↓ Skip to main content

Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Dickert, Janet Kleber, Daniel Västfjäll, Paul Slovic

Abstract

One of the puzzling phenomena in philanthropy is that people can show strong compassion for identified individual victims but remain unmoved by catastrophes that affect large numbers of victims. Two prominent findings in research on charitable giving reflect this idiosyncrasy: The (1) identified victim and (2) victim number effects. The first of these suggests that identifying victims increases donations and the second refers to the finding that people's willingness to donate often decreases as the number of victims increases. While these effects have been documented in the literature, their underlying psychological processes need further study. We propose a model in which identified victim and victim number effects operate through different cognitive and affective mechanisms. In two experiments we present empirical evidence for such a model and show that different affective motivations (donor-focused vs. victim-focused feelings) are related to the cognitive processes of impact judgments and mental imagery. Moreover, we argue that different mediation pathways exist for identifiability and victim number effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 26%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 31%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,796,438
of 24,362,308 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#89,147
of 210,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,571
of 409,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,848
of 5,352 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,362,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,352 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.