Giving, by definition, involves transferring one’s own resources to another person or people. However, different forms of giving vary by the extent to which people give something that represents their essence to them, that is, how much givers sense they are ‘‘giving the self.’’ For example, blood (or organ) and possession (e.g., clothes) donations feel more like giving one’s essence than a money donation of a comparable value, and signing a petition with one’s name similarly feels more ‘‘self-giving’’ than expressing one’s support by clicking an ‘‘I support’’ (or ‘‘like’’) icon on an online petition.

This research compares such ‘‘self-giving’’ which often involve one’s essence to the giving of resources of comparable value that are less connected to one’s essence. The study explores whether self-giving, as opposed to an equally helpful contribution, makes givers experience themselves as (a) more generous and (b) more committed to the particular cause, because the gift appears more diagnostic of the giver.

The team predicts these effects from two reasons. First, it is because contributions appear subjectively more valuable when the self is involved. For example, people tend to think that the contributions appear more valuable the longer they have been owned (ex. a piece of jewelry they have owned for a long time). If personal items acquire positivity, they are further likely to appear more valuable to the givers, thereby increasing givers’ perceptions of their own generosity and commitment. Second, self-giving creates an association between the self and the act of giving, and between the self and the cause that is helped, such that people internalize the act of giving and the recipients of the help-these become part of who they are. For example, people could feel more generous/committed if they donate blood versus money, even if they set the amount of money to be comparable in value to a blood donation, such that they do not think the blood donation is worth more. In this example, the person who donated blood is not giving more but is rather internalizing giving as part of her self-concept.

The team further predicts that self-giving, which increases people’s sense that they are generous/committed to a cause, motivates subsequent giving. Commitment motivates subsequent giving, and those who see themselves as generous may want to be consistent with their modified view of themselves through more giving.

In their empirical studies, the team operationalized self-giving as giving an item that the person owned for a while (vs. only briefly), donating with one’s name (vs. unnamed gift), and donating blood (vs. the equivalent amount of money).

Giving endowed objects Versus Briefly owned objects

In one study, the team predicted that giving a pen that was owned for a longer time would not only make participants feel they were giving more (the endowment effect) but also lead them to infer they are more committed and generous (the self-giving effect).

The study employed a two (ownership: short vs. long) between subject design. Participants’ task was to evaluate a ballpoint pen product on a four-page paper-and pencil survey. To manipulate the duration of the ownership, all participants received a Stabilo pen at the beginning of the study and used it to complete the survey. Participants learned either before they started the survey (long-ownership condition) or after they completed the survey (short-ownership condition) that the pen was a gift from the manufacturer for them to keep. Upon completing the survey, participants received a solicitation letter for an existing campaign that invited them to donate pens to children in developing countries. After donating their pen, participants rated their perceived generosity, commitment, and the perceived value of the pen.

As predicted, participants in the long-ownership condition rated the donated pen more valuable, and also rated themselves more generous and committed than those in the short-ownership condition. That is, ownership increased the perceived value of a pen and participants’ perceptions of themselves as generous/committed when they donated the pen.

Identifiable Versus Anonymous

A common form of self-giving involves giving one’s name, for example, when people sign a petition (vs. click the ‘‘like’’ icon). To test whether name-giving increases perceived generosity/commitment, they conducted a field study in collaboration with WECAN, a Korean foundation assisting in the rehabilitation

of people with disabilities (www.wecan.or.kr). Specifically, they sold cookies that people with disabilities had made. Those who purchased cookies left a signed versus anonymous note to support the cause, before reporting their perceived generosity and commitment.

As predicted, those who listed their names perceived themselves more generous and committed than those who did not list their names. The study provides converging evidence that self-giving increases perceived generosity/commitment. Merely signing one’s name, even when doing so was a mandatory part of the purchase, increased perception of generosity and commitment to the cause.

Donating Blood versus Money

Blood donation is another form of self-giving. The research tested whether donating blood leads to greater perceived generosity/commitment than donating the monetary value equal to the blood donation. To compare blood to monetary donations, they employed a matching procedure in which participants chose between two alternatives that they had previously equated in value. Specifically, participants estimated the dollar amount they were willing to give that made them indifferent between donating blood and money.

They were then assigned to imagine they ended up donating either blood or the estimated dollar amount and reported their generosity and commitment.

As predicted, considering donating blood made participants feel more generous and committed than considering donating money. That is, self-giving increases perceived generosity/commitment more than giving the comparable amount of money, even when blood and money are equal in value, which suggests self-giving effects do not require that people feel they are giving more. 

Self-giving Increases Future Giving[RU1] 

The last study tests whether self-giving facilitates subsequent giving. The team predicted that seeing oneself as generous and committed via self-giving would translate into greater intention to help, however, only for delayed decisions, but not necessarily immediately, because those who feel they have just acted generously may feel licensed to relax subsequent efforts. To test this, the team conducted a semi-field study that invited participants to sign their names to a petition versus submit their support anonymously, and then invited them to support another related petition immediately or on the next day.

As predicted, those who signed with their names felt more generous and committed than anonymous givers. Moreover, those who signed with their names were more willing to participate in the subsequent petition in the long run, but not immediately.  ,

Conclusion and Implication

By looking at the different aspects of self-giving, the team find that self-giving increases givers’ perception of themselves as generous and as committed to the cause and facilitate more giving in the long run. This research has theoretical and practical implications for giving. When soliciting donations, organizations often offer the option to remain anonymous to lure people to participate, assuming that people prefer impersonal giving. However, our studies find self-giving is not necessarily preferred less and giving one’s name is actually an effective tool in building commitment to a cause. Whenever people prefer to give something that is personal and to associate themselves with the charitable acts, or are at least indifferent, soliciting self-giving is likely to be effective. To conclude, the team finds that in soliciting prosocial actions, emphasizing the identity of the giver in the gift is a useful tool for increasing perceived generosity and commitment, and for future engagement.

This research was published at Social Psychological and Personality Science on Feb 2016.