The Stingy Shift Explained as a Majority Rule Equilibrium

Abstract

[Introduction] Baron, Roper and Baron (1974) claim that group decisions regarding contributions to a charitable cause sometimes represent generally stingier options than the options picked by individuals when choosing alone. Their study and interpretations are consistent with a sizable social psychological literature which postulate:o; that "choice shifts" of various kinds occur as a result of group decision. Theories used to explain "choice shifts" usually rest on principles of group decision involving concepts like cultural values, responsibility, leadership, etc. In the present case, for example, the diffusion of personal responsibility for uncharitable behavior was offered as one explanation for smaller mean donations by groups.