Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Mother Teresa Effect: Counterproductive Effects of Touching an Altruist’s Possessions on Charitable Giving

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Charities that recruit famous humanitarians, or obtain celebrity endorsements, may promote products associated with these altruistic superstars in an effort to increase donations. Previous research supports that “superstar” role models can promote desirable behavior. Charitable organizations may assume if people handle a product associated with a famous humanitarian, they will be inspired and more motivated to donate as a result. An opposite possibility is that physically handling reminders of an extreme altruist may result in contrast effects. Such positive exemplars may result in more negative perceptions of one’s own charitable behavior, and decrease the perceived efficacy of one’s own contributions. In two studies, participants did or did not touch items said to have belonged to a very altruistic person (Experiment 1) or to Mother Teresa (Experiment 2). Compared to participants in non-touch and other control conditions, those who physically touched items said to belong to an altruist subsequently donated fewer raffle tickets to charity. The results are related to theories of perceived efficacy, metacognitive processes, and the counterproductive influence of extremely positive role models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arumi, A. M., Wooden, R., Johnson J., Farkas S., Duffett A. & Ott, A. (2005). The Charitable Impulse. A report from the public agenda for the Kettering Foundation and Independent Sector. Retrieved from http://www.civicengagement.org /agingsociety /links /charitable_impulse.pdf.

  • Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guild to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 5924–5973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bless, H., & Wänke, M. (2000). Can the same information be typical and atypical? How perceived typicality moderates assimilation and contrast in evaluative judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bless, H., Igou, E. R., Schwarz, N., & Wänke, M. (2000). Reducing context effects by adding context information: the direction and size of context effects in political judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1036–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, W. D., & Kashyap, R. K. (1997). Extending models of prosocial behavior to explain university alumni contributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159–2180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

  • Field, T. (2001). Touch. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, J., & Strack, F. (1997). Motor actions in retrieval of valenced information: a motor congruence effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1419–1427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: an overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guèguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2003). Another evaluation of touch and helping behaviour. Psychological Reports, 92, 62–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornik, J. (1992). Tactile stimulation and consumer response. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornik, J., & Ellis, S. (1988). Strategies to secure compliance for a mall intercept interview. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joule, R. V., & Guèguen, N. (2007). Touch, compliance, and awareness of tactile contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 581–588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kawakami, K., Phills, C. E., Steele, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007). (Close) Distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 957–971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 218–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Washing away postdecisional dissonance. Science, 328, 709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L. L., & Ramey, G. (1988). Donor behavior and voluntary support for higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 431–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mwenda, A. M. (2013, March 17). Celebrities Should Not Victimize Africa. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/17/do-celebrity-ambassadors-like-dennis-rodman-make-a-difference/celebrities-should-not-victimize-africa

  • National Center for Charitable Statistics (2013). Number of Nonprofit Organizations in the United States, 2003 – 2013. Retrieved from http://nccsweb.urban.org/ PubApps/profile1.php?state=US

  • Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 184–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, C. A. (2011). Explaining why we give what we give. Psyccritiques, 56, doi:10.1037/a0025804.

  • Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Scandals and the public’s trust in politicians: assimilation and contrast effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 574–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (2007). Mental Construal Processes: The Inclusion/Exclusion Model. In D. A. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology (pp. 119–141). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: the effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 363–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. W., & Schwarz, N. (2012). When promoting a charity can hurt charitable giving: a metacognitive analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 558–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 239–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluative maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, M., Kosslyn, S. M., & Berthoz, A. (1998). Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition, 68, 77–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University, 298920, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA

    Amanda L. Morin, Kristin Yoke, Kristin Yoke, Tong Lu, Sara E. Brady & Charles G. Lord

Authors
  1. Amanda L. Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristin Yoke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara E. Brady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles G. Lord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Yoke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morin, A.L., Yoke, K., Lu, T. et al. The Mother Teresa Effect: Counterproductive Effects of Touching an Altruist’s Possessions on Charitable Giving. Curr Psychol 34, 693–701 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9282-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9282-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation