Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a onetime small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel
and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often
evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the
guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation
reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims.

Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need.

Keywords: charity, singularity effect, deliberation, affect, identified victim