Are We Still Giving Our Money to Beggars ? Prosocial Intention in between of Religion , Emotion , Corruption , and Government Policy Advocacy

This research aimed to describe the dynamics of begging behavior in big cities in Indonesia, explain the psychological and social of the behavior, as well as examine the compatibility of the prosocial behavior decision-making model with the behavior of giving money to beggars by inhabitants of Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia. This research used a qualitative method namely interview with 20 participants (9 males, 11 females) age of 21-46 years old of various occupations (student, lecturer, trader, employee, etc.) and ethnicities (Chinese, Javanese, Betawinese, and Maduranese) who still give money or goods to beggars when this research was conducted. During the interview process, the authors provided intervention to participants in the form of fear communication and minimal counseling with the purpose to divert their intention of giving to beggars into giving of the donation through authorized disseminator of social assistance. This research found that factors such as religion, compassion, institutional corruption, and law enforcement play important roles in determining preferred target of prosocial behavior. Nevertheless, the cognitive-emotional intervention conducted by the authors was successful, which was indicated by the fact of 12 of the 20 participants agreeing to divert their target of prosocial behavior.


Introduction
Gentleman: If I should be seen giving you money, I may incur a penalty; for it absolutely against law to relieve a sturdy beggar, and to give such as you a single farthing.Beggar: Alas! Sir, charity is above laws.("Dialogue between a Gentleman and a Beggar", Hibernian Magazine, 1783) in Jakarta are not people that require basic needs (such as food); instead they have a secondary even tertiary purpose, such as buying a house (Yuanita, 2014).He gave the following prove: If beggars in Jakarta are truly poor and in need of fulfilling their basic needs, then mosques that provide food should be crowded by thousands of beggars in Jakarta.However, during the event of "breaking the fast together" which was attended by Ahok, those who came are office workers from offices around the mosque and taxi drivers.
Although there is a formal regulation which prohibits begging activities and giving away money or goods to beggars, there are many beggars who are still seen roaming the public roads of Jakarta.According to Ahok, beggars will continue to perform begging activities if people are still giving away alms (Desyani, 2013).He also stated that the majority of beggars who were brought to social institutions chose to get out and resume their begging activities.This statement is in line with the fact that the income of beggars is quite high, which is around 750,000 to 1,000,000 rupiah per day (Fadillah, 2013) or around 64 to 85 USD per day; compared with the regional minimum wage of Jakarta province in 2014 of 2.4 million rupiah per month (Kuwado, 2013) or around 205 USD per month.
Although the Vice Governor of Jakarta has warned residents about the objective condition of beggars who seem to "not suffer as much as their looks", residents continue to give money to them.This problem cannot be separated from the social discourses which are developing in Indonesian society.Rahardjo (2011) proposed one of them, i.e.: "Previously I used to be one of those people that did not like to give; however, after reading an opinion, I changed my mind.I used to be of the opinion that I want to help if it is useful.I do not want to give.However, then someone asked, 'What did you do to help?Gave?No. Helped?No.So that is only an excuse (that 'I will help if it is useful').In reality, you did not do anything.If you actually did something (anything, such as teaching the street children) then you are right by not giving on the street.You are doing something.Now?You are doing nothing.'Bam!What he said is true, isn't it?"All this time, psychology had paid little attention to the street-begging behavior phenomena in the city.For example, in Report of the Task Force on Urban Psychology, which was issued by APA (American Psychological Association, 2009), the word and phrase "beggar", "begging behavior", and "street-begging" cannot be found, although the word "poverty" and "homelessness" can be located.In various psychology literatures (e.g.Abbate & Ruggieri, 2008;Iredale, Van Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008;Miller, 2000;Martinsson, Myrseth, & Wollbrant, 2010), begging behavior was discussed under the topic of prosocial behavior, even though this behavior has its own unique dynamics.

Psychology of Begging Behavior and Its Social Dimensions
Beggars are defined as "so-called street persons who for various reasons ask passerby for money or help" (Dromi, 2012, p. 848).Philpott (1906, p. 618) showed the existence of an epigram about beggar.A beggar is a person who is "sine re, sine spe, sine fide, sine sede (without money, without hope, without faith, and without a home)."However, in his study, Henry (2009, p. 7) concluded that begging behavior is "a form of 'street theater' ... an uncomfortable reminder of the costs of development and modernization".Furthermore, Henry (2009) through his historical (by quoting Hanchao Lu) and anthropological analysis, showed the existence of various imagination, interpretation, and representation of beggar, namely: "(Beggars are interpreted) as pitiful wretches, as parasites who lived richly on the naive generosity of almsgivers, and even as disguised deities or immortals who came to test the compassion of humans .... Beggars are far more than passive recipients of alms; they are aware of these social discourses, of how their appearances and stories influence the emotions of others, and of the silent commentary their presence makes on China's modernist narrative."(Henry, 2009, p. 8, 9) Stones (2013) found in his qualitative research in South Africa that beggars prefer a flexible lifestyle.They do not like limitations found in the formal job (long work hours and job reporting, but with a low income).The uncertainty faced by beggars is high and stressful.However, beggars do not see the uncertain situations as degrading.Beggars view their activity (begging) more respectable than theft and fraud.They also view the issues that lead them to be beggars, i.e. unemployment, low education, and family background that experienced disruption, as reinforcement of why they continue as beggars.In psychology, this is called as syndrome of learned helplessness.
All of the descriptions above showed that begging behavior is not merely a poverty issue of the beggars and an intention to help of the donors, or also just a negotiation issue between both parties on the street; rather it is also a symbolic issue in the social psychological reality of the society.Begging behavior can symbolize public ambivalence (Henry, 2009).On one side, beggars are viewed as symbols of "agent" who questioned the irony of modernity and development (Henry, 2009) even the failure of the state to fulfill the needs of its citizens (Muñoz & Potter, 2014).On the other hand, beggars are symbols of part of the society who take benefit from as well as challenge the cultural ideologies of kinship, brotherhood, and face.
Thus far, there are several psychological-theoretical explanations of why people want to give their money to beggars.Psychoanalytical explanation combined with social psychological explanation states that self-awareness that interacts with anxiety---caused by the violation performed by beggars on the individuals' personal space---influences the individuals' prosocial behavior toward beggars (Abbate & Ruggieri, 2008).Theory of self-awareness states that the relatively universal values in individuals are activated during self-reflective/self-focused/self-evaluative conditions.In those situations, individuals are prone to perform the correction on the gap between their values and behaviors, in order for the behaviors to be in line with their own values, and this motivates helping behavior.However, the "correction" will never be realized by the individuals during condition of self-concern, such as during times when they are worried about their own security and comfort---that occurred due to invasion of personal space by beggars (for example: the beggar approaching the individual rather than the individual approaching the beggar).In other word, individuals who are selfaware must be free of self-attention, e.g. that is caused by performing defense/coping mechanism, in order to facilitate prosocial behavior.
Explanation of evolutionary psychology states that the behavior of giving alms to beggars has a sexual attraction (Iredale, Van Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008;Miller, 2000).The behavior provides signals and impressions about ownership of resources, willingness to invest in a relationship, heroism (if there is an inherent risk in the behavior), as well as caring for (potential) partner.The willingness to help other people to survive can show the "gene quality" of a man that is attractive to women.Martinsson, Myrseth, and Wollbrant (2010) stated that empathy domination in individuals can strongly motivate the individuals to give alms to beggars even though they have better judgment that the alternative (not giving alms) is better than giving.However, if the individuals are dominated by self-interest, then the individuals will first identify whether there is a conflict between succumbing to self-interest (that ends in selfish behavior) and efforts to pursue higher and greater purpose (that ends in prosocial behavior).If the conflict is identified, then the individuals will apply self-control.Failure or success in applying strategies of self-control determines the individuals to give alms to beggars or not.Wardhaugh (2009) showed in his analysis that in the East, unlike in the West, begging behavior is less stigmatized because this behavior is integrated with religious and cultural system.The meeting between beggars and citizen is considered as one of the informal subsystems to provide support toward the poor.Despite this, beggars are still considered as "second class" citizens and perceived as dangerous due to their nomadic lifestyle and the lack of permanent social role.In his empirical research in Nepal and New Delhi-India, Wardhaugh found that religious and secular authorities perform various efforts to minimize the existence of beggars through regulations and laws.However, there is a paradox, that beggars are not abandoned or ignored altogether.There are certain times and places where beggars are given food, such as in temples or mosques during certain days.This shows that beggars experience control through social system.It is also apparent that facilitation and inhibition of prosocial behavior is not only an individual or interpersonal issue, rather it is a social network issue involving beggars, contributors or donors, and system regulators.
Furthermore, Dromi (2012) offered an alternative analysis.He stated that beggars are not symbols of the negative dimension of the urban condition---that is threatening, frightening, stressful, and manipulating people to obtain benefits--rather their existence should be interpreted as "another valuable hue" in urban life.Dromi also emphasized that urban people apply various cultural strategies in facing beggars to maintain their own moral self-concept, and this reflect worldview regarding social inequality.Urban people also respond to beggars using principles, commitment, and care, and they are not always dominated by negative emotions (disgust, anxious, etc.).They also do not view the act of giving as part of risky behavior.Theoretically, Dromi concluded (1) that the notions about culture of fear in the sociological reality of the urban people has been greatly exaggerated, and (2) that the ways people respond toward beggars are plural and highly influenced by their interpretation of "moral" and "risk" in their interaction with beggars.Muñoz and Potter (2014) built a model of interaction between beggars and donors in a political context.In the model, they include factors that influence the probability of beggars receiving money from potential donors.Those factors are donors' income, the amount of donation that want to be given away by them, their sense of altruism, their perception about misrepresentation regarding beggars as well as its consequences, and their assumption about the proportion of beggars population that actually need assistance.
Furthermore, Muñoz and Potter offered a proposal for the extension of the model itself.They stated that there are two types of extension, (1) adding actors (such as Government) into the model because Government policies can directly influence the donors, and (2) adding more options to existing actors, such as by making it possible for donors to give money to NGO (non-governmental organizations) than to street beggars.
Elements of the extension number (1) have been fulfilled in Jakarta.Provincial Regulation of Jakarta Number 8 Year 2007, Article 40, states that every person or institution is not allowed to become beggars, instruct others to become beggars, or to provide some amount of money or goods to beggars.Those who violate the article are subject to sanctions namely threat of imprisonment between 10 to 60 days or fines between 100 thousand and 20 million rupiah or between around 8.5 and 1700 USD.At a glance, the regulation may seem to be counterintuitive, or to contradict common sense, because giving alms to beggars is a prosocial behavior which benefit other people, even has a good moral sense.Hence it should not be blamed or punished.Nevertheless, the problem raised is that there are some beggars who "abuse" prosocial intention and behavior of the society, as pointed out previously by the Vice Governor of Jakarta.Despite this, there should be alternatives for people so they can still perform prosocial behavior without causing adverse side effects.One of the alternatives is providing a way for people to donate through official institutions that are reliable and trustworthy.This is the elements of the extension number (2) as stated by Muñoz and Potter (2014).

Prosocial Behavior and the Purpose of This Research
Latané and Darley (as cited in Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2010) introduced stages for individuals in deciding to help during an emergency situation.Those stages can be seen in Figure 1 (source: Latané & Darley, as cited in Aronson et al., 2010, p. 371).In the first stage, individuals observe a situation that might be an emergency situation.In the second stage, individuals have enough information and begin to decide whether the situation they observed is actually an emergency situation or not.The third stage involves individuals' judgment whether they are expected to take part in the responsibility to help or not.Subsequently, in the fourth stage individuals will find a way to help based on their knowledge, resources, and competence.Finally in the fifth stage, individuals will decide whether they will implement assistance, take action to help or not.

Figure 1. Stages of decision making in helping behavior model
In providing money/goods to beggars, the presence of beggars will make individuals notice whether the beggars (e.g.beggars who are very old or disabled) are in an emergency situation or not.The definition of an "emergency situation" for every person is different depending on their attitudes and values toward the beggars.Subsequently, individuals consider if they should be responsible in helping.In this stage, individuals can involve normative belief that originates from their religious teachings or significant others' hope.After the individuals assume the existence of personal responsibility, then they will find a way to help the beggars.The individuals will check to see what kind of assistance they can provide, for instance whether they have money left over or not.If they have found a way to help, the individuals will decide to help or not to help.At this stage, the components of behavioral belief and normative belief contribute to determining.The individuals will find out the danger that may occur, consequence from legal prohibition, or embarrassment that may arise if they help the beggars.
This research aimed to (1) advocate the policy of the Provincial Government of Jakarta which prohibit the giving of alms to beggars, (2) perform intervention by channeling the desire of the people to help through authorized and reliable institutions, such as charity home, orphanage, NGO, etc., by (3) integrating the extension model of Muñoz and Potter (2014) with the model by Latané and Darley (as cited in Aronson et al., 2010).ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

Design and Participant
This research is a qualitative research with the main method of interview, and to involve cognitive-emotional intervention.The authors conducted some psychological interventions during the interview.Participants of this study were people who do most daily activities in Jakarta taken with convenience sampling technique.This research lasted for three months, from 3 January to 26 March 2014.It was done in several places, such as in campuses, places of worship, and around housing complex in Jakarta that allow the process of giving money to beggars.
The authors performed intervention along with the interview using two main methods (Buunk & Van Vugt, 2008), namely: First is fear communication, by providing exposure to the negative impacts that arise from giving money to beggars, both psychologically, socially, and legally.The authors then informed the research participants that the act of "giving" to authorized institutions are safer in the eyes of laws as well as more target-focused.Second is minimal counseling.During the individual (not group) interview, the authors provided counseling with the purpose to change the view of participants regarding stages number (2), ( 3), ( 4) and ( 5) of Latané and Darley's model (as cited in Aronson et al., 2010; Figure 1).In stage ( 2) and ( 3), the authors re-awakened participants of the negative facts about some---if not the majority---of beggars as well as guided their interpretation.The participants are told that begging on the street is not an emergency situation that requires assistance.In the fourth stage, the authors recommended other alternatives by diverting the giving of money to authorized institutions that have been zeroed in on the neediest people.The authors indicated that the participant has the potential efficacy to perform the diversion.The authors also showed that those institutions that can become aid disseminators might actually be located nearby.In the fifth stage, the authors awakened the participants to the existence of local regulation that has legal sanctions.

Procedure
The following are several questions that were asked by the authors to the participants: • "What is your reason for giving your money to beggars?"This question was aimed to investigate the awareness and interpretation of participants regarding an emergency situation, according to stage number (2) of the Latané and Darley's model.
• "What considerations made you give money to beggars? (Cultural value?Religion?)"This question was aimed to investigate the moral obligation or responsibility of participants when facing an emergency situation, according to stage number (3) of the Latané and Darley's model (see Figure 1).• "Do you know of the existence of Social Agency or authorized institutions that are able to disseminate your aid on the right target?"This question investigated the participants' knowledge about better alternative methods than giving alms directly on the street, according to stage number (4) of the Latané and Darley's model.After the reflective interview, the authors performed intervention using fear communication and minimal counseling as explained above.The authors then performed measurement of the effectiveness of using of the methods, according to stage number (5) of the Latané and Darley's model, by posing a question, "After listening to our brief explanation, are you still going to give money to beggars or try to reduce and switch to authorized social institutions?Why?" ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy Vol 5 No 23 November 2014 1822

Results
The description of the participants is available in Table 1.All this time, it was known that all participants gave their money directly to beggars on the street with varying frequency (1-2 to 4-5 times per week).Groups of beggars that are usually given money are (from the most preferred to the least): (1) beggars who have disabilities, (2) children, (3) the elderly, and (4) mothers carrying children in the street.
The level of knowledge of the participants regarding Provincial regulation prohibiting the giving of money to beggars is very minimal, ranging from not knowing at all about this regulation (2 persons) to unaware of the sanctions in the regulation (the fact that the regulation is not just a moral appeal) (11 persons).Only seven persons that know completely about the regulation.After intervention by the authors, from the answer of 20 participants, the authors obtained three categories of responses, namely try to reduce (12 people), continue to give (5 people) alms to beggars, and indecisive (3 people).
After a dialogue with the authors, as many as 12 participants said they will reduce giving money to beggars with the reason of feeling "afraid" of the sanction by the Provincial Regulation of Jakarta, as well as because participants realized the facts that showed the negative impacts of giving money, e.g.(1) it makes beggars to "want to be rich from begging" while maintaining their behavior and put no effort in finding a job, (2) it causes inhibitions of the development of children who are used as means for begging, and so on.However, they also hope for socialization and assertiveness of the government regarding the regulation.This can be exemplified by a quotation of the interview result with one of the participants: "Regulations are not strict and clear.Also, here are many people from the lower class that do not know about these Provincial Regulations.The government has to make banners on the street so that people know about the regulations." As many as 3 participants that have been interviewed said they are doubtful and confused whether to try reducing or continue giving.On one hand, they are afraid of the sanctions of the Provincial Regulations of Jakarta, however on the other hand they still feel sorry and responsible to assist or help by giving money.The following is a quotation of the interview results:

"I still do not know now … because it has become a habit from when I was little. It cannot be changed immediately. I also never get the punitive action from the government regulation."
There are 5 other participants who said they felt certain to continue giving money to beggars.They still feel responsible for helping and still cannot control their feeling of compassion when dealing with beggars.In addition the lack of participation by other members of the society to enforce the Provincial Regulation and the lack of socialization by the government regarding the regulation in Jakarta contribute to the reason participants do not care about the regulation.Some of the participants were also of the opinion that the existing institutions are not reliable.In addition, this research also found that there were some participants who thought there is "a minimum amount of donation" that must be given if they want to contribute via an institution.The following are quotations of interview that showed the reasons participants still want to give money to beggars: "By giving directly to the beggars, I feel more certain ... However if I give through social institution, will the money be actually given to the poor?There are lots of people who are not honest.It is better to give directly to the target.Actually the regulation itself is correct but the dishonest people still need to be corrected.""When we give, it does not matter if the beggars are mischievous or not.According to religious teaching, those who sow will reap.So I feel, what is important is I have sown.It is up to them if they are mischievous or not; it is not my problem.They will get retributions based on their deed.""When giving to institutions, it must be in large numbers.It is embarrassing if we give only one or two thousand rupiah."

Discussion
This research found that the intervention performed by the authors by using fear communication and minimal counseling is effective in diverting the target of prosocial behavior from beggars on the street to aid channeling agencies.There were 12 out of 20 participants who showed their intention to perform the switch.This is in line with findings by Pérez and Kiss (2012) that people are better in anticipating punishment compared to rewards.They gave an explanation about the psychological dynamics that occurred, which is: "people expect to be sanctioned for certain choices and change their behavior to avoid negative sanctions and seek out positive ones …. (That) subjects predict the sign of the sanction correctly most of the time … although they commit some errors when predicting the strength" (Pérez & Kiss, 2012, p. 301, 318).
Hence strict sanctions toward offenders of the Provincial Regulation are urgent so that people are compliant to the regulation.In other word, rather than giving reward or positive reinforcement---either financially or non-financially---to people who give charity through the correct channel, it is more urgent to prioritize the punishment to offenders of the regulation.It does not mean that reward is not valuable.However, in the context of enforcement of regulation concerning giving alms to beggars, in line with research results and literature review, it was found that administering of sanctions must be prioritized.
In addition, the punishment administering mechanism should not only apply vertically (from Government or law enforcer to the citizens) but also horizontally (from one citizen to another).This is in line with the findings by Carpenter, Matthews, and Ong'ong'a (2004) namely that for punishment to norm violators to be effective, members from various community groups need to monitor and administer sanctions to each other.In this research context, the intended sanction is social sanction.This is reasonable, because those who are uncooperative in enforcing the regulation have caused progressive loss that is not only "mental losses" for the beggars, but also loss of time, emotional loss (if beggars cause feelings of insecurity and discomfort), even financial loss (if those who are seen as beggars are actually people that do not need assistance) for other people, and also large-scale social loss (Indonesia can become "a nation of beggars").
Socialization actually holds an important role in channeling prosocial behavior on the right target.This is in line with the findings by Riviello (2003) although the context of Riviello's research is educational pedagogy.In his study, Riviello found the influence of socialization in the form of prosocial instructions toward teachers' activities in very poor area.Those areas have to present as many prosocial communities.Riviello argued that teachers brought their memories, disciplinary style, and socialization that they obtain previously to class rooms and community.Therefore, it requires prosocial policies that are socialized and trained (of skills and competency) from "above", from school organizers, to the teachers.School organizers in Riviello's research are authorities, same as Provincial Government, who are also authority for residents.By analogical comparison between school situation and public situation, it is urged that the Provincial Government perform socialization of regulation both intensively and extensively by using various media.The aim is for people to obtain a complete and comprehensive understanding about the ins and outs of the regulation prohibiting the giving of alms to beggars.In addition, the purpose is for people to know that they have alternative for channeling their prosocial intention for the poor even though everyone has his or her own belief about the acceptability of giving alms directly to people on the street.All of these issues are supported by research by Muethel, Hoegl, and Parboteeah (2011) that found that based on socialization theory, transformational leadership contribute to the macro-level ideology which stimulate prosocial values and contributions.In other word, leadership plays a significant role on individuals in deciding prosocial behavior strategies.
This study also found that, for Indonesian, spiritual/religious factors play a major role in determining the actions by people that are still intent on giving money to beggars, on any condition.The findings of this research are in line with findings by Afolabi and Idowu (2014) that there is a main effect of the spiritual variable toward prosocial behavior.Anderson (as cited in Afolabi & Idowu, 2014) explained that the individuals' belief that human behavior is monitored by a supernatural power will make him/her more responsible toward others and act in a prosocial way.Previous research conducted by Ahamdi (2010) stated that people with high religiosity tend to have a positive attitude toward beggars.However, Hardy and Carlo (2005) through their literature review explained that the association between religiosity with prosocial behavior is indirect, for example it depends on whether the religious orientation is extrinsic or intrinsic.In addition, in their empirical research, they also found the mechanism of the influence of religiosity toward prosocial behavior, as follows: religiosity becomes the source of the socialization of prosocial values, such as kindness.If the individual adopts these prosocial values, then religiosity will lead to prosocial behavior.They also provide insight that: "altruistic (that is, helping out of concern for others rather than anticipation of reward) and anonymous (helping in anonymous situations) helping seem to be the types of prosocial behaviors more explicitly endorsed by religious texts and teachings" (Hardy & Carlo, 2005, p. 242).
They found that another type of prosocial behavior namely "public, dire, and emotional prosocial behavior" is more influenced by situational factors than individual factors such as religiosity.Giving of alms to beggars on the street that are previously unknown to the individual is a type of social behavior that according to Hardy and Carlo can be predicted by religiosity.Hence the qualitative findings of this research are supported by results from previous research.In addition, Saroglou et al. (2005) through his empirical research also respond to the skepticism of some people toward the moral behavior of religious people.Research by Saroglou et al. concluded, "These studies suggest that it is difficult to accept the idea of moral hypocrisy in religious people regarding prosocial behavior" (Saroglou et al., 2005, p. 342).However, they caution that the conclusion only apply for "minimal level of prosocial behavior".This means that causal relation between religiosity with prosocial behavior may be questioned for a large, heavily weighted, or extreme prosocial behavior (involving a large amount of money, time, or efforts).In this research, the highlighted prosocial behavior is almsgiving, and this is in line with Saroglou's thesis which found the influence of religiosity toward prosocial behavior that does not require a large amount of money, time, and energy.
This research also found that the perception concerning institutional corruption is one of the factors that prevent people from delivering aid through authorized agency.This is in line with empirical research conducted by Horn (2013) which found that understanding of social problems influences an individual's prosocial behavior.The social problem in the context of this research is institutional corruption.Personal awareness and understanding toward social problem becomes "a critical precursor to prosocial behavior ... (and) may elucidate the moral necessity of being prosocial" (Horn, 2013, p. 21, 35).In the context of this understanding, individuals consider all existing variables and the weight surrounding their prosocial behavior intention.Those variables can include personal and social consequences that may occur if their intention is realized by delivering aid via authorized agency, or if their intention cannot be realized due to corruption that they perceived to occur in the agency that they target for their prosocial action.In other word, corruption need to be eliminated so that people are free from the burden of the social problem that may become a psychological barrier from diverting their donation from street-beggars to authorized agency.This research also found that "feeling sorry" becomes the keyword of participants that motivate them to give money to beggars.Feeling sorry is closely related with compassion.Compassion is defined as ''feeling that arises in witnessing another's suffering and that motivates a subsequent desire to help'' (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, as cited in Saslow et al., 2013, p. 31).Saslow et al. (2013) explained that compassion is an emotional dimension which brings individuals' other-oriented attitude and behavior.Compassion is also in line with empathy, which is stated by Martinsson, Myrseth, and Wollbrant (2010) as a psychological construct which encourages people to give alms to beggars regardless of the situational context and cognitive assessment.
This research also found the existence of perception regarding "obligation to give a large amount of donation" when channeling prosocial intention through an institution.This perception might be related to the individuals' financial capacity or resources as well as a sense of controllability.Donors feel easier to give alms to beggars because they are able financially, and the amount is "reasonable" from their perspective.ISSN 2039-9340 (print) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy Vol 5 No 23 November 2014 1825 However, the above perception might also be related with an individual's prosocial motive that needs to be immediately fulfilled by giving money to beggars.Prosocial behavior is associated with an individual's sense of life meaning and psychological well-being (Yang, Hsee, & Urminsky, 2014).In other word, the motive for the almsgiving behavior toward beggars may be "selfish" instead of "selfless" in nature, namely by satisfying those feelings.Delayed gratification of a need, such as due to the impracticality and uneconomical way of disseminating aid or assistance through institutions, can cause frustration on individuals.Hence this research recommends the creation of many social structures and facilities that can facilitate people's intention of delivering their assistance though "small" through authorized and trusted institutions, such as through electronic system that can be accessed directly through mobile phone.In Indonesia, a website that comes close to this recommendation is Kitabisa (http://kitabisa.co.id).Kitabisa is a social collaboration forum in which there are various projects with adequate project descriptions (background, goals, targets that will be helped, the institution or people behind it, funding proposals, etc.) that require the helping hand of the community.People can contribute any amount.It is just that this website is not yet equipped with direct online electronic transaction facilities.People who want to help must first perform banking transaction, and then report it through the website.System such as this must continue to be developed so that people does not have to struggle much when trying to donate any amount of money.

Conclusion
Based on interview that the authors had conducted with 20 participants, there are 12 participants that decided to try reducing the behavior of giving money to beggars.This showed that the cognitive-emotional intervention conducted by the authors is successful.Using fear communication and continued with minimum counseling, the authors had changed the mind, feeling, and action intention of the participant.Participants did not only try reducing the behavior of giving money to street-beggars, but also admitted they will divert the money that will be donated to authorized institutions.
Factors which determine individuals' attitude, intention, and action to give a donation to street-beggar, or to divert their donation through social agency, can be found on the levels of micro (individual tendency), meso (dyadic interactions on a certain situation), and macro (context of a large group and organization), and those three interact each other as stated in the multilevel perspectives of prosocial behavior that was proposed by Penner et al. (2005).In the context of this research, an individual's religiosity or spirituality is a factor on the micro-level.Empathy and compassion are on the mesolevel while corruption and social system or law enforcement are on macro-level.