Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Team Incentives under Moral and Altruistic Preferences: Which Team to Choose?
Previous Article in Journal
Cooperation in Public Goods Games: Stay, But Not for Too Long
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reacting to Unfairness: Group Identity and Dishonest Behavior
Article

Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving: Learning from Non-Results

1
Florida State University, Department of Economics, Bellamy Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2180, USA
2
University of Amsterdam, Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making (CREED), Tinbergen Institute; PO Box 1551, Amsterdam 1001 NB, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Received: 26 April 2017 / Revised: 13 August 2017 / Accepted: 17 August 2017 / Published: 21 August 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ethics, Morality, and Game Theory)
To identify dual-process reasoning in giving, we exposed experimental participants making a charitable donation to vivid images of the charity’s beneficiaries in order to stimulate affect. We hypothesized that the effect of an affective manipulation on giving would be larger when we simultaneously put the subjects under cognitive load using a numerical recall task. Independent treatment checks reveal opposite responses in men and women and cast some doubt on the reliability of our mainstream treatment manipulations and assessment tools. We find no evidence for dual-process decision-making, even among women, whose responses to the manipulations conformed most to our expectations. These results highlight the need for caution in the use of these common manipulations, the importance of independent manipulation checks, and the limitations of dual-process models for understanding altruistic behavior. View Full-Text
Keywords: cognitive load; dual-process; charitable giving; dictator games; experimental economics cognitive load; dual-process; charitable giving; dictator games; experimental economics
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Grossman, Z.; Van der Weele, J.J. Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving: Learning from Non-Results. Games 2017, 8, 36. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/g8030036

AMA Style

Grossman Z, Van der Weele JJ. Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving: Learning from Non-Results. Games. 2017; 8(3):36. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/g8030036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Grossman, Zachary, and Joël J. Van der Weele. 2017. "Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving: Learning from Non-Results" Games 8, no. 3: 36. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/g8030036

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop