Inequality averse and compassionate blood donor: implication for interventions.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood donors, compared to non-donors, are more likely to show a preference to help others either by sharing resources to directly compensate those in need or indirectly by punishing those who act unfairly. Knowing the dominant cooperative preference for blood donors will inform the development of targeted interventions. We test which preference dominates and an initial intervention based on these findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report two studies. The first compares compensation and punishment preferences in blood donors and non-donors (N = 372) using a third-party-compensation-and-punishment game. Based on the results of Study 1, Study 2 (N = 151) is a feasibility experiment of an intervention based on advantageous inequality aversion ('As a healthy person, you can give blood and help those less healthy than you'.). RESULTS: Blood donors, compared to non-donors, have a preference for compensation. Organ donors have a preference for punishment. Those exposed to the advantageous inequality aversion intervention, compared to control conditions, show a greater behavioural propensity to donate blood (this was especially the case for non-donors). CONCLUSION: Blood donors have a clear preference for direct helping through compensation that can be translated into a simple effective intervention to enhance blood donor recruitment and retention.