Do donors prioritize utilitarian considerations and mostly care about how much a donation improves well-being, or do they prioritize equity-and-desert considerations and mostly care about whether recipients are to blame for their predicaments? Eberhardt Hiabu et al. (2025) provide the first direct empirical comparison of these two motives behind giving behavior, drawing on data from a television show in which audience members allocate €10,000 among three financially distressed candidates, combined with structured evaluations by independent raters. They find that perceived impact on well-being plays a larger role in donation decisions than perceived personal responsibility. The present paper replicates and extends that analysis. First, we replicate the main findings employing more raters per case and a simplified impact measure. Second, we extend the analysis by also eliciting raters’ individual willingness to donate, and linking these stated propensities to their own perceptions of impact and responsibility. In both analyses, impact is a stronger predictor of giving than responsibility, and dominance analysis confirms its greater explanatory power. Furthermore, we find that the patterns for male and female raters’ willingness to donate are similar. Altogether, the results offer robust evidence that donation decisions are influenced by both utilitarian and equity-and-desert-based considerations, and that utilitarian thinking tends to dominate.