The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations

By Tehila Kogut, Ilana Ritov. 2005

369 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f976d0984c92052db0aa8b2be28eecd6d5df069

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation (2013, neutral): “Third, greater compassion is shown towards a single, identiﬁed victim than towards two (Västfjäll et al., 2012), three (Schmidt & Wilson, 2011) or eight victims (e.g., Kogut & Ritov, 2005); these ﬁndings are often labeled as either “identiﬁable victim” or “singular-ity” effects.”
More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving (2013, background): “Koffka 1935; Lauer 1979; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998).”
A Review and Framework for Thinking about the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer Behavior (2020, background): “…has looked at one repeat action after an initial prosocial behavior (e.g., Merritt, Effron, and Monin 2010; Blanken et al. 2015; Kouchaki and Jami 2016), future research could look at combining habit-formation tools with identity-formation manipulations, then examine people’s behaviors over…”
Microfinance Decision Making: A Field Study of Prosocial Lending (2011, positive): “With regard to the former, we observe that lending is less likely as borrower group size increases, consistent with previous lab-based experiments on the identifiable victim effect (Kogut and Ritov 2005a, b).”
“If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide (2007, neutral): “The mean contributions to the group of eight and to the individuals taken from the group are shown in Figure 9 for one of the studies by Kogut & Ritov (2005b).”
Boomerang Effects in Science Communication (2012, background): “…victims with various types of social identity cues embedded in messages (i.e., location, pictures, names, headlines, etc.) possibly influencing the degree of social identification between the reader and victims/exemplars highlighted within the message (Kogut & Ritov, 2005a, 2005b; Slovic, 2007).”
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy (2010, background): “Information about single victims is more vivid and more emotionally distressing than information about multiple unidentified victims (Kogut & Ritov, 2005a, 2005b).”
Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. (2007, background): “Kogut and Ritov (2005b) gave some individuals an opportunity to give any amount or nothing to either or both a single, identified victim or a group of identified victims, while others only had the option of giving to one of the two targets (single or group).”
Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior (2008, background): “Charities do often describe or show images of specific victims in their advertising campaigns, but such attempts seem designed to benefit from the identifiable victim effect (Kogut and Ritov 2005a, 2005b; Small et al. 2007) rather than to create friendship between donors and victims.”
One or Many? The Influence of Episodic and Thematic Climate Change Frames on Policy Preferences and Individual Behavior Change (2011, background): “This differs from the work of Slovic (2007) and Kogut & Ritov (2005a, 2005b) by changing both the type of exemplar (polar bears vs. children) and the ability of the participant to directly help the victim.”