The identified victim effect is the phenomenon in which people tend to contribute more to identified than to unidentified victims. Kogut and Ritov (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167, 2005) found that the identified victim effect was limited to a single victim and driven by empathic emotions. In a pre-registered experiment with an online U.S. American MTurk sample on CloudResearch (N = 2003), we conducted a close replication and extension of Experiment 2 from Kogut and Ritov (Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167, 2005). The replication findings failed to provide empirical support for the identified single victim effect hypothesis since we found no evidence of differences in willingness to contribute when comparing a single identified victim to a single unidentified victim (η2p = .00, 90% CI [0.00, 0.00]), and no indication for the target article’s interaction between singularity and identifiability (original: η2p = .062, 90% CI [0.01, 0.15]; replication: η2p = .00, 90% CI [0.00, 0.00]). Extending the replication to conduct a conceptual replication of Kogut and Ritov (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(2), 150–157, 2007), we investigated a boundary condition of the effect—group belonging. We found support for an ingroup bias in helping behaviors and indications for empathic emotions and perceived responsibility contributing to this effect. We discuss differences between our study and the target article and implications for the literature on the identified victim effect.

In ten studies (N = 9187), I systematically investigated the direction and sizeof seven helping effects (the identifiable-victim effect, proportion dominanceeffect, ingroup effect, existence effect, innocence effect, age effect andgender effect). All effects were tested in three decision modes (separateevaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice), and in their weak form (equalefficiency), or strong form (unequal efficiency). Participants read about one,or two, medical help projects and rated the attractiveness of and allocatedresources to the project/projects, or choose which project to implement. Theresults show that the included help-situation attributes vary in their: (1)Evaluability – e.g., rescue proportion is the easiest to evaluate inseparate evaluation. (2) Justifiability – e.g., people prefer to savefewer lives now rather than more lives in the future, but not fewer identifiedlives rather than more statistical lives. (3) Prominence – e.g., peopleexpress a preference to help females, but only when forced to choose.