Altruism, Warm Glow
and Charitable Giving:
Four Experiments
TIBER Conference, August 27, 2015
René Bekkers
Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam
r.bekkers@vu.nl
Thanks to
• Co-authors: Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm (IUPUI)
and Dave Verkaik (VU)
• Funders: Templeton Foundation through
the Science of Philanthropy Initiative
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
2
The Big Questions - nested
1. Why do
people give?
2. When do altruism
and warm glow
motivate giving?
3. How much giving do
altruism and warm glow
motivate?
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
3
Giving = Altruism + Warm Glow
• Giving can be motivated by altruism
(utility from well-being of recipients) as
well as warm glow (utility from giving).
• Under altruism, giving should be crowded
out by giving by others.
• Previous tests have examined crowdingout at relatively low levels of giving by
others.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
4
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
5
A test at G-i = 40 would be more informative
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
6
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
7
Previous findings
• The principle of care predicts a wide
variety of helping behaviors in a national
sample of US citizens (GSS2002-2004).
• 75% to 100% of the relationship between
empathic concern and helping behaviors
is mediated by the principle of care.
• These findings are strongest for helping
people in need known in the abstract.
Ottoni-Wilhelm, M. & Bekkers, R. (2010). Helping Behavior, Dispositional Empathic
Concern, and the Principle of Care. Social Psychology Quarterly. 73(1): 11-32.
Bekkers, R. & Ottoni-Wilhelm, M. (2014, revised and resubmitted). ‘Principle of Care and
Giving to Help People in Need’. European Journal of Personality.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
8
Our questions
• Can a manipulation of the state of moral
care increase giving? Does it work
through warm glow (duty?) and / or
altruism?
• To what extent do third party
contributions crowd out individual giving
in the Netherlands?
• How much giving is motivated by warm
glow and altruism?
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
9
Specifically
• How do experimentally induced altruism
and warm glow affect giving across
different levels of giving by others?
• How does priming empathy and the
principle of care affect altruism and warm
glow motivations for giving?
• In a real world setting, does warm glow
lead to higher levels of giving than
altruism?
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
10
Innovations
• We use data from large,
longitudinal, and representative
sample survey, the Giving in the
Netherlands Panel Survey (2015).
• Pretest measures of almost anything,
including socio-demographics,
prosocial values and levels of giving.
• Observational data from the
receiving charity.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
11
• Observe gifts in a real fundraising
campaign: real & no deception.
• Posttest manipulation checks through a
survey.
• Long term effects on giving, also to other
causes: does giving in the experiment
affect subsequent giving?
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
12
9 Steps
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Principle of care
induction
August 27, 2015
Validation of
measures
Behavioral analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm,
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
4. Van Vliet, 2014
7. TBD
2. Batson, 1980s
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
3. Van Vliet, 2014
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
TIBER Conference 2015
13
Budgets
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund & Xie, 2014
Budget
€ funded by
sponsor
€ for participant
1
2
3
4
5
4
10
28
34
4
40
40
40
40
46
6
28
46
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
14
Budgets
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund & Xie, 2014
€ for participant
1
2
3
4
5
4
10
28
34
4
40
40
40
40
46
6
August 27, 2015
28
TIBER Conference 2015
Income
€ funded by
sponsor G-i
Crowding-out
Budget
46
15
Procedure
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund & Xie, 2014
• All 6 budgets are evaluated in random
order by participants.
• Only 1 will be implemented.
• Yields measures of altruism (α) and warm
glow (β) within participants.
• In this experiment, generosity is
influenced primarily by altruism and less
so by warm glow.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
16
Step 1
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund & Xie, 2014
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Principle of care
induction
August 27, 2015
Validation of
measures
Behavioral analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm,
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
4. Van Vliet, 2014
7. TBD
2. Batson et al., 1997
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
3. Van Vliet, 2014
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
TIBER Conference 2015
17
Empathy induction
2. Batson et al., 1997
Neutral condition:
High-empathy condition:
“While you are listening to this
broadcast, try to be as objective as
possible about what has
happened and how it has affected
his or her life. To remain
objective, do not let yourself get
caught up in imagining what this
other person has been through
and how he or she feels as a
result. Just try to remain objective
and detached.”
“While you are listening to this
broadcast, try to imagine how the
person being interviewed feels
about what has happened and
how it has affected his or her life.
Try not to concern yourself with
all the information presented.
Just concentrate on trying to
imagine how the person
interviewed in the broadcast
feels.”
Batson, C.D., Early, S., Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective Taking: Imagining How Another Feels Versus Imagining
How You Would Feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (7): 751-758.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
18
Step 2
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Principle of care
induction
August 27, 2015
Validation of
measures
Behavioral analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm,
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
4. Van Vliet, 2014
7. TBD
2. Batson et al., 1997
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
3. Van Vliet, 2014
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
TIBER Conference 2015
19
Inducing empathy and morality
3. Van Vliet, 2014
• Participants read an article
about Oxfam helping
people in need because of
the lack of water in Mali.
• Before reading the story
participants completed
empathy and principle of
care scales.
Design: 3 (induction: neutral, empathy, principle of care) x 2
(crowding-out: no, yes)
Participants: convenience sample of friends / family (n = 381)
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
20
Empathy induction
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Neutral condition:
High-empathy condition:
“While you are reading the
note, try to take an objective
perspective toward what is
described. Try not to get
caught up in how the other
person feels; just remain
objective and detached.”
“While you are reading the
note, try to imagine how the
other person feels about
what is described. Try to
imagine how it has affected
his or her life and how he
or she feels as a result.”
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
21
Principle of care induction
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Care condition:
“While you are reading the
note, try to think about
what’s morally the right thing
to do. How should you act in
this situation and towards the
people in need?”
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
22
Crowding-out manipulation
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Adding:
“To support this initiative,
VU University is donating
€10 for each participant
reading this text.”
Note: no balanced budgets;
real money; no deception
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
23
Crowding-in Oxfam donations
3. Van Vliet, 2014
100
90
94
88
82
No induction
(n=96)
80
70
No social information
60
50
VU University donates
€10
40
Remembered that VU
donates €10
30
20
10
0
Donates €20
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
24
Empathy lowers crowding-in
3. Van Vliet, 2014
100
90
80
79
83
81
70
Empathy
induction (n=96)
No social information
60
50
VU University donates
€10
40
Remembered that VU
donates €10
30
20
10
0
Donates €20
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
25
Care induces crowding-out
3. Van Vliet, 2014
100
90
Care induction
(n=107)
88
80
70
70
69
No social information
60
50
VU University donates
€10
40
Remembered that VU
donates €10
30
20
10
0
Donates €20
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
26
Step 3
Validation of
measures
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Principle of care
induction
August 27, 2015
Behavioral analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm, 4. Bekkers et al., 2014
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
7. TBD
2. Batson, 1980s
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
3. Van Vliet, 2014
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
TIBER Conference 2015
27
Correlations
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Trait care
State empathy
State care for
recipients
Trait empathy
Trait care
.54
.33
.39
.35
.47
State
empathy
.60
E.g., “I am often
E.g., “People
struck by what should be willing
other people to help others who
experience” are less fortunate”
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
28
Empathic state measure
3. Van Vliet, 2014
• Please tell us which emotions you are
feeling at the moment. (1 – 7)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Compassion.
Sympathy.
Pity.
Warmth.
Care.
Devastated.
August 27, 2015
Following Batson (1997)
Eigen value = 3.70,
explaining 62% of the
variance in a PCA
α = .871.
TIBER Conference 2015
29
Empathy induction
manipulation check
Z-standardized difference from
sample mean
1
3. Van Vliet, 2014
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Control (4.11)
Empathy (4.26)
Care (4.10)
-0.2
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
30
Care for recipients state
3. Van Vliet, 2014
• Items (1-5):
– “While reading the text I thought I should do
something for people who have trouble
getting clean water.”
– “I think we should all do something to
provide clean drinking water facilities for
people who need them.”
New items, r = .59
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
31
Care manipulation check
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Z-standardized difference from
sample mean
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Control (3.38)
Empathy (3.42)
Care (3.22)
-0.2
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
32
Steps 2, 3, 4
Validation of
measures
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Principle of care
induction
August 27, 2015
Behavioral analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm, 4. Bekkers et al., 2014
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
7. TBD
2. Batson, 1997
3. Van Vliet, 2014
3. Van Vliet, 2014
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
TIBER Conference 2015
33
Limitations  improvements
• The measure of state care was poor 
develop one which can be used across
situations
• The manipulations of empathy and the
principle of care did not work  develop
effective ones
• Single budget  test multiple budgets
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
34
A better measure of state care
• We decided to use an adjective checklist,
describing the principle of care, avoiding
emotions.
–
–
–
–
–
Moral
Rational
Principled
Deliberate
Responsible
August 27, 2015
Following the model of the
empathic state measure
developed by Batson
TIBER Conference 2015
35
Inducing empathy / morality
• Perhaps the induction was too strong, and
reactance occurred.
• Can we use more subtle manipulations?
• We looked at the priming literature and
talked to several psychologists warning us
against using scrambled sentences,
subliminal and physical cues, in order to
avoid disappointment.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
36
• Perhaps we subtly manipulated empathy
and morality in the previous experiment
by asking participants about their selfimage as an empathic / caring person
before reading the text.
• We decided to test this systematically.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
37
Priming empathy and morality
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
• Participants read an
article about Oxfam
helping a family in
need by providing
them with chickens.
• Participants either
completed empathy
and principle of care
Design: 2 (self-image questions: no, yes) x 4 (priming:
scales or not.
none, image of hands, religion, moral appeal)
Participants: MTurk (n = 457)
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
38
Developing a state care measure
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
Please indicate the degree to which you
thought about these principles after reading
the story. Responsibility, Helpfulness,
Beauty(F) Benevolence, Loyalty(F), Humanity,
Commonality, Authority(F), Assisting,
Commitment, Purity(F), Justice, Selfcentered(*), Liberty, Disregard(*), Remoteness(*)
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
39
Familiar correlations
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
Trait care
State care for
recipients
State empathy
adjectives
State care adjectives
Filler adjectives
Isolation adjectives
August 27, 2015
Trait
empathy
.69
.60
Trait
care
.57
.58
.75
.33
.01
-.06
.55
.02
-.22
.65
.27
-.22
TIBER Conference 2015
State care for
recipients
.69
40
No self-image priming effects
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
state care for state empathy
recipients
adjectives
-0.6
state care
adjectives
filler
adjectives
48 < n < 117; 0.256 < F < 1.686 (df = 3); p > .167
isolation
adjectives
48 < n < 65; F = 2.685 (df = 3); p = .047
-0.8
-1
no self-image
August 27, 2015
care only
empathy only
TIBER Conference 2015
care and empathy
41
No priming effects on states…
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
state care for state empathy
recipients
adjectives
-0.6
state care
adjectives
filler
adjectives
isolation
adjectives
55 < n < 118; 0.271 < F < 1.435 (df = 3); p > .233
-0.8
-1
no priming
August 27, 2015
hands
religion
TIBER Conference 2015
moral appeal
42
…or giving behavior
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Average gift (€)
no priming
August 27, 2015
hands
Gives > 0 (%)
religion
TIBER Conference 2015
moral appeal
43
Very little crowding out
25
% of responses
20
4
15
10
28
10
34
5
n = 457
0
gives nothing
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
gives half
44
Budgets
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
ΔG-i
Δgi
Crowding-out
Effect
6: 4  10
6: 28  34
18: 10 28
24: 4  28
30: 4  34
-.37
-.04
-.65
-1.02
-1.68
-.06
-.01
-.03
-.04
-.06
24 (W46): 4  28
-.69
-.03
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
45
ΔG-i
0
6
12
18
24
30
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
ΔGi
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
-2
August 27, 2015
y = -0.0506x + 0.169
TIBER Conference 2015
46
ΔG-i
0
6
12
18
24
30
0
-5
Observed crowd-out
y = -0.0506x + 0.169
-10
ΔGi
-15
-20
-25
-30
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
47
Does care affect crowding out?
100
Gives > €0
90
% of responses
80
70
60
4
50
10
40
28
30
34
20
n = 55 (no
self-image
questions)
10
0
No priming
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
Moral appeal
48
Does care affect crowding out?
100
Gives > €0
90
% of responses
80
70
60
4
50
10
40
28
30
34
20
10
0
No priming
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
Moral appeal
n = 57
(started
with selfimage
questions)
49
Do empathy / care affect giving?
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
trait care
trait
state care state care
state
filler
isolation
empathy
for
adjectives empathy adjectives adjectives
recipients
adjectives
.40 < r < .51
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
r = .11
r = -.36
50
Step 4: Summary of Results
• Very little crowd-out.
• No priming effects whatsoever on
empathic or moral states or giving.
• Hypothetical giving increases strongly
with dispositional empathy / care.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
51
Step 4
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Validation of
measures
Behavioral
analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm,
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
4. Bekkers et al.,
2014
7. TBD
2. Batson, 1997
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Principle of care
3. Van Vliet, 2014;
induction
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
52
Learning from practice
• How would practitioners prime the
principle of care?
• Can we develop an effective manipulation
that can easily be used in practice?
• To what extent do real world fundraising
materials affect the principle of care?
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
53
Testing
5. Bekkers, Ottoni-Wilhelm, Verkaik, 2015
• Participants are
exposed to Oxfam’s
mission statement in
different visual forms.
• Then participants
completed state and
dispositional measures.
Design: 3 (visual: text only, text with still image, video) x
• No giving.
2 (moral appeal: no, yes)
Participants: Crowdflower (n = 287); MTurk (n = 304)
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
54
Oxfam
America
mission
statement
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
55
Excluding
references to
injustice,
‘right the
wrong’
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
56
Principle of care affected
50
45
40
35
Short
30
25
Long
20
Long + remembers 1 in
3 lives in poverty
15
10
5
0
Text
August 27, 2015
Text + image
Video
TIBER Conference 2015
Mturk sample only
(n = 304)
57
Empathic state
50
45
40
35
Short
30
25
Long
20
Long + remembers 1 in
3 lives in poverty
15
10
5
0
Text
August 27, 2015
Text + image
Video
TIBER Conference 2015
Mturk sample only
(n = 304)
58
Personal distress state
50
45
40
35
Short
30
25
Long
20
Long + remembers 1 in
3 lives in poverty
15
10
5
0
Text
August 27, 2015
Text + image
Video
TIBER Conference 2015
Mturk sample only
(n = 304)
59
Trait care
50
45
40
35
Short
30
25
Long
20
Long + remembers 1 in
3 lives in poverty
15
10
5
0
Text
August 27, 2015
Text + image
Video
TIBER Conference 2015
Mturk sample only
(n = 304)
60
Trait empathy
50
45
40
35
Short
30
25
Long
20
Long + remembers 1 in
3 lives in poverty
15
10
5
0
Text
August 27, 2015
Text + image
Video
TIBER Conference 2015
Mturk sample only
(n = 304)
61
What we learned from practice
• Exposure to the Oxfam America mission
statement marginally increased (+5-10%)
the state of care, empathy, and distress.
• Also trait empathy and care are affected.
• These effects are most pronounced for the
text only version.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
62
Steps 5 and 6
Warm glow /
altruism in
giving behavior
Empathy
induction
Validation of
measures
Behavioral
analysis
Field
experiment
1. Ottoni-Wilhelm,
Vesterlund & Xie,
2014
4. Bekkers et al.,
2014
7. TBD
2. Batson, 1997
5. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
8. TBD
6. Bekkers, OttoniWilhelm, Verkaik,
2015a; 2015b
9. TBD
3. Van Vliet, 2014
Principle of care
3. Van Vliet, 2014;
induction
4. Bekkers et al., 2014
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
63
Questions for discussion
• Why did we find such a low level of
crowd-out, in contrast to a previous lab
experiment?
• Any ideas to more effectively manipulate
the principle of care?
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
64
Procedure for field experiment
• GINPS15 participants will receive a letter
explaining the experiment and a link to an
online survey in which the experiment is
implemented.
• Informed consent + ERB approval.
• Six decisions, one implemented.
• Match donations in experiment with
Oxfam donation history from database.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
65
René Bekkers
Center for Philanthropic Studies
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
r.bekkers@vu.nl
www.giving.nl
Twitter: @renebekkers
The Measure – Sample Items
1. People should be willing to help others
who are less fortunate.
2. Everybody in this world has a
responsibility to help others when they
need assistance.
3 (*). These days people need to look after
themselves and not overly worry about
others.
4. When people are less fortunate, it is
important to help them even if they are
very different from us.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
67
Full principle of care scale
a. People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate.
b. Everybody in this world has a responsibility to help others when they need
assistance.
c. These days people need to look after themselves and not overly worry
about others.
d. When people are less fortunate, it is important to help them even if they are
very different from us.
e. It is important to help one another so that the community in general is a
better place.
f. Personally assisting people in trouble is very important to me.
g. When thinking about helping people in trouble, it is important to consider
whether the people are like us or not.
h. We should not care too much about the needs of people in other parts of the
world.
August 27, 2015
TIBER Conference 2015
68