Altruistic Behavior in Charitable Giving: a Comparison between Rational, Numerical, and Emotional Prompts

Abstract The evidence on the influence of rational appeals on moral behavior remains inconclusive. The opportunity to donate to a charity provides a fruitful applied case to test the details that might explain the mixed results. Previous studies have demonstrated the power of emotional appeals to induce participants to donate, while different rational appeals vary in their performance. Our paper presents the results of three pre-registered experiments comparing how much participants were willing to donate via direct cash transfers when exposed to different conditions. Experiment 1 tested five conditions. Three are vignette-based: Narrative, our emotional textual prompt, presents the testimony of an identified recipient, while Argument presents a Singer-style argument for charitable giving, and Facts consists of the numerical results of an evaluation of a cash transfer program. The other two conditions are based on perspective-taking exercises with either a reasonable donor or a suffering recipient, designed to elicit empathy with the beneficiaries. As predicted, the average amount donated in the control condition was significantly lower than in each of the other five conditions. Narrative performed best, significantly better than all other conditions. Among the rational conditions, Facts performed better descriptively. Its success is surprising given the poor performance of adding numerical information in other studies. After a replication with the vignette conditions in Experiment 2, we tested two variations of our Facts condition to explore how numerical information was taken into consideration. The numerical information in Large Numbers conveyed a highly effective intervention, while those in Small Numbers presented a barely positive impact. Since both variations generated roughly the same average donation amount, it seems that the numbers were not processed as numerical information.