Objectives Previous research has shown that causal attributions regarding recipients’ difficulties can influence helping behavior and donation decisions. Drawing on the perspective of causal reasoning, this study examined the effects of covariation evidence and mechanism evidence, as well as evidence strength and combinations of evidence, on individuals’ donation intention. Methods Study 1 recruited 243 participants and employed a 2 (Evidence type: mechanism vs. covariation) ×2 (Evidence presentation: no evidence vs. evidence) between-subjects design. Study 2 recruited 276 participants and employed a 3 (Mechanism evidence strength: low, medium, high) × 3 (Covariation evidence strength: low, medium, high) between-subjects design, with participants randomly assigned to one of nine experimental groups. Results Study 1 showed that donation intention was significantly higher in the mechanism evidence group than in the covariation evidence group. Donation intention was also significantly higher in the evidence-present group than in the no-evidence group, whereas the interaction between evidence type and evidence presentation was not significant. Study 2 further revealed significant main effects of both covariation evidence strength and mechanism evidence strength on donation intention. As the strength of either type of causal evidence increased, donation intention showed a significant positive linear trend. However, the interaction between covariation evidence strength and mechanism evidence strength was not significant. Conclusions The findings indicate that, in the experimental contexts examined, donation intention varied with the type and strength of causal evidence. By focusing on the evidence that underlies causal attribution, this study extends the literature on charitable giving and offers practical implications for charitable organizations seeking to develop evidence-based donation appeals. Trial Registration Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: