Tehila Kogut

The role of perspective taking and emotions in punishing identified and unidentified wrongdoers

We present two studies examining the effect of identifiability on willingness to punish, emphasising that identifiability of the wrongdoer may increase or decrease willingness to punish depending on the punishers perspective. When taking the wrongdoers perspective, identifiability increases pity and decreases anger towards the wrongdoer, leading to a lighter punishment. On the other hand, when adopting the injured perspective, identifiability decreases pity and increases anger, resulting in a severe punishment. We show that while deliberation and rational factors affect the decision regardless of identification, the role of emotions in the decision is greater in the identified condition. Possible implications for public and educational policy are discussed.

Careful Cheating: People Cheat Groups Rather than Individuals

Cheating for material gain is a destructive phenomenon in any society. We examine the extent to which people care about the victims of their unethical behavior—be they a group of people or an individual—and whether they are sensitive to the degree of harm or cost that they cause to these victims. The results of three studies suggest that when a group (rather than a single individual) is the victim of one’s behavior, the incidence of cheating increases only if the harm to the group is presented in global terms—such that the cheating might be justified by the relatively minor harm caused to each individual in the group (Studies #1 and #3). However, when the harm or cost to each individual in the group is made explicit, the tendency to cheat the group is no longer apparent and the tendency to cheat increases when the harm caused is minor—regardless of whether the victim is an individual or a group of people (Study #2). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking appear to play different roles in the decision to cheat different type of opponents: individual opponents seem to trigger the subject’s intuitive thinking which restrains the urge to cheat, whereas groups of opponents seem to trigger the subject’s rational mode of thinking which encourage cheating.

Feel good, do good? Subjective well-being and sharing behavior among children

The current study examined the association between childrens subjective well-being (SWB) and their sharing behavior. School children (second and fifth graders) were interviewed in private and had an opportunity to share candy with a recipient under one of two between-participants conditions: Perceived-High Obligation (a recipient in poverty) and Perceived-Low Obligation (a temporarily needy recipient). Results provide initial evidence of an increased association between SWB and sharing decisions with age; whereas SWB was not significantly correlated with the incidence of sharing by younger children (second graders), it was a positive predictor of sharing behavior among fifth graders. Manipulating the perceived obligation to share (by emphasizing the causes beyond the recipients need), we found that higher levels of SWB were linked to sharing only in the Perceived-Low Obligation condition. Children with lower SWB behaved as expected by the norm and shared to a similar degree as children with higher SWB when sharing felt obligatory. However, when sharing was less obligatory, higher levels of SWB were linked to higher levels of sharing.

The Association between Religiousness and Children's Altruism: The Role of The Recipient's Neediness.

We examined the role of the recipient’s neediness as a moderator in the relation between children’s household religiosity and prosocial behavior. Examining the behavior of children (2nd and 5th graders) from religious and nonreligious households in the dictator game, we found that the extent of sharing did not differ significantly between the 2 groups when the recipient was not described as needy. However, when the recipient was presented as a poor (needy) child, the religious group exhibited significantly more sharing behavior. Although the religious children’s tendency to share more with needy recipients compared with the not-needy ones appeared already in the 2nd grade, it increased with age as children grew and internalized the norms of their immediate society. Among the major religions, the recipient’s neediness is an important variable in the decision to give, which shapes religious children’s prosocial behavior from an early age. Thus, future research should take this moderator into account when studying the relation between religiousness and prosociality in general and in the development of prosociality in children in particular.

Effect of media presentations on willingness to commit to organ donation

Significance We often encounter cases of organ donation in the press or on television. How might these stories affect readers? We found that reading coverage of cases that include identifying information about the receiver (saved by organ donations) increased participants’ willingness to commit to organ donation themselves, to donate the organs of a deceased relative, or to support a transition to an “opt-out” policy. Conversely, identifying the deceased donor induced thoughts of death rather than about saving lives, resulting in fewer participants willing to donate organs or to support policies that facilitate organ donation. We show that most of the stories that appear in the press include an identified donor rather than an identified receiver, possibly reducing organ donations. We examine how presentations of organ donation cases in the media may affect peoples willingness to sign organ donation commitment cards, donate the organs of a deceased relative, support the transition to an “opt-out” policy, or donate a kidney while alive. We found that providing identifying information about the prospective recipient (whose life was saved by the donation) increased the participants’ willingness to commit to organ donation themselves, donate the organs of a deceased relative, or support a transition to an “opt-out” policy. Conversely, identifying the deceased donor tended to induce thoughts of death rather than about saving lives, resulting in fewer participants willing to donate organs or support measures that facilitated organ donation. A study of online news revealed that identification of the donor is significantly more common than identification of the recipient in the coverage of organ donation cases—with possibly adverse effects on the incidence of organ donations.

Altruistic behavior in cohesive social groups: The role of target identifiability

People’s tendency to be more generous toward identifiable victims than toward unidentifiable or statistical victims is known as the Identifiable Victim Effect. Recent research has called the generality of this effect into question, showing that in cross-national contexts, identifiability mostly affects willingness to help victims of one’s own “in-group.” Furthermore, in inter-group conflict situations, identifiability increased generosity toward a member of the adversary group, but decreased generosity toward a member of one’s own group. In the present research we examine the role of group-cohesiveness as an underlying factor accounting for these divergent findings. In particular, we examined novel groups generated in the lab, using the minimal group paradigm, as well as natural groups of students in regular exercise sections. Allocation decisions in dictator games revealed that a group’s cohesiveness affects generosity toward in-group and out-group recipients differently, depending on their identifiability. In particular, in cohesive groups the identification of an in-group recipient decreased, rather than increased generosity.

Helping an Outgroup Member Or the Outgroup: The Identifiability Effect in an Intergroup Context

In today’s world, where communication is fast and far-reaching, we regularly encounter appeals to help people in need in different places, and people belonging to different nations, cultures, religions and ethnicities. The recipient of help in such requests may be an identified individual, a group of people, or an abstract entity. How might these different requests affect our decision to help?