Emphasizing recovery or improvement in charitable fundraising should depend on event controllability

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01133

Abstract

Abstract:

The situation of the recipients is a critical element of charitable fundraising information, yet the impact of different descriptions of their situation on the efficacy of fundraising efforts has not been extensively studied. This research classified fundraising information into two types: recovery-description (emphasizing that the recipients were in a favorable situation but have since fallen into a disadvantaged one, and that the donation brings the recipients back to their previous state) and improvement-description (emphasizing that the donation helps the recipients transition from their current disadvantaged state to a better one). Using one secondary data analysis (N = 978, Study 1) and six experiments (N = 1163, Studies 2/3a/3b/4/5a/5b), it was found that the recovery-description (vs. improvement-description) led donors to perceive charity projects are better at reducing loss (vs. increasing gains) and donors are more concerned with reducing loss (vs. increasing gains) when faced with uncontrollable (vs. controllable) events. Thus, based on the matching on regulatory focus, when recovery-description (vs. improvement-description) was used to describe uncontrollable events, and improvement-description (vs. recovery-description) was used to describe controllable events, individuals’ willingness to donate (Study 5) and actual donation (secondary data) were higher. This research proposes a new theoretical classification of fundraising information and demonstrates different types of information have divergent subsequent impacts. Our findings suggest to design fundraising information according to event controllability.

Key words: recovery-description, improvement-description, event controllability, regulatory fit, willingness to donate

SONG Wenjing, CHEN Yixuan, HUANG Yunhui. (2023). Emphasizing recovery or improvement in charitable fundraising should depend on event controllability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(7), 1133-1147.

Figures/Tables 8

References 53

[1]	Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33-49. doi: 10.1086/321946 URL
[2]	Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556-574. pmid: 10900996
[3]	Ashraf, A. R., & Thongpapanl, N. T. (2015). Connecting with and converting shoppers into customers: Investigating the role of regulatory fit in the online customer’s decision-making process. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32, 13-25. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2015.09.004 URL
[4]	Bateson, J. E. G. (1985). Self-service consumer: An exploratory study. Journal of Retailing, 61(3), 49-76.
[5]	Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (pp. 463-484). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[6]	Baum, A., & Fleming, I. (1993). Implications of psychological research on stress and technological accidents. American Psychologist, 48(6), 665-672. pmid: 8328731
[7]	Bhattacharjee, A., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1086/674724 URL
[8]	Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388-404. pmid: 15008644
[9]	Chang, C. T. (2011). Guilt appeals in cause-related marketing: The subversive roles of product type and donation magnitude. International Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 587-616. doi: 10.2501/IJA-30-4-587-616 URL
[10]	Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935. doi: 10.1111/(ISSN)1559-1816 URL
[11]	Cohen, J. (Eds). (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[12]	Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 297-348). Erlbaum.
[13]	Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(8), 1-31.
[14]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[15]	Feiler, D. C., Tost, L. P., & Grant, A. M. (2012). Mixed reasons, missed givings: The costs of blending egoistic and altruistic reasons in donation requests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1322-1328. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.014 URL
[16]	Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. D. (2008). An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 519-531. doi: 10.1086/586909 URL
[17]	Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5(3), 182-201. doi: 10.1080/15534511003707352 URL
[18]	Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.52.12.1280 pmid: 9414606
[19]	Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992 URL
[20]	Hildebrand, D., DeMotta, Y., Sen, S., & Valenzuela, A. (2017). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) contribution type. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 738-758. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx063 URL
[21]	Huang, Y. H., Jia, Y. L., & Robert, S. W. J. (2017). The effects of physical distance from a brand extension on the impact of brand- extension fit. Psychology & Marketing, 34(1), 59-69. doi: 10.1002/mar.20973 URL
[22]	Jain, S. P., Lindsey, C., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2007). For better or for worse? Valenced comparative frames and regulatory focus. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1086/513046 URL
[23]	Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
[24]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. doi: 10.2307/1914185 URL
[25]	Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x URL
[26]	Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350-367. doi: 10.1086/670610 URL
[27]	Kulow, K., & Kramer, T. (2016). In pursuit of good karma: When charitable appeals to do right go wrong. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 334-353. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw018 URL
[28]	Lavery, J. F., & Valerie, A. C. (1996). Causal attributions, coping strategies, and adjustment to breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 19(1), 20-28. pmid: 8904383
[29]	Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764-766. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013 URL
[30]	Liu, W. M. (2019). Having power, donating more time? The effect of donors’ power on their charitable donation intention of time and the underlying mechanisms. Nankai Business Review, 22(2), 23-32.
[31]	Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854-864. pmid: 12374440
[32]	McGuire, W. (1969). The Nature of attitudes and attitude change. In C. Lindezy & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed, pp. 136-314). Addison-Wesley.
[33]	Moran, N., & Bagchi, R. (2019). The power of emotional benefits: Examining the role of benefit focus on donation behavior. Journal of Advertising, 48(3), 1-8. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2018.1556138 URL
[34]	Park, K., & Lee, S. S. (2015). The role of beneficiaries’ group identity in determining successful appeal strategies for charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 32(12), 1117-1132. doi: 10.1002/mar.20852 URL
[35]	Ran, Y. X., Niu, Y. X., & Chen, S. Y. (2021). “More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(4), 413-430. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413
[36]	Rothman, A. J., Desmarais, K. J., & Lenne, R. L. (2019). Moving from research on message framing to principles of message matching: The use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior. Advances in Motivation Science, 7, 43-73.
[37]	Ryoo, Y., Sung, Y., & Chechelnytska, I. (2020). What makes materialistic consumers more ethical? Self-benefit vs. other-benefit appeals. Journal of Business Research, 110, 173-183. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.019 URL
[38]	Savary, J., Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. (2014). Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 27-38. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0244 URL
[39]	Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005 URL
[40]	Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind... even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1554-1562. doi: 10.1177/0956797614534450 URL
[41]	Steiger, J. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(2), 164-182. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164 pmid: 15137887
[42]	Swanson, S. R., & Hsu, M. K. (2011). The effect of recovery locus attributions and service failure severity on word-of-mouth and repurchase behaviors in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(4), 511-529.
[43]	Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1193 pmid: 14674824
[44]	Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Reast, J., & Van Popering, N. (2012). To do well by doing good: Improving corporate image through cause- related marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 259-274. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1134-0 URL
[45]	Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28-38. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.1.28 URL
[46]	Wang. J., Song. Q. Y., Xu. Y. P., Jia. B. B., & Hu. C. P. (2019). Calculating confidence intervals of Cohen’s d and Eta-squared: A practical primer. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 7(5), 284-296.
[47]	White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124.
[48]	Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117. doi: 10.1126/science.1159845 pmid: 18832647
[49]	Winterich, K., Mittal, V., & Aquino, K. (2013). When does recognition increase charitable behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 121-134. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0477 URL
[50]	Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274-293. doi: 10.1086/675927 URL
[51]	Yang, W. Q., Li, Q., Guo, M. Y., Fan, Q., & He, Y. L. (2017). The effects of power on human behavior: The perspective of regulatory focus. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(3), 404-415. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00404
[52]	Zagefka, H., & James, T. (2015). The psychology of charitable donations to disaster victims and beyond: The psychology of charitable donations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 155-192. doi: 10.1111/sipr.2015.9.issue-1 URL
[53]	Zheng, L., Zhu, Y., & Jiang, R. (2019). The mediating role of moral elevation in cause-related marketing: A moral psychological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 439-454. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3614-3

Fundrasing information	Event controllability n (%)			Two sample z test (Ratio) (controllable vs. uncontrollable)
Fundrasing information	Unspecified	Controllable	Uncontrollable	Two sample z test (Ratio) (controllable vs. uncontrollable)
Study 1
Recovery-description	3 (3.6%)	6 (7.1%)	75 (89.3%)	z = ?10.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [?0.91, ?0.74]
Improvement-description	2 (1.3%)	134 (87.0%)	18 (11.7%)	z = 13.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.68, 0.83]
Study 2
Recovery-description	9 (22.5%)	11 (27.5%)	20 (50.0%)	z = ?2.07, p = 0.039, 95% CI: [?0.43, ?0.02]
Improvement-description	12 (25.0%)	28 (57.2%)	8 (16.3%)	z = 4.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.24, 0.59]

Fundrasing information	Event controllability n (%)			Two sample z test (Ratio) (controllable vs. uncontrollable)
Fundrasing information	Unspecified	Controllable	Uncontrollable	Two sample z test (Ratio) (controllable vs. uncontrollable)
Study 1
Recovery-description	3 (3.6%)	6 (7.1%)	75 (89.3%)	z = ?10.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [?0.91, ?0.74]
Improvement-description	2 (1.3%)	134 (87.0%)	18 (11.7%)	z = 13.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.68, 0.83]
Study 2
Recovery-description	9 (22.5%)	11 (27.5%)	20 (50.0%)	z = ?2.07, p = 0.039, 95% CI: [?0.43, ?0.02]
Improvement-description	12 (25.0%)	28 (57.2%)	8 (16.3%)	z = 4.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.24, 0.59]

Measurement content		Recovery-desription		Improvement-description		Paired sample t-tests
Measurement content		α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	Paired sample t-tests
Study 3a
Perceived information types	Recovery level	0.70	5.95 (0.70)	0.91	3.60 (1.41)	t(79) = 13.08, p < 0.001
Perceived information types	Improvement level	0.92	5.29 (1.27)	0.81	6.25 (0.64)	t(79) = ?6.16, p < 0.001
Perceived function	Reduce loss	0.75	5.80 (1.12)	0.86	4.45 (1.48)	t(79) = 9.88, p < 0.001
Perceived function	Increasing gain	0.82	5.79 (1.20)	0.79	6.68 (0.95)	t(79) = ?6.84, p < 0.001
Study 3b
Perceived information types	Improvement level (vs. recovery level)	0.83	3.76 (1.46)	0.74	5.88 (0.67)	t(99) = ?13.10, p < 0.001
Perceived function	Increasing gain (vs. reduce loss)	0.85	3.57 (1.51)	0.81	5.93 (0.76)	t(99) = ?13.83, p < 0.001

Measurement content		Recovery-desription		Improvement-description		Paired sample t-tests
Measurement content		α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	Paired sample t-tests
Study 3a
Perceived information types	Recovery level	0.70	5.95 (0.70)	0.91	3.60 (1.41)	t(79) = 13.08, p < 0.001
Perceived information types	Improvement level	0.92	5.29 (1.27)	0.81	6.25 (0.64)	t(79) = ?6.16, p < 0.001
Perceived function	Reduce loss	0.75	5.80 (1.12)	0.86	4.45 (1.48)	t(79) = 9.88, p < 0.001
Perceived function	Increasing gain	0.82	5.79 (1.20)	0.79	6.68 (0.95)	t(79) = ?6.84, p < 0.001
Study 3b
Perceived information types	Improvement level (vs. recovery level)	0.83	3.76 (1.46)	0.74	5.88 (0.67)	t(99) = ?13.10, p < 0.001
Perceived function	Increasing gain (vs. reduce loss)	0.85	3.57 (1.51)	0.81	5.93 (0.76)	t(99) = ?13.83, p < 0.001