Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 5–16 | Cite as

Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability

Abstract

Although it has been claimed that people care more about identifiable than statistical victims, demonstrating this “identifiable victim effect” has proven difficult because identification usually provides information about a victim, and people may respond to the information rather than to identification per se. We show that a very weak form of identifiability—determining the victim without providing any personalizing information—increases caring. In the first, laboratory study, subjects were more willing to compensate others who lost money when the losers had already been determined than when they were about to be. In the second, field study, people contributed more to a charity when their contributions would benefit a family that had already been selected from a list than when told that the family would be selected from the same list.

value of life identifiable victims dictator game 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baron, Jonathan. (1997).Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation,"Journal of Risk and Uncertainy 14, 301–309.Google Scholar
  2. Bohnet, Iris and Bruno Frey. (1999). "The Sound of Silence in Prisoner's Dilemma and Dictator Games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 38, 43–57.Google Scholar
  3. Camerer, Colin and Richard Thaler. (1995). "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators, and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2), 209–219.Google Scholar
  4. Chaiken, Shelly. (1980). "Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(5), 752–766.Google Scholar
  5. Douglas, Mary. (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Featherstonhaugh, David, Paul Slovic, Stephen M. Johnson, and James Friedrich. (1997). "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 283–300.Google Scholar
  7. Hamilton, David L. and Steven J. Sherman. (1996). "Perceiving Persons and Groups,"Psychological Review 103(2), 336–355.Google Scholar
  8. Hoffman, Elizabeth,Kevin McCabe, and Vernon L. Smith. (1996). "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games,"The American Economic Review 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
  9. Jenni, Karen E. and George F. Loewenstein. (1997). "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect,"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 235–257.Google Scholar
  10. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1979). "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,"Econometrica 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  11. Nisbett, Richard and Lee Ross. (1980).Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacciopo. (1986).Communication and Persuasion. Central and Perpipheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Schelling, Thomas C. (1968). "The Life you Save may be your own." In Samuel B. Chase (ed.), Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Shafir, Eldar, Itamar Simonson, and Amos Tversky. (1993). "Reason-based Choice," Cognition Special Issue: Reasoning and Decision Making 49(1/2), 11–36.Google Scholar
  15. Sherman, Steven J., Denise R. Beike, andKenneth R. Ryalls. (1999). "Dual-Processing Accounts of Inconsistencies in Responses to General Versus Specific Cases." In Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. (1980). "Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk." In Richard C. Schwing and Walther A. Alberts, Jr. (eds.),Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? NewYork: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  17. Van Boven, Leaf, George Loeswenstein, Ned Welch, and David Dunning. (2001). "The Illusion of Courage: Underestimating Social-Risk Aversion in Self and Others." Working paper. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  18. Weiner, Bernard. (1980). "A Cognitive (Attribution)-Emotion-Action Model of Motivated Behavior: An Analysis of Judgments of Help Giving," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 186–200.Google Scholar
  19. Weiner, Bernard. (1995). Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. Variety. (1989). " TV Reviews—Network: Everybody's Baby,"Volume3335:7,May 31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Decision SciencesCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations