The Identifiable Victim Effect: Using an Experimental-Causal-Chain Design to Test for Mediation

Article

Abstract

The identifiable victim effect (IVE) refers to individuals’ tendency to offer greater aid to identifiable victims than to statistical victims. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether emotional reactions work to mediate IVE. In two experiments based on the experimental-causal-chain design proposed by Spencer et al. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851, 2005), it was shown that an identifiable victim evokes stronger emotional reactions than does a statistical victim (Study 1). It was also demonstrated that the identifiable victim shown or described with a specific expression or information to evoke stronger emotional reactions elicited greater willingness to donate money in participants (Study 2). The results of two studies based on the experimental-causal-chain approach demonstrated that the underlying causal mechanism for the IVE is participants’ emotional reactions to identified victims. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Keywords

Identifiable victim effect Emotion Experimental-causal-chain design 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The Author's declares that they has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of sources versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 120, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dillard, J. P., Shen, L., & Vail, R. G. (2007). Does perceived message effectiveness cause persuasion or vice versa? 17 consistent answers. Human Communication Research, 33, 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark, R. D. (1991). The arousal cost-reward model and the process of intervention: a review of the evidence. In M. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior: review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 86–118). Newberry Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159–2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feeley, T. H., Marshall, H. M., & Reinhart, A. M. (2006). Reactions to narrative and statistical written messages promoting organ donation. Communication Reports, 19, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5, 182–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoyt, W. T. (2000). Rater bias in psychological research: when is it a problem and what can we do about it? Psychological Methods, 5, 64–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The identifiable victim effect: an identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 97, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, S., & Feeley, T. H. (2016). The identifiable victim effect: a meta-analytic review. Social Influence, 11, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Petty, R. E., & Cacciopo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. (1969). Good samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pirlott, A. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ritov, I., & Kogut, T. (2011). Ally or adversary: the effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schelling, T. C. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. Chase (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision making, 2, 79–95.Google Scholar
  20. Small, D. A. (2015). On the psychology of the identifiable victim effect. In I. G. Cohen, N. Daniels, & N. Eyal (Eds.), Identified versus statistical lives: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 13–23). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: altruism and identifiability. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: the impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 102, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, E. R. (2012). Editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. TV reviews—network: Everybody’s baby. (1989, May 31). Variety, 3335, 7.Google Scholar
  27. World of Children Award (2015). How to end child hunger and malnutrition. Retrieved July 17, 2015, from http://www.worldofchildren.org/issues/end-child-hunger/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations