati |
| author_facet | Dorina Hysenbelli Enrico Rubaltelli Rino Rumiati |
| author_sort | Dorina Hysenbelli |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Because of the large amount of information and the difficulty in selecting an appropriate recipient in the context of charitable giving, people tend to make extensive use of heuristics, which sometimes leads them to wrong decisions. In the present work, we focused on exploring how individuals are influenced by anchoring heuristics and how group membership interacts with this heuristic. In Experiment 1, two different groups of participants were informed about low versus high average donations of other people, and a third control group did not receive any information about the others’ donations. The results showed that participants were willing to donate significantly more in the high-anchor condition compared to the low-anchor condition, as well as about the same amount of money in the low-anchor condition and no-anchor condition. Experiment 2 and 3 showed that high anchors are more effective when the information about others’ donations reflects members of the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Other variables related to these results are further discussed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T03:46:48Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b5445f493f544dedbe244c4a65daf766 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T03:46:48Z |
| publishDate | 2013-11-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-b5445f493f544dedbe244c4a65daf7662023-09-03T12:44:20ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752013-11-01867869010.1017/S193029750000471XOthers’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable givingDorina Hysenbelli0Enrico Rubaltelli1Rino Rumiati2Department of Developmental and Socialization Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia, 8—35131 Padova, ItalyUniversity of PadovaUniversity of PadovaBecause of the large amount of information and the difficulty in selecting an appropriate recipient in the context of charitable giving, people tend to make extensive use of heuristics, which sometimes leads them to wrong decisions. In the present work, we focused on exploring how individuals are influenced by anchoring heuristics and how group membership interacts with this heuristic. In Experiment 1, two different groups of participants were informed about low versus high average donations of other people, and a third control group did not receive any information about the others’ donations. The results showed that participants were willing to donate significantly more in the high-anchor condition compared to the low-anchor condition, as well as about the same amount of money in the low-anchor condition and no-anchor condition. Experiment 2 and 3 showed that high anchors are more effective when the information about others’ donations reflects members of the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Other variables related to these results are further discussed.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000471X/type/journal_articleheuristicsanchoringcharity givingingroup-outgroupaffective reactions |
| spellingShingle | Dorina Hysenbelli Enrico Rubaltelli Rino Rumiati Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving Judgment and Decision Making heuristics anchoring charity giving ingroup-outgroup affective reactions |
| title | Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving |
| title_full | Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving |
| title_fullStr | Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving |
| title_full_unstemmed | Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving |
| title_short | Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving |
| title_sort | others opinions count but not all of them anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members behavior in charitable giving |
| topic | heuristics anchoring charity giving ingroup-outgroup affective reactions |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000471X/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dorinahysenbelli othersopinionscountbutnotallofthemanchoringtoingroupversusoutgroupmembersbehaviorincharitablegiving AT enricorubaltelli othersopinionscountbutnotallofthemanchoringtoingroupversusoutgroupmembersbehaviorincharitablegiving AT rinorumiati othersopinionscountbutnotallofthemanchoringtoingroupversusoutgroupmembersbehaviorincharitablegiving |