Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (4) : 415-427     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00415
Special Column: Behavioral decision-making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization |
The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform
FAN Yafeng1,JIANG Jing2(),CUI Wenquan3
1 School of Business and management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2 School of Business, Renmin University, Beijing 100872, China
3 China Mobile Internet Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510640, China
Download: PDF(705 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Increasingly, people are turning to the online donation platform as their preferred means of giving. Thus, determining how donors’ donation intention on the web can be improved has been increasingly emphasized. However, few studies have explored how the option settings of online donation platform affect individuals’ donation behavior. Based on the literature of default effect and marketplace metacognition, we proposed that default amounts (high vs. low) have negative effect on donation intention in an online call-for-donation message. High default amounts (vs. low default amounts) led to lower donation intention, because it triggered individuals’ perceived inference of manipulation. This study also examined the moderating role of individuals’ moral identity in the aforementioned effect.

Four studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. Study 1 was designed to test the main effect of default amounts on donation behavior. Participants were assigned randomly to two conditions (high vs. low amount) in the lab setting. They first read a call-for-donation message that introduced a fictitious donation request (to build libraries) from a fictitious online charitable organization. Four amount options were then presented with ¥12 as default in the high amount condition and ¥5 in the low amount condition. Finally, their donation intentions and actual donation behavior were measured. Study 2 validated the results of Study 1 by conducting a field study among part-time MBA students. In Study 3, we employed a three-group (default option: high-amount vs. low-amount vs. no default) between-subjects design to examine the mediating role of perceived inference of manipulation, while ruling out the potential explanations of reactance and emotions. Study 3 was conducted online using a different donation message. Study 4 examined further the moderating role of individual’s moral identity using a two (default option: high-amount vs. low-amount) × two (moral identity: high vs. low) between-subjects design. Moral identity was manipulated by instructing participants to copy nine moral-related words (vs. ordinary words) twice and write a related story.

In line with our predictions, high default amounts (vs. low default amounts) led to lower donation intention and lower donation amounts, driven by perceived inference of manipulation. This effect was robust by using both student and non-student samples, different call-for-donation messages, and different default amounts. Our results also revealed the significant moderating role of moral identity. The default amount effect was only significant when individuals were primed with low moral identity (vs. high moral identity).

Our findings contribute to literature in several different areas. First, by examining how default amount influences individual’s donation behavior, this research extends the default effect in the donation decision area. Second, our findings shed light on the default effect by exploring the backfire effect and its underlying mechanism of default options. Third, the current research contributes to donation decision literature by proposing that options settings (i.e., default amount) is a meaningful influencing factor that may elicit a negative effect on donation. Finally, we also extend the application of moral consistent theories in default effect research.

Keywords default amounts      perceived inference of manipulation      donation intention      moral identity      (backfire) default effect     
ZTFLH:  B849: C91  
Corresponding Authors: Jing JIANG     E-mail: jiangjing@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn
Issue Date: 22 February 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yafeng FAN
Jing JIANG
Wenquan CUI
Cite this article:   
Yafeng FAN,Jing JIANG,Wenquan CUI. The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(4): 415-427.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00415     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I4/415
组别 人数 捐赠人数 捐赠率 捐款人平均捐款额 平均捐款额 捐赠金额分布
5元 8元 12元 不捐赠
高默认金额 46 23 50.00% 6.00 3.00 18 3 2 23
低默认金额 51 41 80.40% 6.05 4.86 32 5 4 10
  
组别 人数 捐赠人数 捐赠总额 平均捐款额 捐赠金额分布
10元 20元 30元 不捐赠
高默认金额 22 22 300 13.64 17 2 3 0
低默认金额 29 26 560 19.31 11 0 15 3
  
  
组别 人数 捐赠人数 捐款率 捐款人平均捐款额 平均捐款额 捐赠金额分布
5元 10元 15元 不捐赠
高默认金额 17 11 64.7% 9.54 6.18 4 4 3 6
低默认金额 32 31 96.87% 10 9.69 9 13 9 1
对照组 46 42 91.3% 11.43 10.44 6 18 18 4
  
  
组别 人数 捐赠人数 捐款率 捐款人平均捐款额 平均捐款额 捐赠金额分布
5元 10元 15元 不捐赠
高默认金额 64 51 79.7% 8.33 6.64 27 14 10 13
低默认金额 61 56 91.8% 10.18 9.34 17 20 19 5
对照组 67 60 89.6% 9.00 8.06 26 20 14 7
  
组别 高道德水平 低道德水平
人数 捐款人数 捐款率 平均捐款额 人数 捐款人数 捐款率 平均捐款额
高默认 30 25 83.30% 8.50 34 26 76.50% 5.00
低默认 32 27 84.40% 8.91 29 29 100% 9.83
对照 31 26 83.90% 8.87 36 34 94.40% 7.36
  
[1] Amir, O., &Levav, J. ( 2008). Choice construction versus preference construction: The instability of preferences learned in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45( 2), 145-158.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30164027
[2] Andreoni,J. ( 1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100( 401), 464-477.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2234133
[3] Aquino, K., & Reed II,A. , ( 2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83( 6), 1423-1440.
[4] Bi S., Pang J., & Lv Y. L . ( 2016). The effect of stress on consumers’ nostalgic preference. Journal of Marketing Science, 12( 1), 38-50.
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/84075X/201608/672700072.html
[4] [ 毕圣, 庞隽, 吕一林 . ( 2016). 压力对怀旧偏好的影响机制. 营销科学学报, 12( 1), 38-50.]
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/84075X/201608/672700072.html
[5] Brown, C. L.,& Krishna, A. , ( 2004). The skeptical shopper: A metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31( 3), 529-539.
url: http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/3/529.ref-stubs.xml
[6] Campbell, M.C . ( 1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4( 3), 225-254.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-03107-002
[7] Clee,M. A., & Wicklund,R. A . ( 1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6( 4), 389-405.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488740
[8] Croson,R ., & Shang J. Y, . ( 2008). The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Experimental Economics, 11( 3), 221-233.
[9] Ding, Y, ., & Gong, X.S . ( 2016). The influence of social exclusion on consumer preference for products with different textures and its underlying process. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 10), 1302-1313.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxb201610011
[9] [ 丁瑛, 宫秀双 . ( 2016). 社会排斥对产品触觉信息偏好的影响及其作用机制. 心理学报, 48( 10), 1302-1313.]
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxb201610011
[10] Dinner I., Johnson E. J., Goldstein D. G., & Liu K . ( 2011). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17( 4), 332-341.
pmid: 21707203
[11] Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R . ( 2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23( 1), 82-94.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036658
[12] Flavell, J. H . ( 1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence, 12, 231-235.
[13] Goswami, I., &Urminsky, O. ( 2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53( 5), 829-846.
url: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733314
[14] Hardy, S.A . ( 2006). Identity, reasoning, and emotion: An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30( 3), 205-213.
url: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11031-006-9034-9
[15] Hayes, A. F. ( 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from
url: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
[16] He Y. Q., Tang Y. Y., & Zhang J. F . ( 2016). Consumer psychological reactance: A literature review and prospects. Foreign Economics & Management, 38( 2), 49-61.
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/84075X/201606/672700056.html
[16] [ 贺远琼, 唐漾一, 张俊芳 . ( 2016). 消费者心理逆反研究现状与展望. 外国经济与管理, 38( 2), 49-61.]
url: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/84075X/201606/672700056.html
[17] Hong, S. M.,& Faedda, S. , ( 1996). Refinement of the hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56( 1), 173-182.
[18] Janoff-Bulman R., Sheikh S., & Hepp S . ( 2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96( 3), 521-537.
pmid: 19254101 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19254101
[19] Johnson E. J., Bellman S., & Lohse G. L . ( 2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: Why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13( 1), 5-15.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40216617
[20] Johnson E. J., Hershey J., Meszaros J., & Kunreuther H . ( 1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7( 1), 35-51.
url: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01065313
[21] Johnson, E. J.,& Goldstein, D. , ( 2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302( 5649), 1338-1339.
[22] Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R. H . ( 1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5( 1), 193-206.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942711
[23] Krishna,A. ( 2011). Can supporting a cause decrease donations and happiness? The cause marketing paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21( 3), 338-345.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057740811000180
[24] Levav, J., &Zhu, R. ( 2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36( 4), 600-610.
[25] Monin, B. Jordan A. H. , ( 2009) . The dynamic moral self: A social psychological perspective. In Narvaez D., & Lapsley D. K. (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 341-354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press..
[26] Oppenheimer D. M., Meyvis T., & Davidenko N . ( 2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45( 4), 867-872.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109000766
[27] Park C. W., Jun S. Y., & Macinnis D. J . ( 2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37( 2), 187-202.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-15743-003
[28] , Preacher, K. J., & Hayes A. F, . ( 2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36( 4), 717-731.
[29] Prelec D., Wernerfelt B., & Zettelmeyer F . ( 1997). The role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. Journal of Consumer Research, 24( 1), 118-125.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-06650-009
[30] Reed A., Aquino K., & Levy E . ( 2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71( 1), 178-193.
[31] Rooij, M. V.,& Teppa, F. , ( 2014). Personal traits and individual choices: Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 100, 33-43.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726811400002X
[32] Shang J., Reed A., & Croson R . ( 2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45( 3), 351-361.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-06730-008
[33] Slovic,P. ( 1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50( 5), 364-371.
[34] Thaler, R. H. Sunstein, C. R. , ( 2008) . Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: CT Yales University Press.
[35] Wang, X., &Tong, L. ( 2015). Hide the light or let it shine? Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’ happiness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32( 4), 418-424.
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811615000786
[36] Wei M. L., Fischer E., & Main K. J . ( 2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27( 1), 34-44.
url: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-05374-004
[37] Wright,P. ( 2002). Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 28( 4), 677-682.
url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/338210
[38] Zhang, H. W., & Li Y. , ( 2014). Moral behavior under two kinds of moral self-regulation mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 22( 7), 1178-1187.
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxdt201407014
[38] [ 张宏伟, 李晔 . ( 2014). 两种道德自我调节机制下的道德行为. 心理科学进展, 22( 7), 1178-1187.]
url: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xlxdt201407014
[1] CHEN Mo; LIANG Jian. High performance expectation and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Social cognitive perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 94-105.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech