Extant research and practitioner advice tout that organizations should give people choice to increase their prosociality. With three preregistered experiments across field and online settings (N=25,399), we challenge this assumption, identify conditions under which choice can be helpful versus harmful, and uncover the underlying psychological processes. We first show that relative to no choice, a choice framed as “what to give” (e.g., a “Basic Needs Basket” or a “Survivor’s Kit”) increases donation interest by elevating a sense of agency. However, framing that same choice as “who to help” (e.g., “Help a Child” or “Help a Trafficked Girl”) as opposed to “what to give” reduces donation interest as it causes decision discomfort. Importantly, the two competing mechanisms of agency and decision discomfort may cancel out when a choice framed as “who to help” is compared to not giving choice. This research provides a framework to understand the nuanced effects of giving choice on prosociality. While choice can enhance feelings of agency and satisfy individuals’ quest for a “warm glow”, facing a tradeoff between two recipient populations may instead elicit a “cold chill”, freezing the likelihood of donating at all.