The Charity Beauty Premium

Satisfying Donors’ Want versus Should Desires

Cynthia Cryder, Simona Botti, Iveta Simonyan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite widespread conviction that neediness is the most important criterion for charitable allocations, we observe a “charity beauty premium” in which donors often favor beautiful, but less needy charity recipients. We propose that donors hold simultaneous, yet incongruent preferences of wanting to support beautiful recipients (who tend to be judged as less needy) yet believing they should support needy recipients instead. We additionally posit that preferences for beautiful recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are intuitive whereas preferences for needy recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are deliberative. We test these propositions in several ways. First, when a beautiful recipient is introduced to basic choice sets, it becomes the most popular option and increases donor satisfaction. Second, heightening deliberation steers choices away from beautiful recipients and toward needier ones. Third, donors explicitly state that they “want” to give to beautiful recipients but “should” give to less beautiful, needier ones. Taken together, these findings reconcile and extend previous and sometimes conflicting results about beauty and generosity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)605-618
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Marketing Research
Volume54
Issue number4
Early online date1 Aug 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

Fingerprint

Charity
Premium
Choice sets
Deliberation
Generosity

Cite this

The Charity Beauty Premium : Satisfying Donors’ Want versus Should Desires. / Cryder, Cynthia ; Botti, Simona; Simonyan, Iveta.

In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 54, No. 4, 01.08.2017, p. 605-618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c003ed5a0d6a4487a86fde55c775ff90,
title = "The Charity Beauty Premium: Satisfying Donors’ Want versus Should Desires",
abstract = "Despite widespread conviction that neediness is the most important criterion for charitable allocations, we observe a “charity beauty premium” in which donors often favor beautiful, but less needy charity recipients. We propose that donors hold simultaneous, yet incongruent preferences of wanting to support beautiful recipients (who tend to be judged as less needy) yet believing they should support needy recipients instead. We additionally posit that preferences for beautiful recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are intuitive whereas preferences for needy recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are deliberative. We test these propositions in several ways. First, when a beautiful recipient is introduced to basic choice sets, it becomes the most popular option and increases donor satisfaction. Second, heightening deliberation steers choices away from beautiful recipients and toward needier ones. Third, donors explicitly state that they “want” to give to beautiful recipients but “should” give to less beautiful, needier ones. Taken together, these findings reconcile and extend previous and sometimes conflicting results about beauty and generosity.",
author = "Cynthia Cryder and Simona Botti and Iveta Simonyan",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1509/jmr.14.0658",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "605--618",
journal = "Journal of Marketing Research",
issn = "0022-2437",
publisher = "American Marketing Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Charity Beauty Premium

T2 - Satisfying Donors’ Want versus Should Desires

AU - Cryder, Cynthia

AU - Botti, Simona

AU - Simonyan, Iveta

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Despite widespread conviction that neediness is the most important criterion for charitable allocations, we observe a “charity beauty premium” in which donors often favor beautiful, but less needy charity recipients. We propose that donors hold simultaneous, yet incongruent preferences of wanting to support beautiful recipients (who tend to be judged as less needy) yet believing they should support needy recipients instead. We additionally posit that preferences for beautiful recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are intuitive whereas preferences for needy recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are deliberative. We test these propositions in several ways. First, when a beautiful recipient is introduced to basic choice sets, it becomes the most popular option and increases donor satisfaction. Second, heightening deliberation steers choices away from beautiful recipients and toward needier ones. Third, donors explicitly state that they “want” to give to beautiful recipients but “should” give to less beautiful, needier ones. Taken together, these findings reconcile and extend previous and sometimes conflicting results about beauty and generosity.

AB - Despite widespread conviction that neediness is the most important criterion for charitable allocations, we observe a “charity beauty premium” in which donors often favor beautiful, but less needy charity recipients. We propose that donors hold simultaneous, yet incongruent preferences of wanting to support beautiful recipients (who tend to be judged as less needy) yet believing they should support needy recipients instead. We additionally posit that preferences for beautiful recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are intuitive whereas preferences for needy recipients are most likely to emerge when decisions are deliberative. We test these propositions in several ways. First, when a beautiful recipient is introduced to basic choice sets, it becomes the most popular option and increases donor satisfaction. Second, heightening deliberation steers choices away from beautiful recipients and toward needier ones. Third, donors explicitly state that they “want” to give to beautiful recipients but “should” give to less beautiful, needier ones. Taken together, these findings reconcile and extend previous and sometimes conflicting results about beauty and generosity.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0658

U2 - 10.1509/jmr.14.0658

DO - 10.1509/jmr.14.0658

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 605

EP - 618

JO - Journal of Marketing Research

JF - Journal of Marketing Research

SN - 0022-2437

IS - 4

ER -