@article{622abbf6d20c4d32b5ed6309e07453e7,
title = "Comparing the effect of rational and emotional appeals on donation behavior",
abstract = "We present evidence from a pre-registered experiment indicating that a philosophical argument – a type of rational appeal – can persuade people to make charitable donations. The rational appeal we used follows Singer{\textquoteright}s “shallow pond” argument (1972), while incorporating an evolutionary debunking argument (Paxton, Ungar and Greene, 2012) against favoring nearby victims over distant ones. The effectiveness of this rational appeal did not differ significantly from that of a well-tested emotional appeal involving an image of a single child in need (Small, Loewenstein and Slovic, 2007). This is a surprising result, given evidence that emotions are the primary drivers of moral action, a view that has been very influential in the work of development organizations. We found no support for our hypothesis that combining our rational and emotional appeals would have a stronger effect than either appeal in isolation. However, our finding that both kinds of appeal can increase charitable donations is cause for optimism, especially concerning the potential efficacy of well-designed rational appeals. We consider the significance of these findings for moral psychology, ethics, and the work of organizations aiming to alleviate severe poverty.",
keywords = "Charitable donation, Emotional appeals, Moral motivation, Philosophical arguments, Rational appeals",
author = "Matthew Lindauer and Marcus Mayorga and Joshua Greene and Paul Slovic and Daniel V{\"a}stfj{\"a}ll and Peter Singer",
note = "Funding Information: For helpful comments, the authors would like to thank Ana Gantman, Serene Khader, editor Andreas Gl{\"o}ckner, and an anonymous reviewer for the journal. We are also grateful to editor Jon Baron for many improve-ments to the paper. We would like to thank Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America for providing us with images to use in our studies. This research was supported by a grant from the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. Paul Slovic wishes to acknowledge support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the US National Science Foundation under Grant 1227729. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommenda-tions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Funding Information: For helpful comments, the authors would like to thank Ana Gantman, Serene Khader, editor Andreas Gl{\"o}ckner, and an anonymous reviewer for the journal. We are also grateful to editor Jon Baron for many improvements to the paper. We would like to thank Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America for providing us with images to use in our studies. This research was supported by a grant from the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. Paul Slovic wishes to acknowledge support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the US National Science Foundation under Grant 1227729. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020. The authors license this article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.",
year = "2020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "413--420",
journal = "Judgment and Decision Making",
issn = "1930-2975",
publisher = "Society for Judgment and Decision Making",
number = "3",
}