Victim Identification, Framing Heuristic and Stress Effects on the Donation Decision


Donation, Framing Effect, Ä°dentifiable and Statistical Victims, Galvanic Skin Response

How to Cite

TOMRÄ°S KÜÇÜN, N. ., & GÃœNGÖR, S. (2020). Victim Identification, Framing Heuristic and Stress Effects on the Donation Decision. PRIZREN SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, 4(2), 22–29.


The tendency of an individual to share his beings with other people arises from the social aspect of human nature. Especially in today's conditions where the gap between advantageous and disadvantaged groups is getting deeper, donation is extremely important to reach a global level of welfare and to create fair living standards for all. Due to the stated priorities, donation behavior has an important place among both religious and moral values. However, the factors that lead an individual towards donation behavior are not only social rules. In addition to external factors, important internal factors such as emotions also play a big role in the donation decision. In addition, there are many variables such as the donated thing itself, total assets of the donor and indeed the characteristics of the donor. Donation behavior, which is widely examined in the literature, is also considered as an important decision making subject.

In our study, the effects that motivate an individual towards a donation; along with the donation amount and the ratio of donation, were examined with framing heuristics which express the individual's knowledge of the victim. The mentioned variables were associated with stress as one of the strongest negative arousal output, to understand the emotional aspect of a donation decision. The stress levels of the participants, who manipulated by two different scenarios, were monitored with galvanic skin response to determine the decision-making scenarios which triggered stress. As a result; it has been found that the individual's effort to gain the money he donates and the features of the donation call significantly affect the decision.


Amos, O. M. (1982). Empirical analysis of motives underlying individual contributions to charity. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10(4), 45-52.

Anik, L., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2014). Contingent match incentives increase donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(6), 790-801.

Anjum, G., & Gueth, W. (2019). Becoming generous and respecting honor: An experiment based on donation and trust-game with multiple trustees. IBA Business Review, 14(2).

Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4), 1-10.

Bakker, J., Pechenizkiy, M., & Sidorova, N. (2011, December). What's your current stress level? Detection of stress patterns from GSR sensor data. In 2011 IEEE 11th international conference on data mining workshops (pp. 573-580). IEEE.

Batson, C. Daniel, Janine L. Dyck, J. Randall Brandt, Judy G. Batson, Anne L. Powell, M. Rosalie McMaster, and Cari Griffitt (1988), "Five Studies Testing Two New Egoistic Alternatives to the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (July), 52-77.

Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 40(5), 924-973.

Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8, 12-29.

Bruch, E., & Feinberg, F. (2017). Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annual review of sociology, 43, 207-227.

Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.

Cuesta, U., Martínez-Martínez, L., & Niño, J. I. (2018). A case study in neuromarketing: Analysis of the influence of music on advertising effectivenes through eye-tracking, facial emotion and GSR. European journal of social science education and research, 5(2), 73-82.

Çarkoğlu, A., & Aytaç, S. E. (2016). Individual giving and philanthropy in Turkey. Istanbul: Third Sector Foundation of Turkey.

Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need on volunteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of consumer research, 25(3), 262-275.

Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2009). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Sage Publications.

Havens, J. J., O’Herlihy, M. A., & Schervish, P. G. (2006). Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what, and how. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 2, 542-567.

Hutchinson, M., Hurley, J., Kozlowski, D., & Whitehair, L. (2018). The use of emotional intelligence capabilities in clinical reasoning and decisionâ€making: A qualitative, exploratory study. Journal of clinical nursing, 27(3-4), e600-e610.

Kaufmann, H. (1970). Aggression and altruism: A psychological analysis. Holt McDougal.

Keegan, B. J., & Rowley, J. (2017). Evaluation and decision making in social media marketing. Management Decision.

Kılıçalp Iaconantonio, S. ( 2013) Bireysel Bağışçılar için Rehber ve İlham Veren Bağışçı Öyküleri, İstanbul: Türkiye Üçüncü Sektör Vakfı (TÜSEV)

Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 97, 106–116.

Kucher, K., Cernea, D., & Kerren, A. (2016, March). Visualizing excitement of individuals and groups. In Proceedings of the 2016 EmoVis Conference on Emotion and Visualization (pp. 15-22).

Kurniawan, H., Maslov, A. V., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2013, June). Stress detection from speech and galvanic skin response signals. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (pp. 209-214). IEEE.

Liao, Z., Jiang, L., & Wang, Y. (2017, May). A quantitative measure of regret in decision-making for human-robot collaborative search tasks. In 2017 American Control Conference (ACC) (pp. 1524-1529). IEEE.

Liu, W., & Aaker, J. (2008). The happiness of giving: The time-ask effect. Journal of consumer research, 35(3), 543-557.

Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto–mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(42), 15623-15628.

Mosier, K. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2018). Human decision makers and automated decision aids: Made for each other?. In Automation and human performance (pp. 201-220). Routledge.

Nguyen, D. D., DeVita, D. A., Hirschler, N. V., & Murphy, E. L. (2008). Blood donor satisfaction and intention of future donation. Transfusion, 48(4), 742-748.

Nofsinger, John. “The Psychology of Investing (Pearson Series in Finance)†3th Editionâ€, 2011

O'Carroll, R. E., Dryden, J., Hamilton-Barclay, T., & Ferguson, E. (2011). Anticipated regret and organ donor registration—A pilot study. Health Psychology, 30(5), 661.

Ranganathan, S. K., & Henley, W. H. (2008). Determinants of charitable donation intentions: a structural equation model. International journal of nonprofit and voluntary sector marketing, 13(1), 1-11.

Rubenking, B. (2019). Emotion, attitudes, norms and sources: Exploring sharing intent of disgusting online videos. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 63-71.

Schelling, T. C. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. Chase (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003a). Helping a victim or helping the victim: altruism and identiï¬ability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003b). The devil you know: the effects of identiï¬ability on punitiveness. Manuscript.

Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2005). Can insight breed callousness? The impact of learning about the identifiable victim effect on sympathy. Unpublished manuscript.

Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386.

Sollberger, S., Bernauer, T., & Ehlert, U. (2016). Stress influences environmental donation behavior in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 63, 311-319.

Solnais, C., Andreu-Perez, J., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Andréu-Abela, J. (2013). The contribution of neuroscience to consumer research: A conceptual framework and empirical review. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 68-81.

Steuer, R. E., & Na, P. (2003). Multiple criteria decision making combined with finance: A categorized bibliographic study. European Journal of operational research, 150(3), 496-515.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. science, 211(4481), 453-458.

Verhaert, G. A., & Van den Poel, D. (2011). Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1288-1295.

Villarejo, M. V., Zapirain, B. G., & Zorrilla, A. M. (2012). A stress sensor based on Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) controlled by ZigBee. Sensors, 12(5), 6075-6101.

Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(2), 299-309.

Woo, K. T. (1992). Social and cultural aspects of organ donation in Asia. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 21(3), 421-427.

Yu, H., Shen, Z., Miao, C., Leung, C., Chen, Y., Fauvel, S., ... & Yang, Q. (2017). A dataset of human decision-making in teamwork management. Scientific data, 4(1), 1-12.

Zimny, G. H., & Weidenfeller, E. W. (1962). Effects of music upon GSR of children. Child Development, 891-896.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2020 Nihan TOMRİS KÜÇÜN, Sezen GÜNGÖR