“The greedy I that gives”—The paradox of egocentrism and altruism: Terror management and system justification perspectives on the interrelationship between mortality salience and charitable donations amid the COVID‐19 pandemic

• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Author: S. Venus Jin,Ehri Ryu
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12381

SPECIAL ISSUE

“The greedy I that gives”—The paradox of

egocentrism and altruism: Terror management

and system justification perspectives on the

interrelationship between mortality salience

and charitable donations amid the COVID-19

pandemic

S. Venus Jin

1

| Ehri Ryu

2

1

NU-Q Communication Department,

Northwestern University in Qatar,

Education City, Doha, Qatar

2

Department of Psychology, Boston

College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

Correspondence

S. Venus Jin, NU-Q Communication

Department, Northwestern University in

Qatar, Education City, Doha, Qatar

Email: venus@northwestern.edu

Abstract

Why do people give and help others in face of their

own mortality salience? The existential struggle with

the awareness of death impacts the gamut of human

cognition, emotion, and behavior. This multi-method

research (ΣN=1,219) explains the psychosocial impact

of COVID-19-related mortality salience on altruism.

Drawing from terror management theory, two studies

tested death-thought accessibility, mortality salience,

and anxiety buffer hypotheses. Study 1 (cross-sectional

survey), using structural equation modeling, confirms

death anxiety and fear are predictors of powerlessness

and materialism which, in turn, predict charitable

donations. Study 2 (between-subjects experiment) con-

firms the causal effects of COVID-19-induced mortality

salience on altruism. Controlling income and socioeco-

nomic status, people in the mortality salience treat-

ment condition indicate greater monetary donations

($), ratio of prosocial (altruistic) to proself (egocentric)

spending (%), donation of time (hour), monetary valua-

tion of time (hourly rate =$/hour), and economic

Received: 16 November 2020 Revised: 9 February 2021 Accepted: 21 March 2021

DOI: 10.1111/joca.12381

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Consumer Affairs published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Council on Consumer

Interests.

414 J Consum Aff. 2022;56:414–448.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca

value of donated time (hourly rate*hour) than the con-

trols. These effects are mediated by powerlessness.

Moderating effects of relevant individual difference fac-

tors are significant: the greedier, more selfish, narcissis-

tic, materialistic, and system-justifying the donor is, the

higher monetary donations, volunteer time, and per-

ceived value of donated time are, only when the

COVID-19-induced mortality is made salient but not in

the controls. Environmental and dispositional factors

jointly influence vulnerability to mortality salience.

The paradox of egocentrism and altruism, as an evolu-

tionarily adaptive protective buffer against existential

insecurity for social and cultural animals, can help

revitalize resilience, thus shedding some lights on the

sociopsychological mechanism of consumers' subjective

well-being. Implications for consumer affairs, social

marketers, and policymakers are discussed.

KEYWORDS

charitable donations, consumer well-being, COVID-19

pandemic, mortality salience, system justification theory, terror

management theory

We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.

Sir Winston S. Churchill.

1|INTRODUCTION

The rapid spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted

in the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Segars et al., 2020). The crisis has

affected everyday lives of billions around the globe through mortality, job losses, economic crises,

shelter-in-place orders, border shutdowns, school closures, social distancing, and more. As of February

9, 2021 cumulative Coronavirus cases in the US. grew to more than 26.8 million and the death toll

surpassed 462,037 (CDC). Among a wide array of valuable insights social and behavioral sciences can

provide for managing the COVID-19 pandemic and explaining its impacts (Van Bavel et al., 2020),

the current study particularly focuses on consumers' charitable giving and prosocial (altruistic) versus

proself (egocentric) spending as coping strategies amid the pandemic.

2|THE PARADOX OF SELFISHNESS AND ALTRUISM

UNDER DEATH THREAT

The psychosocial responses of the general population toward epidemics include fear, anxiety, depres-

sion, irritability, sense of isolation, stigmatization, and so on (Sim et al., 2020). One notable

JIN AND RYU 415

phenomenon observed during the earlier stage of the COVID-19 pandemic was panic buying exempli-

fied with toilet paper hoarding in many countries, which could be interpreted as a selfish way

(i.e., proself spending) to cope with insecurity, uncertainty, and loss of control (Arafat et al., 2020) or

as a social dilemma of the inherent conflict between consumers' egocentric self-interest and altruistic

motivation for the good of the larger society as a whole (Boone et al., 2010; Cruickshank, 2020). Thus,

death anxiety and consequent existential insecurity can bring out the selfishness and greed in people.

Paradoxically, times of turmoil simultaneously have brought out the best in people

(Woods, 2020) as philanthropists, celebrities, ordinary individuals, firms, and institutions have

donated their money and time generously (i.e., prosocial spending) in combating the global spread

of the COVID-19. For example, Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Reese Witherspoon made

monetary donations to the Frontline Responders fund and America's Food Fund, while Katy Perry

has donated 10% from the sales of her fashion brands to Baby2Baby non-profit organization to help

provide essential items to children and families impacted by the COVID-19 (Woods, 2020). Further-

more, a number of US medical students whose studies were interrupted by the Coronavirus out-

break have morphed their mission into helping the isolated elderly population highly vulnerable to

the pandemic's dangers by doing grocery shopping, picking up prescriptions, delivering food boxes

from food banks, or performing other errands for homebound seniors (Sewelll, 2020). Thousands of

healthcare professionals nationwide have volunteered to support hospitals, frontline workers, and

others battling the Coronavirus pandemic (Manzoni, 2020).

3|PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

Why do people give, help others, and engage in prosocial behaviors while their own lives are

also at risk amid the COVID-19 crisis? Terror management theory (Greenberg et al., 1986;

Pyszczynski et al., 1999) is a foundational framework that is well positioned to probe this ques-

tion. The current study aims to elucidate the psychosocial mechanisms of charitable giving

(time and money) and prosocial spending on others versus proself spending on self under the

COVID-19 death threat, drawing from terror management theory. To achieve this research

objective, two studies (one cross-sectional online survey [Study 1] and one between-subjects

online experiment [Study 2]) were conducted as an attempt to provide empirical findings from

mixed methods research with methodological triangulation.

4|STUDY 1 (SURVEY) SYNOPSIS: “THE POWERLESS AND

MATERIALISTIC I THAT GIVES”

Using structural equation modeling of survey data, Study 1 aims to test associations among

death-thought accessibility, death anxiety, powerlessness, materialism, and charitable giving

amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.1 |Theoretical underpinnings and hypotheses developments

4.1.1 | Terror management theory

Humans, like all other forms of life, have a fundamental orientation toward self-preservation

and survival in the service of genetic replication (Solomon et al., 2003). Unlike other organisms,

416 JIN AND RYU