Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect

Social Influence

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 182-201

  Friedrich, James ^a   McGuire, Acacia ^a  

^a WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dual process model; Helping behavior; Identifiable victim effect; Proportional reasoning; Sympathy; System 1 System 2

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953644376     PISSN: 15534510     EISSN: 15534529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15534511003707352     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Bartels, D. M. (2006). Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 76-95.
3. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in Need for Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
4. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
5. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
6. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
7. Featherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. M., & Friedrich, J. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 283-300.
8. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Editorial: Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 5-8.
9. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
10. Friedrich, J. (2007, January). On helping identified victims more than statistical victims: Dual process moderators and theory testing. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Social Psychology Winter Conference, Park City, UT.
11. Friedrich, J., Barnes, P., Chapin, K., Dawson, I., Garst, V., & Kerr, D. (1999). Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 277-299.
12. Friedrich, J., & Dood, T. L. (2009). How many casualties are too many? Proportional reasoning in the valuation of military and civilian lives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2541-2569.
13. Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 25-30.
14. Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 366-371.
15. Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1997). Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235-257.
16. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The "identified victim" effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157-167.
17. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116.
18. Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The Scarecrow and the Tin Man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 2, 112-126.
19. Long, K., & Friedrich, J. (2004, February). Presenting frequency data in Bayesian tasks: Does everybody benefit? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.
20. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
21. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
22. Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95.
23. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. R., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping the victim or helping a victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5-16.
25. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143-153.
26. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726.
27. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.