Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving

Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2013, Vol 8, Issue 6

Abstract

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.

Authors and Affiliations

Dorina Hysenbelli, Enrico Rubaltelli and Rino Rumiati

Keywords

Related Articles

Choice-induced preference change and the free-choice paradigm: A clarification

Positive spreading of ratings or rankings in the classical free-choice paradigm is commonly taken to indicate choice-induced change in preferences and has motivated influential theories as cognitive dissonance theory and...

Modeling and debiasing resource saving judgments

Svenson (2011) showed that choices of one of two alternative productivity increases to save production resources (e.g., man-months) were biased. Judgments of resource savings following a speed increase from a low product...

Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow: Individual differences in future self-continuity account for saving

Some people find it more difficult to delay rewards than others. In three experiments, we tested a “future self-continuity” hypothesis that individual differences in the perception of one’s present self as continuous wit...

The Simple Life: New experimental tests of the recognition heuristic

The recognition heuristic (RH) is a hypothesized decision strategy that is assumed to enable individuals to make decisions quickly and with minimal effort. To further test this hypothesized strategy, an experiment assess...

Sequential and simultaneous multiple explanation: Implications for alternative consideration when response options are not provided

This paper reports two experiments comparing variants of multiple explanation applied in the early stages of a judgment task (a case involving employee theft) where participants are not given a menu of response options....

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP678101
  • DOI -
  • Views 145
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Dorina Hysenbelli, Enrico Rubaltelli and Rino Rumiati (2013). Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(6), -. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-678101