Social Cognition
Recipient Giving Task
Also called: identifiable victim effect, identified victim effect, charitable giving task
Compare giving to an identified person and a statistical group, using six fictional requests for help and points-only decisions.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 67
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
12 points
8 points
What it measures
Measures points given to an identified person and to a statistical group facing everyday needs.
Constructs
- Giving
- Recipient identifiability
- Social preferences
Research uses
- Behavioral economics research
- Prosocial decision research
- Within-study comparison of recipient descriptions
How the paradigm works
The Recipient Giving Task compares points given after an identified person or a statistical group is described. Six original requests cover coats, travel to training, bedding, cooking equipment, work shoes and class supplies. Each request appears once. The session seed assigns three requests to each condition and shuffles their order. An optional identified-group condition describes three named adults and gives two decisions per condition. The statistical condition describes 30 of 100 adults; the individual condition gives one name and age. All eight languages contain the needs and instructions.
More about the paradigm
Each decision starts with 20 points, adjustable from 10 to 100. Participants choose a whole amount on a bar with no initial selection, then confirm. One allocation check gives feedback first. No money is paid or donated. The last screen explains that the people, needs and help fund were invented. No picture is used.
The primary score is mean share given to identified people minus mean share given to statistical groups. Giving by condition, points given and decision counts are also reported. Missing conditions give null contrasts. Choices under 100 ms remain in giving scores and are counted separately; they leave the response-time median. The scorer uses one run and one response per scenario.
Scores
- Giving Difference%
- Mean share given to identified people minus mean share given to statistical groups. Null if either condition is missing.
- Positive values mean more points given to identified people.
- Identified Person Share%
- Mean proportion of the allowance given in identified-person decisions.
- Giving under an identified-person description.
- Statistical Group Share%
- Mean proportion of the allowance given in statistical-group decisions.
- Giving under a statistical-group description.
- Identified Group Share%
- Mean proportion given in the optional identified-group condition. Null when not run.
- Giving to three named people.
- Mean Share Given%
- Mean proportion given across all scored decisions.
- Describes this set of requests.
- Mean Points Givenpoints
- Mean points given across all scored decisions.
- Compare sessions with the same allowance.
- Identified Person Decisionscount
- Scored identified-person decisions.
- Number of observations.
- Statistical Group Decisionscount
- Scored statistical-group decisions.
- Number of observations.
- Identified Group Decisionscount
- Scored identified-group decisions; zero when not offered.
- Number of observations.
- Decisionscount
- Unique decisions in the selected run.
- Six in a complete run.
- Planned Decisionscount
- The six requests planned for this task.
- Compare with decisions recorded.
- Allocation Checkflag
- 1 for a correct check answer, 0 for an incorrect one.
- An incorrect check is flagged for review.
- Median Decision Timems
- Median time to confirm, excluding responses below 100 ms.
- Describes response timing, not the primary outcome.
- Anticipationscount
- Decisions confirmed in less than 100 ms.
- Review alongside task completion.
- Final Explanation Acknowledgedflag
- 1 when the participant continued from the explanation that the content was invented.
- Zero is flagged for review.
Use and evidence
67 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 20% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 314 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 19 |
| 2024 | 13 |
| 2023 | 9 |
| 2022 | 12 |
| 2021 | 14 |
| 2020 | 11 |
| 2019 | 7 |
| 2018 | 11 |
| 2017 | 11 |
| 2016 | 16 |
| 2015 | 14 |
| 2014 | 8 |
| 2013 | 12 |
| 2012 | 10 |
| 2011 | 11 |
| 2010 | 4 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 5 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 5 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 2 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 6
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Fictional points-only descriptions; recipient number and identifying details vary together; no population norms..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Requests
- Six original everyday needs, each shown once in a seeded order. All text is available in eight languages.
- Conditions
- Three identified-person and three statistical-group decisions. An optional third condition names three people with their ages, giving two decisions per condition.
- Points
- A fresh 20 points per request, adjustable from 10 to 100. Choose a whole number from zero to the allowance. No money is paid or donated.
- Input
- The shared amount bar, one-point adjustment buttons and Confirm. No amount is selected at the start.
- Practice
- One allocation question with feedback before the six decisions.
- Scores
- Mean share given by condition, identified-person minus statistical-group giving, mean points given and decision counts.
- Final explanation
- The last screen says that the people, needs and help fund were made up. There are no photographs or real charities.
This repeated points task uses fictional requests. The conditions change recipient number as well as identifying details, so compare the whole descriptions within a study. No population percentile is reported.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the selected run's unique giving decisions. No amount is correct, and repeating an amount is allowed. An incomplete run, a wrong check or an unacknowledged final explanation is flagged. Decisions under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Giving the same amount may be a stable preference. The check tests the allocation rule; the final explanation discloses the invented people and needs. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Points per decision | 20 | 10 to 100 |
| Include an identified group | Off | On or off |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Recipient Giving Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Kogut & Ritov, 2005; Small, Loewenstein & Slovic, 2007), with the standard settings (points per decision: 20; include an identified group: Off). The main score was giving difference (mean share given to identified people minus mean share given to statistical groups).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492Identifying one person or a group; publisher abstract read.
- Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005Giving after individual and statistical appeals; original items and points in this adaptation.
Source papers
Questions
How long does the Recipient Giving Task take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Giving Difference, Identified Person Share, Statistical Group Share, Identified Group Share, Mean Share Given, Mean Points Given, Identified Person Decisions, Statistical Group Decisions, Identified Group Decisions, Decisions, Planned Decisions, Allocation Check, Median Decision Time, Anticipations and Final Explanation Acknowledged. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Recipient Giving Task used in research?
67 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 20% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 314 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Recipient Giving Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Points per decision (10 to 100) and include an identified group (On or off). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests