In the "I" of the storm: Shared initials increase disaster donations

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008, pp. 404–410
In the “I” of the storm: Shared initials increase disaster donations
Jesse Chandler?, Tiffany M. Grif?n, and Nicholas Sorensen
Department of Psychology
University of Michigan
Abstract
People prefer their own initials to other letters, in?uencing preferences in many domains. The “name letter effect”
(Nuttin, 1987) may not apply to negatively valenced targets if people are motivated to downplay or distance themselves
from negative targets associated with the self, as previous research has shown (e.g., Finch & Cialdini, 1989). In the
current research we examine the relationship between same initial preferences and negatively valenced stimuli. Speci?-
cally, we examined donations to disaster relief after seven major hurricanes to test the in?uence of the name letter effect
with negatively valenced targets. Individuals who shared an initial with the hurricane name were overrepresented among
hurricane relief donors relative to the baseline distribution of initials in the donor population. This ?nding suggests
that people may seek to ameliorate the negative effects of a disaster when there are shared characteristics between the
disaster and the self.
Keywords: name letter effect, donations, charity, hurricane, Katrina.
1 Introduction
& Carvallo, 2005). Shared initials have been shown to
in?uence choices in numerous domains including prod-
Katrina Petrillo raised $1000 for Hurricane Katrina vic-
uct preferences, donations to political candidates, spouses
tims by selling lemonade (Salkin, 2005). When asked
and occupations (Pelham, Mirenberg, & Jones, 2002;
why, she said “I realized my name is going to go down in
Jones, Pelham & Carvallo, 2004). For example, one study
history as one of the biggest storms ever” (Salkin, 2005).
found that people with names beginning with the letter
The current research explores whether Katrina Petrillo’s
“D” are overrepresented in the profession of dentists and
response to the association between Hurricane Katrina
people with names beginning with the letter “L” are over-
and her name might be more likely than what would be
represented in the population of lawyers (Pelham et al.,
expected by chance. Speci?cally, we predict that donors
2002). Similarly, people named “George” are more likely
who share an initial with a disaster will be more likely to
to live in Georgia than expected by chance and people
donate to disaster relief efforts for that particular disaster
named “Louise” are more likely to live in Louisiana (Pel-
than would individuals who do not share an initial with a
ham et al., 2002). Together, these ?ndings indicate that
disaster.
similarities affect judgment and choice, presumably by
The prediction that individuals who share an initial
creating a “unit-relation” (Heider, 1958) that facilitates
with a disaster will be more likely to donate to fundrais-
the assimilation of positive feelings of the self into the
ing efforts targeted at that disaster is consistent with re-
representation of the target (implicit egotism; Pelham et
search that has demonstrated that people prefer the ini-
al. 2002).
tial of their ?rst name over other letters. This preference,
Psychologists have theoretically assumed that people
called the name letter effect (Nuttin, 1987), is re?ected
should avoid associations with negative stimuli (Jones et
in both subjective ratings of initials (Nuttin, 1987) and
al., 2004). This claim is based on several studies that
in choices of same-initial targets over comparable targets
have shown that people “cut off re?ected failure” (Sny-
with different initials (Brendl, Chattopadhyay, Pelham,
der, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986) of close others in order to
protect the ego. For example, people are less likely to
?We would like to thank Norbert Schwarz and two anonymous re-
wear clothing displaying the logos of sports teams that
viewers for comments on earlier versions of this paper. This research
was supported by SSHRC doctoral fellowship awarded to the ?rst au-
have recently lost a game as compared to teams that have
thor, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
recently won a game (Cialdini et al., 1976). Similarly,
awarded to the second author and the Michigan Prevention Research
Snyder and colleagues (1986) randomly assigned groups
Training Grant (NIH grant number T32 MH63057). Correspondence
of college students to receive positive or negative false
concerning this article should be addressed to Jesse Chandler, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann
feedback on a group task. They found that compared
Arbor, MI 48109, U.S.A. Email: jjchandl@umich.edu
to a no-feedback control, the successful group demon-
404

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008
Disaster donations
405
strated more af?liative tendencies, while the failure group
guilt, suggesting that responsibility, like positive affect
demonstrated less a?lliative tendencies.
can transfer between members of a unit-relation. If group
Under other circumstances, individuals may downplay
membership increases the likelihood of compensatory be-
negative features of a target with which they share a
havior for the actions of other group members, then per-
unit relationship. Finch and Cialdini (1989) found that
haps other kinds of unit-relations can do the same.
subjects who believed that they shared a birthday with
Taken together, previous literatures on self-target asso-
Rasputin rated him less negatively after reading a descrip-
ciations allow us to speculate that Katrina Petrillo’s sen-
tion of his misdeeds than those who did not. In a recent
timent towards the victims of Hurricane Katrina may be
study, Nelson and Simmons (2007) extended this work
shared by others. Shared-initials are capable of producing
by demonstrating that pairing an initial with a negative
a unit relation and there is at least some evidence that a
outcome undermines task performance. Speci?cally, they
unit-relation with a target that in?icts harm can lead peo-
found that people whose ?rst names begin with C and
ple to help their victims. This led us to expect that people
D initials have lower GPAs than people with other ini-
would: i) be more likely to donate money to same-initial
tials and baseball players with K initials (the letter used
disasters; and possibly ii) donate more money to same
to represent strikes in baseball) are more likely to strike
initial disasters.
out than players with other initials, presumably because
people tend to downplay the severity of the negative out-
2 Method
come, much as they downplay Rasputin’s deeds when
they think he shares their birthday. In other words, people
with ?rst names that begin with C and D may implicitly
2.1 Red Cross Donor Records
downplay the severity of getting these lower grades, and
To test our predictions we examined archival donation
consequently dampen efforts to perform well.
records of a Midwestern chapter of the Red Cross. The
Extending research on implicit egotism and negative
database consisted of sixty-six thousand donations from
stimuli, we contend that people may not always mini-
1930 to early 2006. The vast majority of donations were
mize their associations with negative stimuli (Snyder et.
made by current residents of the county the Red Cross
al, 1986) or downplay their negativity (Finch & Cial-
chapter was located in. Due to privacy concerns, the
dini, 1989; Nelson & Simmons, 2007). Clearly, Kat-
Red Cross released only the ?rst name of the donor, the
rina Petrillo understood the negative impact of Hurricane
amount donated, the date of the donation and the donor’s
Katrina. She claimed that sharing her name with a se-
wishes as to how the donation should be used (interna-
vere storm motivated her to help its victims. If she min-
tional or domestic relief, with the addition of disaster spe-
imized her association with the storm, it is unlikely that
ci?c funds in 2005). The structure of the database also
she would attend to the common initial and consequently
made it impossible to determine the number of unique
would feel no more motivated to donate money than any-
donors who contributed the donations.
one else. Similarly, if she downplayed the severity of the
Although the most recent records are comprehensive,
storm, it is unlikely that she would mention that it is the
records of earlier years were fragmented and did not spec-
“worst storm in history” or invest so much time raising
ify how donations were allocated. For example, there
money. In this case, it is again unlikely that she would
were only eleven entries prior to 1983 and less than 1000
be so compelled to donate given previous research sug-
donations recorded per year prior to 1989. More than
gesting that people are less likely to donate to less severe
one-sixth of the donations came from 2005, re?ecting
disasters (Strömberg, 2007).
a mixture of the public’s response to Hurricane Katrina,
Katrina Petrillo’s efforts to raise money for the victims
better record keeping and the growing population of the
of Hurricane Katrina is contrary to both of the processes
county served by this particular chapter of the Red Cross.
outline above, as well as to self-enhancement literature in
Contributors’ intentions for their donations began to be
general. (For a review see Leary, 2007.) However, there
recorded in 2005. Prior to 2005, the Red Cross only
are circumstances when people may not avoid their asso-
recorded whether donations were intended for interna-
ciation with negative targets, and may even make repara-
tional or domestic disaster relief purposes.
tions for the actions of others with whom they share an
After examining the data we were able to identify sev-
association. For example, people will endorse compen-
eral hurricanes that seemed destructive enough to in?u-
satory behavior to right the wrongs committed by their
ence donor behavior. Hurricanes Katrina (August, 2005)
ingroup against an outgroup (e.g., Brown et al., 2008;
and Rita (September, 2005) both had speci?c funds ded-
Doosje, Branscombe, Spears & Manstead, 1996) even
icated to them, making them ideal. Hurricane Mitch
if this compensatory behavior comes at a personal cost
produced a substantial increase in donations and caused
to the self. Doosje and colleagues (1996) found that
extensive damage in the Caribbean, but not the United
this phenomena was mediated by feelings of collective
States, allowing us to examine its in?uence on M-initial

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008
Disaster donations
406
Table 1: K-initial donations by funding stream.
Prior to Katrina After Katrina
National
International &
Hurricane
Hurricane
disaster
general funds
season 2005
Katrina relief
services
Other donors
1927
286
1568
3495
92
K-initial
84
7
80
212
10
Percentage of K-initial donors
4.20%a
2.39%a
4.85%ab
5.72%b
9.80%b
Note. Proportions with differing subscripts are signi?cantly different, p < .05. Donations prior to Hurricane Katrina
occurred in the six months prior to August 29, 2005 (landfall in Louisiana). Donations after Hurricane Katrina occurred
in the two months after August 29, 2005.
donations by focusing on contributions to international
the effect of time (before vs. after Katrina) on disaster
disaster relief. Finally, to increase the generalizability of
donations and where people allocated their money after
our ?ndings, we then extended our analysis to four addi-
Katrina. The analyses showed a pronounced name letter
tional hurricanes that were not associated with a notice-
effect. First, 4.2% of the donors in the six months prior
able increase in Red Cross donations but were particu-
to Katrina had a name with the initial K; this proportion
larly destructive.
increased to over 5% (a 31% increase over baseline) after
Katrina (?2 (1, N = 7,469) = 5.49, p < .02, ?c = .027).
2.2 Hurricane Katrina
Second, the more directly a disaster relief fund tar-
geted Katrina relief efforts, the greater the proportion
2.2.1 Creation of comparison groups
of K-initial donors. Speci?cally, the greatest proportion
Donations to the Red Cross increased dramatically fol-
of K-initial donors was to Katrina speci?c relief funds
lowing Hurricane Katrina. There were 240 donations
(money designated for either Hurricane Katrina relief and
recorded in August 2005 (prior to Katrina), compared to
Louisiana Disaster Relief; 9.8%), followed by donations
an average of 289 over the previous ?ve Augusts (1999–
to hurricane relief in the United States (5.72%), followed
2004). Donations to the chapter increased to 3959 in
by domestic disaster relief funds more generally (4.85%),
September, 2005, signi?cantly higher than the average of
followed by the baseline measure of pre-Katrina disaster
the previous ?ve Septembers (M = 216). There were 968
relief (4.2%), as indicated by a planned linear contrast on
donations in October 2005, which was above average in
proportions (Furr & Rosenthal, 2003) (z = 2.47, p < .02,
comparison to the donations in October for the previous
Table 1). Finally, we compared the proportion of K-initial
?ve years (M = 237). Donations returned to their year-
donations during the six months prior to Katrina to the K-
over-year average by November (647 compared to an av-
initial donations in the two months following Katrina that
erage of 664 donations, SD = 92.39, over the previous ?ve
were not allocated to domestic disaster or hurricane relief
Novembers). Thus, the two months following a hurricane
(2.39%). The observed increase in the number of con-
seemed to be a period in which people were actively do-
tributions of K-initial donors to Hurricane Katrina relief
nating to hurricane relief. We compared donations that
was not associated with a signi?cant decrease in the num-
occurred during the two month period to donations in the
ber of their contributions to other funds (2.39%, ?2 (1, N
six months prior to Katrina’s landfall (N = 2012).1
= 2,304) = 2.16, p > .14, ?c = .03).
We also examined whether the increased number of K-
2.2.2 Evidence of implicit egotism
initial donors was driven primarily by people with names
closely related to Katrina (speci?cally beginning with
Of interest was whether sharing an initial with a hurri-
“Kat”). The most sensitive test of this hypothesis is to
cane increases the likelihood that one would donate to re-
compare the proportion of Kat-onset donors that make up
lief efforts for that speci?c hurricane. We examined both
the K-initial donor population before Hurricane Katrina
to the proportion of Kat-onset donors who made up the K-
1As one reviewer pointed out, the six month time period prior to
initial donors who contributed money to domestic disas-
Katrina is arbitrary. We repeated these analyses using different cut-off
intervals ranging from six months to a year. Results remained substan-
ter relief following Katrina. If Kat-onset donors are driv-
tially the same.
ing the effect, they should make up a greater proportion

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008
Disaster donations
407
of donors after Hurricane Katrina. The proportion of Kat
sponses to the Hurricane Katrina fund: only fourteen peo-
donors in the K-initial donor population was 30% prior
ple donated speci?cally to the Hurricane Rita relief fund.
to Katrina and only 27% after Katrina, a non-signi?cant
However, of the small number of people who donated
decrease (?2 (1, N = 296) < 1).
speci?cally to Rita, nearly a third (four out of fourteen)
Finally, we examined the average amount of K-initial
had names that begin with R, representing a substantial
donations.
The data were non-normally distributed
increase over the six months prior (N = 5969, ?2 (1, N =
(Skewness = 80.64) so amounts were rank-transformed
5,973) = 8.51, p <.01 ?c = .038). The proportion of R-
and subjected to a 2 (money donated to Katrina compared
initial donations to Hurricane and National Disaster relief
to money donated the six months prior) X 2 (K-initial or
in the two months following Hurricane Rita (7.20%) did
other initial) ANOVA. This procedure produces equiva-
not differ from the proportion of R-initial donations in the
lent results to the Kruskall-Wallace test and is appropriate
six months before (7.71%, ?2 (1, N = 7, 416) < 1).
for nonparametric tests of two-way interactions (Seaman,
We also examined the amount donated to Hurricane
Wall, Wise & Jaeger, 1994). Donations were signi?cantly
Rita relief efforts by R-initial and non R-initial donors be-
greater after Katrina (Mrank = 3 587, SE = 61.02) than be-
fore and after the hurricane. There was no main effect of
fore Katrina (Mrank = 5, 152, SE = 122.62, F(1, 7818) =
time or initial. As with Katrina, the rank order of R-initial
135.56, p < .001. However, there was no interaction with
donations did not increase more than other donations, F <
name initial (F < 1, p > .35, ? 2
p < .001).
1 for the interaction indicating that the average donation
Since we lack information about the proportion of K-
of R-initial donors did not increase after Hurricane Rita.
initial and non-K-initial donors after Katrina who would
have donated nothing had Katrina not occurred, the mean
rank of donors prior to Katrina is in?ated because the
2.4 Hurricane Mitch
people who donate nothing are not measured.2 Since
As a further test of our hypotheses, we examined inter-
there is a greater proportion of K-initial non-donors who
national disaster relief following Hurricane Mitch. Hur-
are not measured before Katrina, this may obscure any
ricane Mitch was the deadliest Atlantic Hurricane since
differences between the two groups. To estimate the total
1780. It killed between 11,000 and 18,000 people, almost
number of donors who would have contributed had Ka-
all of them in Nicaragua and Honduras and caused more
trina not occurred, we calculated the average number of
than $6 billion in damage (NCDC: Hurricane Mitch, n.d).
K-initial donations for the same time period in the previ-
Although this Red Cross chapter did not maintain records
ous ?ve years (M = 16) and the average number of non-
of where funds were allocated prior to 2005, they did
K-initial donors (M = 438). We then selected the top K-
maintain separate records of international and domestic
initial and non-K initial donors based on these averages.
donations. We assumed that most of the international
We submitted the rank-transformed contribution of these
donations made immediately after Hurricane Mitch were
donors and the rank-transformed contribution of donors
probably intended for the countries affected by it. This
from the six-months prior to a 2 (money donated by the
assumption was based on the increase in donations in the
top donors following Katrina compared to money do-
wake of Hurricane Mitch.
nated the six months prior) X 2 (K-initial or other initial)
ANOVA. Again, donations were signi?cantly greater af-
ter Katrina, re?ecting both increased donations discussed
2.4.1 Creation of comparison groups
above and our selection criteria. However, we found
Hurricane Mitch made landfall in Central America in Oc-
no interaction with initial (F < 1, p > .45, ? 2
p
< .001).
tober 29, 1998. There were 113 donations recorded be-
Taken together, these ?ndings indicate that people with
tween October 1st and October 29th, 1998, compared to
K-initials were more likely to donate after Katrina. The
an average of 140 donations for the previous and follow-
more relevant the fund to Katrina, the greater the pro-
ing ?ve Octobers (1993–1997; 1999–2004). Donations
portion of K-initial donors, but Katrina donations did not
to the Red Cross increased dramatically following this
come at the expense of non-Katrina donations.
hurricane. In November, 1199 donations were made to
this chapter of the Red Cross, signi?cantly higher than
2.3 Hurricane Rita
the previous and following ?ve years (M = 483). Do-
Hurricane Rita also had a speci?c funding account, thus
nations remained above average in December (N = 1129
enabling us to analyze the name letter effect with dona-
compared to M = 690 for the previous and following ?ve
tions to these relief efforts as well. Given that Hurri-
Decembers) and returned to baseline by January (N = 256
cane Rita made landfall less than one month after Katrina,
compared to an average of 360 donations for the previous
donor response to Rita-speci?c funds was weaker than re-
and following ?ve Januarys). Thus we compared donors
in the six months prior to Mitch’s landfall (N = 2402) to
2Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this comment.
the two months following Mitch (N = 2109).

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008
Disaster donations
408
2.4.2 Evidence of implicit egotism
Table 2: Same-initial donations to other hurricanes.
Although the increase in Red Cross Donations intended
Proportion
Different- Same-
for international use is an imprecise measure of funds
of
same-
Hurricane
initial
initial
intended for Hurricane Mitch, donations to other disas-
initial
donors
donors
ters would only work against our hypothesis. Consistent
donors
with our hypothesis however, the proportion of M-initial
names donating to international disaster relief in the two
Charlie
Before
1220
82
6.30%
months after Mitch (N = 410) was higher (12.9%) than
After
415
38
8.39%
the proportion of M-initial donations to all funds for the
?2 (1, N = 1755) = 2.31, p = .065
six months prior (10.05%), a 30% increase, ?2 (1, N =
2,810) = 3.97, p < .05, ?
Francis
Before
1370
28
2.00%
c = .038. M-initial donations
to international disaster relief were also greater than M-
After
545
17
3.02%
initial donations to domestic disaster relief and undesig-
?2 (1, N = 1960) = 1.81, p = .086
nated donations (9.13%), ?2 (1, N = 2, 106) = 5.32, p
< .02, ?
Ivan
Before
1294
6
0.46%
c = .05. As with Katrina, M-initial donations to
international disaster relief did not appear to reduce M-
After
718
7
0.97%
initial donations to domestic disaster services or unspec-
?2 (1, N = 2025) = 1.85, p = .086
i?ed gifts below the average of the previous six months,
?2 (1, N = 3, 708) < 1.
Wilma
Before
6436
167
2.53%
After
1402
46
3.18%
Again, using an ANOVA on rank-transformed do-
nation amounts, we found that donations to Hurricane
?2 (1, N = 8051) = 1.93, p = .082
Mitch (Mrank = 1124) were smaller than the six months
Note. All tests one-tailed.
prior (Mrank = 1491), F(1, 2846) = 33.22, p < .001. The
average rank of M-initial donations did not differ from
2.5.2 Evidence for Implicit Egotism with Additional
other donations and there was no interaction between
Hurricanes
time and initial, Fs < 1.
Across all four hurricanes we found that donation pat-
terns were in the predicted direction, with the proportion
of same-initial donations increasing after each hurricane
2.5 Other hurricanes and meta-analysis
made landfall. The effect sizes however were statistically
non-signi?cant, most likely due to small sample sizes (see
Table 2). In order to evaluate the robustness of the effect,
2.5.1 Selection of additional hurricanes
we conducted a meta-analysis of these storms as well as
the storms discussed above. The effects were not hetero-
We identi?ed additional hurricanes to test the generaliz-
geneous, Q (6) = 6.17, p = .40 indicating that ?xed effects
ability of the in?uence of shared initials on disaster do-
analysis was appropriate. Fixed-effects analysis revealed
nations. There were no other hurricanes in our data set
that the effect was robust, OR = 1.17, (95% CI 1.06, 1.28),
that had speci?c accounts dedicated to them, or that pro-
z = 3.18, p < .002. Differences in the amount donated to
duced a noticeable increase in donations, thus we used
hurricane relief were not examined.
different criteria to identify storms that were likely salient
for potential donors. We examined the ten most destruc-
tive hurricanes from the list of retired Atlantic Hurricane
3 Discussion
names. Two of them (Katrina and Rita) are discussed
above. Of the remaining eight, four had occurred before
Sharing an initial with a natural disaster increases the
the Red Cross database records appeared to be compre-
likelihood that people will donate to relief efforts for that
hensive (Agnes, 1972; Andrew, 1992; Hugo, 1989 and
disaster, but does not increase the average size of the do-
Betsy, 1965), leaving four hurricanes that seemed suitable
nation. The only appropriately powered comparison that
for analysis: Charlie (August, 2004), Francis (Septem-
did not detect results in the predicted direction was for R-
ber, 2004), Ivan (September, 2004), and Wilma (October,
initial donations to domestic disaster and hurricane relief
2005). Unlike Katrina, Rita and Mitch, these hurricanes
after Hurricane Rita. One reason we may not have found
affected both the United States and other Caribbean coun-
an increase of R-initial donors is that the two month time
tries so we examined their in?uence on donations in gen-
period following Hurricane Rita overlapped substantially
eral.
with the two month time period following Hurricane Ka-

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008
Disaster donations
409
trina. Katrina speci?c donations were seven times greater
repair. According to this account, people should make
than Rita-speci?c donations. Based on these numbers, it
efforts to repair their mood after experiencing negative
seems safe to assume that the majority of the funds do-
affect. Charity is one method by which people may do
nated to domestic disaster relief and hurricane relief after
this (Harbaugh, 1998). Exposure to a same-initial hurri-
Rita were actually intended for Hurricane Katrina. Re-
cane makes people feel worse, and the most salient way
gardless of why this effect did not occur with Hurricane
to repair this feeling is the opportunity to donate money
Rita, a meta-analysis of the most severe hurricanes be-
to Katrina.
tween 1998 and 2005 revealed that the effect of shared
Third, people may differ in how responsible they feel
initials on donations is small but robust.
for the consequences of same-initial and different-initial
This ?nding replicates and extends earlier work done
hurricanes. Shared initials may lead to the assimilation
by Nelson and Simmons (2007) that suggests that people
of responsibility for a target’s actions into the self, much
can be attracted to negative targets with which they share
as they lead to the assimilation of positive feelings about
an initial. However, unlike previous studies, our ?ndings
the self into judgments of the target. This explanation is
cannot easily be accounted for by the assimilation of pos-
compatible with previous research on intergroup relations
itive feelings about the self into the target of evaluation.
that has found that people’s willingness to compensate
Current theories on implicit egotism predict that people
outgroup members for the actions of other ingroup mem-
should either avoid association with a negative stimulus
bers is mediated by feelings of collective guilt (Brown et
(in a manner similar to Snyder et al. 1986) or downplay
al., 2008; Doosje, et al., 1998). Although our data do not
the negativity of same initial stimuli (Finch & Cialdini,
make it possible to test this hypothesis directly, it remains
1989).
an intriguing possibility for future research.
As a ?eld study, these data offer little insight into un-
Finally, people may construe disaster relief as “con-
derlying psychological processes, aside from demonstrat-
tributing to a noble cause” thus freeing disasters from
ing that self-image management techniques and egotis-
their negative connotations. We cannot rule this pos-
tic motives alone do not appear to be suf?cient to pro-
sibility out, but it seems unlikely, as a change in the
duce this phenomenon. There are a number of alterna-
overall assessment of the worthiness of the cause would
tive processes that alone or together could account for
have to occur without revising beliefs about the magni-
this phenomenon. First, people may process informa-
tude of the disaster (which would have negative impli-
tion about same-initial hurricanes differently than infor-
cations for the self) or despite attempts to downplay the
mation about hurricanes with different initials. People
severity of the hurricane. The former is improbable given
process self-relevant information more carefully and are
the importance of maintaining a positive view of the self
more likely to retain self-relevant information. This ef-
(Sedikides, 1993) while the latter seems unlikely given
fect also generalizes to close others (for a meta-analytic
the relatively small effect sizes produced by the name-
review see Symons & Johnson, 1997). The unit-relation
letter effect. Despite these counterarguments, the pos-
formed between the self and a hurricane may similarly
sibility that K-initial donors construe Katrina-relief as a
facilitate in-depth processing and retention of hurricane
noble cause cannot be conclusively ruled out with the
relevant information. This may make people particularly
current data. More generally, very little is known about
likely to remember concrete information about the vic-
which charities people choose to donate to (Bekkers &
tims of a disaster as opposed to the abstract details con-
Wiepking, 2007), suggesting that this may be an issue
veyed by a headline. People are more likely to help iden-
ripe for studying in the future.
ti?able victims (Small & Lowenstein, 2003), so exposure
While in the present study we consistently ?nd that
to more information about suffering individuals should
people are more likely to donate to same-initial disasters,
make them more likely to donate.
in none of the cases did same-initial donors donate more
Second, the increase in donations may be a result of
money. This may be because donating any amount of
more intense negative feelings experienced by same ini-
money may make people feel like they have “done their
tial donors while processing information about the dis-
part.” Alternatively, the relationship between donation
aster. According to the “feelings as information” model
amount and initial may be obscured by demographic fac-
(Schwarz & Clore, 2007) people’s feelings while they are
tors such as income that have a substantial effect on the
exposed to the storm may be seen as diagnostic of the
amount of money donated to disasters (Todd & Lawson,
suffering it caused. Assuming that people feel that their
1999). Name-letter effects, although statistically robust
affective reaction to the storm is diagnostic of the suffer-
and of theoretical interest are quite small in comparison
ing of those who are victims, the negative affect experi-
to other determinants of donor behavior.
enced by those who share an initial with the storm should
Despite this limitation, our data do support our primary
make them more likely to donate. A related explanation
hypothesis that people are more likely to donate to the
is that charity donation can function as a kind of mood
relief of disasters that they share an initial with. This

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 2008
Disaster donations
410
contributes to the existing literature by showing that not
Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects
only are people likely to associate themselves with same-
of the self. Annual Review of Psychology 58, 317–44.
initial negative targets (Nelson & Simmons, 2007) but
NCDC:
Hurricane
Mitch
(n.d.)
Re-
that this phenomena cannot entirely be accounted for by a
trieved
December
22,
2006,
from
failure to appreciate how negative the target really is. The
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.html.
processes that lead people to associate with same-initial
Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2007). Moniker Mal-
negative stimuli require further exploration but could in-
adies: When names sabotage success. Psychological
volve a number of interrelated changes to information en-
Science, 18, 1106–1112.
coding, the construal or management of negative emo-
Nuttin, J. M. (1987). Affective consequences of mere
tions evoked by exposure to information about the hur-
ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European
ricane, or the reconstrual of negative targets in positive
languages. European Journal of Social Psychology,
terms.
17, 381–402.
Pelham, B. W., Mirenberg, M. C., & Jones, J. T. (2002).
Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit
References
egotism and major life decisions. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 82, 469–487.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and phi-
Salkin, A. (2005, September 11). What’s in a Name, Ka-
lanthropy: A literature review. SSRN. Retrieved June
trinas? New York Times, p. 9–1.
6, 2008, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015507.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phe-
Brendl, C. M., Chattopadhyay, A., Pelham, B. W., & Car-
nomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglan-
vallo, M. (2005). Name letter branding: Valence trans-
ski (eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic prin-
fers when product speci?c needs are active. Journal of
ciples (2nd ed.; pp. 385–407). New York: Guilford.
Consumer Research, 32, 405–416.
Seaman, J. W., Walls, S. C., Wise, S. E. Jaeger, R. G.
Brown, R., González, R., Zagefka, H., Manzi, J., Cehajic,
(1994). Caveat emptor: Rank transform methods and
S. (2008). Nuestra Culpa: Collective guilt and shame
interaction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9, 261–
as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing.
263.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 75–
Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and ver-
90.
i?cation determinants of the self-evaluation process.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–
R., Freeman, S. & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in
338.
re?ected failure: Three (football) ?eld studies. Journal
Small, D. A. & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a vic-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406–415.
tim or helping the victim: Altruism and identi?ability.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N., Spears, R., & Manstead, A.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5–16.
S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Dis-
has a negative history. Journal of Personality and So-
tancing after group success and failure: Basking in re-
cial Psychology, 75, 872–886.
?ected glory and cutting off re?ected failure. Journal
Finch, J. F., & Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Another indirect
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382–388.
tactic of (self-) image management: Boosting. Person-
Strömberg, D. (2007). Natural Disasters, Economic De-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 222–232.
velopment, and Humanitarian Aid. Journal of Eco-
Furr, R. M. & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Evaluating theories
nomic Perspectives, 21, 199–222.
ef?ciently: The nuts and bolts of contrast analysis. Un-
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-
derstanding Statistics, 2, 45–67.
reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psycho-
Harbaugh. W. T. (1998). What do Donations Buy? A
logical Bulletin, 121, 371–394.
Model of Philanthropy Based on Prestige and Warm
Todd, S. J., & Lawson, R. W. (1999). Towards a bet-
Glow. Journal of Public Economics, 67, 169–284
ter understanding of the ?nancial donor: An examina-
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal rela-
tion of donor behavior in terms of value structure and
tions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
demographics. International Journal of Nonpro?t and
Jones, J. T., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. (2004). How
Voluntary Sector Marketing 4, 235–244
Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Js: Implicit Ego-
tism and Interpersonal Attraction. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 87, 665–683.

---