The Impact of Temporal Landmarks on the Willingness of Conspicuous Prosocial Behavior*

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0526

Abstract

Abstract:

The propensity of individuals to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior is influenced by environmental factors. Drawing on self-awareness theory and costly signaling theory, this study explores the impact of temporal landmarks on the willingness to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior. Through six experiments, the results confirm that at the start (vs. end) of a period, individuals are more inclined to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior (Experiments 1a, 1b, and 1c). The underlying mechanism is that the temporal landmarks at the beginning of a period trigger a situational public self-awareness, which influences the behavior (Experiments 2a and 2b). Further analysis reveals that self-monitoring plays a moderating role in this effect; for individuals with low self-monitoring, the activation of temporal landmarks has a limited impact on their willingness to engage in conspicuous prosocial behavior (Experiment 3). This study extends the research on the relationship between temporal landmarks and conspicuous prosocial behavior and provides practical guidance for charitable organizations or businesses in planning public welfare marketing activities at critical temporal junctures.

Key words: temporal landmarks, conspicuous prosocial behavior, situational public self-awareness, self-monitoring

KUAI Ling, WEI Haiying, YAO Qi, XIAO Tingwen, XIE Shengcheng. (2025). The Impact of Temporal Landmarks on the Willingness of Conspicuous Prosocial Behavior^*. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(4), 526-543.

Figures/Tables 14

References 76

[1]	Alter, A. L., & Hershfield, H. E. (2014). People search for meaning when they approach a new decade in chronological age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17066-17070.
[2]	Balabanis, G., & Stathopoulou, A. (2021). The price of social status desire and public self-consciousness in luxury consumption. Journal of Business Research, 123, 463-475.
[3]	Beal, B. (2020). What are the irreducible basic elements of morality? A critique of the debate over monism and pluralism in moral psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 273-290. doi: 10.1177/1745691619867106 pmid: 31721660
[4]	Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007, January). Understanding philanthropy: A review of 50 years of theories and research. Paper presented at the meeting of the 35th annual conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action, Chicago.
[5]	Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652-1678.
[6]	Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). Altruism towards strangers in need: Costly signaling in an industrial society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2), 95-103.
[7]	Bi, S., & Pang, J. (2016). A trip to your past: The effect of ending on preference for nostalgic products. Advances in Consumer Research, 44, 720.
[8]	Bi, S., Perkins, A., & Sprott, D. (2021). The effect of start/end temporal landmarks on consumers’ visual attention and judgments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(1), 136-154.
[9]	BliegeBird, R., & Smith, E. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221-248.
[10]	Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2012). Self-compassion increases self-improvement motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1133-1143. doi: 10.1177/0146167212445599 pmid: 22645164
[11]	Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methodsin cross-cultural research (pp.137-164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
[12]	Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44.
[13]	Carver, C. S., & Humphries, C. (1981). Havana daydreaming: A study of self-consciousness and the negative reference group among Cuban Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 545-552.
[14]	Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(4), 301-312.
[15]	Chell, K., & Mortimer, G. (2014). Investigating online recognition for blood donor retention: An experiential donor value approach. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 143-163.
[16]	Chen, S., Sun, Z., Zhou, H., & Shu, L. (2023). Simple or complex: How temporal landmarks shape consumer preference for food packages. Food Quality and Preference, 104, 104734.
[17]	Chen, S., & Wei, H. (2023). Linking temporal landmarks to voluntary simplicity: The mediating roles of self-transcendence and self-enhancement. Journal of Business Ethics, 188(4), 693-708.
[18]	Chen, Y., & Gao, L. (2022). The identified donor effect: Disclosure of the donor’s name shapes the recipient’s behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(2), 232-250.
[19]	Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2015). Put your imperfections behind you: Temporal landmarks spur goal initiation when they signal new beginnings. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1927-1936. doi: 10.1177/0956797615605818 pmid: 26546079
[20]	Dang, A., & Arndt, A. D. (2017). How personal costs influence customer citizenship behaviors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 173-181.
[21]	Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283-308. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283 pmid: 38376350
[22]	Feng, W. T., Xu, Y. P., Huang, H., & Wang, T. (2022). Kawai vs. Whimsical: The influence of cuteness types of luxury brands on consumers’ preferences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(3), 313-330.
[23]	Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.
[24]	Ferguson, E., Atsma, F., De Kort, W., & Veldhuizen, I. (2012). Exploring the pattern of blood donor beliefs in first-time, novice, and experienced donors: Differentiating reluctant altruism, pure altruism, impure altruism, and warm glow. Transfusion, 52(2), 343-355. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03279.x pmid: 21848847
[25]	Foulkes, L., Leung, J. T., Fuhrmann, D., Knoll, L. J., & Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Age differences in the prosocial influence effect. Developmental Science, 21(6), e12666.
[26]	Froming, W. J., Walker, G. R., & Lopyan, K. J. (1982). Public and private self-awareness: When personal attitudes conflict with societal expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(5), 476-487.
[27]	Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555. pmid: 10900995
[28]	Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about God increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 298-302.
[29]	Gino, F., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Time, money, and morality. Psychological Science, 25(2), 414-421. doi: 10.1177/0956797613506438 pmid: 24317421
[30]	Goukens, C., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2009). Me, myself, and my choices: The influence of private self-awareness on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 682-692.
[31]	Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2006). Exploring conspicuousness in the context of donation behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 147-154.
[32]	Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2009). Conspicuous donation behaviour: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 8(1), 14-25.
[33]	Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85-102. pmid: 17605591
[34]	Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404. doi: 10.1037/a0017346 pmid: 20175620
[35]	Gunia, B. C., Barnes, C. M., & Sah, S. (2014). The morality of larks and owls: Unethical behavior depends on chronotype as well as time of day. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2272-2274. doi: 10.1177/0956797614541989 pmid: 25287664
[36]	Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 269-284.
[37]	Hayes, A. F. (2014). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335-337.
[38]	Hennecke, M., & Converse, B. A. (2017). Next week, next month, next year: How perceived temporal boundaries affect initiation expectations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 918-926.
[39]	Ingram, K. K., Ay, A., Kwon, S. B., Woods, K., Escobar, S., Gordon, M.,... Jain, K. (2016). Molecular insights into chronotype and time-of-day effects on decision-making. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 29392.
[40]	Johnson, C. M., Tariq, A., & Baker, T. L. (2018). From Gucci to green bags: Conspicuous consumption as a signal for pro-social behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 26(4), 339-356.
[41]	Khodakarami, F., Petersen, J. A., & Venkatesan, R. (2015). Developing donor relationships: The role of the breadth of giving. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 77-93.
[42]	Koo, M., Dai, H., Mai, K. M., & Song, C. E. (2020). Anticipated temporal landmarks undermine motivation for continued goal pursuit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 142-157.
[43]	Kouchaki, M., & Smith, I. H. (2014). The morning morality effect: The influence of time of day on unethical behavior. Psychological Science, 25(1), 95-102. doi: 10.1177/0956797613498099 pmid: 24166855
[44]	Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.46.6.1349 pmid: 6737217
[45]	MacDonnell, R., & White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 551-563.
[46]	Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2), 97-125.
[47]	Moon, H., & Sprott, D. E. (2016). Ingredient branding for a luxury brand: The role of brand and product fit. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5768-5774.
[48]	Neumayr, M., & Pennerstorfer, A. (2021). The relation between income and donations as a proportion of income revisited: Literature review and empirical application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(3), 551-577.
[49]	Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1105-1123.
[50]	Pang, J., Shang, Z. Q., & Liu, X. M. (2022). The ending temporal landmark effect on risky decision-making. Nankai Business Review, 25(1), 76-86.
[51]	Peetz, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2013). The post-birthday world: Consequences of temporal landmarks for temporal self-appraisal and motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 249-266. doi: 10.1037/a0030477 pmid: 23066883
[52]	Peetz, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2014). Marking time: Selective use of temporal landmarks as barriers between current and future selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 44-56. doi: 10.1177/0146167213501559 pmid: 23969622
[53]	Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
[54]	Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 560-566.
[55]	Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784. doi: 10.1037/a0020092 pmid: 20649364
[56]	Price, L. L., Coulter, R. A., Strizhakova, Y., & Schultz, A. E. (2018). The fresh start mindset: Transforming consumers’ lives. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 21-48.
[57]	Savary, J., Li, C. X., & Newman, G. E. (2020). Exalted purchases or tainted donations? Self-signaling and the evaluation of charitable incentives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 671-679.
[58]	Shang, Z. Q., Chen, Z. X., & Wu, G. P. (2022). The effect of temporal landmarks on self-construal and consumer preference for advertising appeals. Nankai Business Review, 25(4), 48-60.
[59]	Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 366-378.
[60]	Shum, M. S. (1998). The role of temporal landmarks in autobiographical memory processes. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 423-442. pmid: 9849113
[61]	Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.
[62]	Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125-129. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.125 pmid: 3735063
[63]	Solomon, M. R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 508-514.
[64]	Tyler, J. M., Kearns, P. O., & McIntyre, M. M. (2016). Effects of self-monitoring on processing of self-presentation information. Social Psychology, 47(3), 174-178.
[65]	Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 926-930.
[66]	Vésteinsdóttir, V., Reips, U. D., Joinson, A., & Thorsdottir, F. (2017). An item level evaluation of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale using item response theory on Icelandic Internet panel data and cognitive interviews. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 164-173.
[67]	Wallace, E., & Buil, I. (2021). A typology of conspicuous donation on Facebook. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(4), 535-552.
[68]	Wallace, E., & Buil, I. (2023). Antecedents and consequences of conspicuous green behavior on social media: Incorporating the virtual self-identity into the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113549.
[69]	Wallace, E., Buil, I., & De Chernatony, L. (2017). When does “liking” a charity lead to donation behaviour? Exploring conspicuous donation behaviour on social media platforms. European Journal of Marketing, 51(11/12), 2002-2029.
[70]	Wallace, E., Buil, I., & De Chernatony, L. (2020). ‘Consuming good’ on social media: What can conspicuous virtue signalling on Facebook tell us about prosocial and unethical intentions?. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(3), 577-592.
[71]	Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 pmid: 3397865
[72]	White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22-49.
[73]	Wu, C. H., Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Lee, C. (2021). When and how favour rendering ameliorates workplace ostracism over time: Moderating effect of self-monitoring and mediating effect of popularity enhancement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(1), 107-131.
[74]	Yao, Q., Wu, Z. J., Zhang, C. Q., & Fu, G. Q. (2020). Effect of power on conspicuous prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(12), 1421-1435. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01421
[75]	You, L., & Lee, Y. H. (2019). The bystander effect in cyberbullying on social network sites: Anonymity, group size, and intervention intentions. Telematics and Informatics, 45, 101284.
[76]	Yu, S., Hudders, L., & Cauberghe, V. (2018). Are fashion consumers like schooling fish? The effectiveness of popularity cues in fashion e-commerce. Journal of Business Research, 85, 105-116.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	1
2. Age	0.09	1
3. Income	0.21^*	0.40^***	1
4. Education	?0.02	?0.26^**	0.18^*	1
5. Positive emotion	0.21^*	0.23^**	0.15	0.16	1
6. Negative emotion	?0.09	?0.27^**	?0.24^**	?0.08	?0.49^***	1
7. Temporal landmarks	?0.09	0.17^*	?0.02	?0.15	?0.16	?0.07	1
8. Purchase intention	0.21^*	0.26^**	0.23^**	?0.11	0.18^*	?0.28^**	0.34^***	1
M	0.40	30.06	2.48	2.79	4.96	2.21	0.00	5.21
SD	0.49	9.50	0.94	0.70	1.22	1.14	0.82	1.99

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	1
2. Age	0.09	1
3. Income	0.21^*	0.40^***	1
4. Education	?0.02	?0.26^**	0.18^*	1
5. Positive emotion	0.21^*	0.23^**	0.15	0.16	1
6. Negative emotion	?0.09	?0.27^**	?0.24^**	?0.08	?0.49^***	1
7. Temporal landmarks	?0.09	0.17^*	?0.02	?0.15	?0.16	?0.07	1
8. Purchase intention	0.21^*	0.26^**	0.23^**	?0.11	0.18^*	?0.28^**	0.34^***	1
M	0.40	30.06	2.48	2.79	4.96	2.21	0.00	5.21
SD	0.49	9.50	0.94	0.70	1.22	1.14	0.82	1.99

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender	1
2. Age	0.11	1
3. Income	0.14	0.33^***	1
4. Education	0.05	0.09	0.21^**	1
5. Temporal landmarks	0.01	?0.01	0.03	0.01	1
6. Conspicuousness	0.03	?0.02	?0.05	0.12	0.01	1
7. E-mail	0.05	0.06	0.31^***	0.12	0.11	0.11	1
M	0.38	31.46	2.79	3.03	0.50	0.50	0.64
SD	0.48	10.66	0.96	0.69	0.50	0.50	0.48

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender	1
2. Age	0.11	1
3. Income	0.14	0.33^***	1
4. Education	0.05	0.09	0.21^**	1
5. Temporal landmarks	0.01	?0.01	0.03	0.01	1
6. Conspicuousness	0.03	?0.02	?0.05	0.12	0.01	1
7. E-mail	0.05	0.06	0.31^***	0.12	0.11	0.11	1
M	0.38	31.46	2.79	3.03	0.50	0.50	0.64
SD	0.48	10.66	0.96	0.69	0.50	0.50	0.48

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender	1
2. Age	?0.11	1
3. Income	0.02	0.34^***	1
4. Education	0.00	?0.18^*	0.21^**	1
5. Status motivation	0.05	0.05	0.09	0.03	1
6. Temporal landmarks	0.14^*	0.09	0.20^**	?0.09	0.10	1
7. Conspicuousness	?0.05	?0.06	0.08	0.02	0.01	0.02	1
8. Donation intention	?0.14	?0.04	0.04	?0.01	0.21^**	?0.05	0.05	1
9. Donation amount	?0.11	?0.08	0.19^**	?0.03	0.17^*	0.11	0.14	0.44^***	1
M	0.40	32.57	2.86	2.97	5.59	0.50	0.50	5.83	55.09
SD	0.49	9.58	0.96	0.65	0.72	0.50	0.50	1.09	28.05