Give a man a fish or teach him to fish? Differences in donor behavior between high and low social classes

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01677

Abstract

Key words: social class, survival donations, developmental donations, regulatory focus, charity nudge

Cite this article

SUN Qingzhou, HUANG Jingru, YU Xiaofen, GAO Qingde. (2023). Give a man a fish or teach him to fish? Differences in donor behavior between high and low social classes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(10), 1677-1695.

share this article

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01677

https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2023/V55/I10/1677

Figures/Tables 12

Figure 1. Study 1 donation context.

Figure 1. Study 1 donation context.

Table 1 Study 1 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Donation preference
	Model 1				Model 2
	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.17^*	0.08	3.97	1.18	0.17^*	0.09	3.89	1.18
Age	0.10	0.08	1.33	1.10	0.08	0.09	0.89	1.08
Empathy	?0.14	0.08	2.79	0.87	?0.13	0.09	2.38	1.16
Prosocial preference	0.15	0.08	3.08	1.16	0.15	0.09	2.89	0.88
Donation context	?0.18^*	0.08	4.93	0.84	?0.18^*	0.08	5.18	0.83
Relative social class perception perception					0.45^***	0.08	30.60	1.58
R²	0.02				0.09
ΔR²	0.02				0.07

Table 1 Study 1 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Donation preference
	Model 1				Model 2
	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.17^*	0.08	3.97	1.18	0.17^*	0.09	3.89	1.18
Age	0.10	0.08	1.33	1.10	0.08	0.09	0.89	1.08
Empathy	?0.14	0.08	2.79	0.87	?0.13	0.09	2.38	1.16
Prosocial preference	0.15	0.08	3.08	1.16	0.15	0.09	2.89	0.88
Donation context	?0.18^*	0.08	4.93	0.84	?0.18^*	0.08	5.18	0.83
Relative social class perception perception					0.45^***	0.08	30.60	1.58
R²	0.02				0.09
ΔR²	0.02				0.07

Figure 2. Study 2 donation context.

Figure 2. Study 2 donation context.

Table 2 Study 2 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Promotion focus				Prevention focus				Donation preference
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5				Model 6
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.17^***	0.03	0.17^***	0.03	0.10^**	0.03	0.10^**	0.03	0.02	0.07	0.11	1.02	0.03	0.08	0.15	1.03
Age	0.02	0.03	?0.01	0.03	?0.19^***	0.03	?0.17^***	0.03	0.19^**	0.07	6.87	1.20	0.03	0.08	0.18	1.03
Empathy	0.37^***	0.03	0.37^***	0.03	0.17^***	0.03	0.16^***	0.03	0.07	0.07	0.97	1.07	0.06	0.08	0.52	1.06
Prosocial preference	0.05	0.03	0.03	0.03	?0.01	0.03	0.01	0.03	0.21^**	0.07	9.14	1.24	0.17^*	0.08	4.80	1.18
Donation context	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.15^*	0.07	5.05	1.17	0.19^*	0.08	6.05	1.20
Subjective social class			0.05	0.03			?0.10^**	0.03					0.31^***	0.08	14.94	0.73
Economic income			0.02	0.04			?0.01	0.04					0.16	0.09	3.61	1.18
Social profession			0.10^**	0.04			?0.01	0.04					0.19^*	0.09	4.63	1.21
Education level			0.06^*	0.03			?0.12^***	0.03					0.24^**	0.08	8.78	1.27
Promotion focus													0.39^***	0.09	19.94	1.48
Prevention focus													?0.65^***	0.09	50.89	0.52
R²	0.17		0.20		0.06		0.10		0.04				0.26
ΔR²	0.17		0.03		0.06		0.04		0.04				0.22

Table 2 Study 2 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Promotion focus				Prevention focus				Donation preference
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5				Model 6
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.17^***	0.03	0.17^***	0.03	0.10^**	0.03	0.10^**	0.03	0.02	0.07	0.11	1.02	0.03	0.08	0.15	1.03
Age	0.02	0.03	?0.01	0.03	?0.19^***	0.03	?0.17^***	0.03	0.19^**	0.07	6.87	1.20	0.03	0.08	0.18	1.03
Empathy	0.37^***	0.03	0.37^***	0.03	0.17^***	0.03	0.16^***	0.03	0.07	0.07	0.97	1.07	0.06	0.08	0.52	1.06
Prosocial preference	0.05	0.03	0.03	0.03	?0.01	0.03	0.01	0.03	0.21^**	0.07	9.14	1.24	0.17^*	0.08	4.80	1.18
Donation context	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.15^*	0.07	5.05	1.17	0.19^*	0.08	6.05	1.20
Subjective social class			0.05	0.03			?0.10^**	0.03					0.31^***	0.08	14.94	0.73
Economic income			0.02	0.04			?0.01	0.04					0.16	0.09	3.61	1.18
Social profession			0.10^**	0.04			?0.01	0.04					0.19^*	0.09	4.63	1.21
Education level			0.06^*	0.03			?0.12^***	0.03					0.24^**	0.08	8.78	1.27
Promotion focus													0.39^***	0.09	19.94	1.48
Prevention focus													?0.65^***	0.09	50.89	0.52
R²	0.17		0.20		0.06		0.10		0.04				0.26
ΔR²	0.17		0.03		0.06		0.04		0.04				0.22

Figure 3. Study 3 donation context.

Figure 3. Study 3 donation context.

Table 3 Study 3 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Self-demand preferences				Donation amount
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Gender	0.08	0.05	0.08	0.05	?0.08	0.05	?0.08	0.05	?0.06	0.05
Age	0.01	0.05	?0.02	0.05	?0.03	0.05	?0.03	0.05	?0.02	0.05
Empathy	0.12^*	0.05	0.13^**	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.15^**	0.05
Prosocial preference	?0.01	0.05	?0.01	0.05	0.12^*	0.05	0.13^**	0.05	0.11^*	0.05
Estimated total extrication	0.04	0.05	0.03	0.05	?0.04	0.05	?0.07	0.05	?0.03	0.05
Subjective social class			0.16^**	0.05			0.02	0.05	?0.01	0.05
Economic income			0.05	0.06			0.05	0.06	0.07	0.06
Social profession			?0.05	0.06			?0.08	0.06	?0.11	0.06
Education level			0.07	0.05			0.02	0.05	0.05	0.05
Donation type			0.01	0.05			?0.15^**	0.05	?0.15^**	0.05
Self-demand preferences							?0.05	0.05	?0.06	0.05
Donation type × Subjective social class									0.22^**	0.05
Donation type × Economic income									0.13	0.05
Donation type × Education level									?0.02	0.06
Donation type × Education level									?0.01	0.05
Donation type × Self-demand preferences									0.03	0.05
R²	0.02		0.06		0.05		0.08		0.16
ΔR²	0.02		0.04		0.05		0.03		0.08

Table 3 Study 3 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Self-demand preferences				Donation amount
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Gender	0.08	0.05	0.08	0.05	?0.08	0.05	?0.08	0.05	?0.06	0.05
Age	0.01	0.05	?0.02	0.05	?0.03	0.05	?0.03	0.05	?0.02	0.05
Empathy	0.12^*	0.05	0.13^**	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.14^**	0.05	0.15^**	0.05
Prosocial preference	?0.01	0.05	?0.01	0.05	0.12^*	0.05	0.13^**	0.05	0.11^*	0.05
Estimated total extrication	0.04	0.05	0.03	0.05	?0.04	0.05	?0.07	0.05	?0.03	0.05
Subjective social class			0.16^**	0.05			0.02	0.05	?0.01	0.05
Economic income			0.05	0.06			0.05	0.06	0.07	0.06
Social profession			?0.05	0.06			?0.08	0.06	?0.11	0.06
Education level			0.07	0.05			0.02	0.05	0.05	0.05
Donation type			0.01	0.05			?0.15^**	0.05	?0.15^**	0.05
Self-demand preferences							?0.05	0.05	?0.06	0.05
Donation type × Subjective social class									0.22^**	0.05
Donation type × Economic income									0.13	0.05
Donation type × Education level									?0.02	0.06
Donation type × Education level									?0.01	0.05
Donation type × Self-demand preferences									0.03	0.05
R²	0.02		0.06		0.05		0.08		0.16
ΔR²	0.02		0.04		0.05		0.03		0.08

Figure 4. Study 4 donation context.

Figure 4. Study 4 donation context.

Figure 5. Donation program selection percentages of high (+1 SD) and low (?1 SD) social class in Study 4.

Figure 5. Donation program selection percentages of high (+1 SD) and low (?1 SD) social class in Study 4.

Table 4 Study 4 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Donation preference
	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.03	0.07	0.19	1.03	0.03	0.07	0.16	1.03	0.07	0.07	0.94	1.07
Age	?0.03	0.07	0.13	0.98	?0.03	0.07	0.23	0.97	?0.04	0.07	0.27	0.96
Empathy	0.12	0.07	2.98	1.13	0.13	0.07	3.18	1.14	0.12	0.07	2.88	1.13
Prosocial preference	0.24^**	0.07	11.28	1.27	0.24^**	0.07	11.20	1.27	0.24^**	0.07	10.85	1.28
Donation context	0.05	0.07	0.47	1.05	0.05	0.07	0.47	1.05	0.05	0.07	0.50	1.05
Subjective social class					0.05	0.07	0.53	0.95	0.02	0.08	0.05	1.02
Regulatory focus representation					?0.05	0.07	0.56	0.95	?0.06	0.07	0.66	0.94
Subjective social class × Regulatory focus representation									0.49^***	0.08	42.19	1.63
R²	0.03				0.03				0.10
ΔR²	0.03				0.01				0.07

Table 4 Study 4 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Donation preference
	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.03	0.07	0.19	1.03	0.03	0.07	0.16	1.03	0.07	0.07	0.94	1.07
Age	?0.03	0.07	0.13	0.98	?0.03	0.07	0.23	0.97	?0.04	0.07	0.27	0.96
Empathy	0.12	0.07	2.98	1.13	0.13	0.07	3.18	1.14	0.12	0.07	2.88	1.13
Prosocial preference	0.24^**	0.07	11.28	1.27	0.24^**	0.07	11.20	1.27	0.24^**	0.07	10.85	1.28
Donation context	0.05	0.07	0.47	1.05	0.05	0.07	0.47	1.05	0.05	0.07	0.50	1.05
Subjective social class					0.05	0.07	0.53	0.95	0.02	0.08	0.05	1.02
Regulatory focus representation					?0.05	0.07	0.56	0.95	?0.06	0.07	0.66	0.94
Subjective social class × Regulatory focus representation									0.49^***	0.08	42.19	1.63
R²	0.03				0.03				0.10
ΔR²	0.03				0.01				0.07

Figure 6. Study 5 donation context.

Figure 6. Study 5 donation context.

Figure 7. Donation program selection percentages of high (+1 SD) and low (-1 SD) social class in Study 5.

Figure 7. Donation program selection percentages of high (+1 SD) and low (-1 SD) social class in Study 5.

Table 5 Study 5 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Donation preference
	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3				Model 4
	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.08	0.05	2.33	1.08	0.08	0.05	2.31	1.08	0.07	0.05	1.77	1.07	0.07	0.05	1.81	1.07
Age	0.03	0.05	0.26	1.03	0.01	0.05	0.06	1.01	0.01	0.05	0.03	1.01	0.01	0.05	0.03	1.01
Empathy	0.04	0.05	0.62	1.04	0.04	0.05	0.73	1.04	0.05	0.05	0.88	1.05	0.04	0.05	0.70	1.04
Prosocial preference	0.21^**	0.05	17.72	1.23	0.21^**	0.05	17.47	1.23	0.22^**	0.05	17.15	1.24	0.21^**	0.05	16.56	1.24
Donation context	0.02	0.05	0.23	1.02	0.02	0.05	0.23	1.02	0.03	0.05	0.25	1.03	0.03	0.05	0.25	1.03
Subjective social class					0.08	0.05	2.72	1.08	0.07	0.06	1.58	1.07	0.07	0.06	1.60	1.07
Regulatory focus representation					0.03	0.05	0.45	1.03	0.03	0.05	0.45	1.03	0.04	0.05	0.49	1.04
Intertemporal orientation representation					?0.02	0.05	0.14	0.98	?0.04	0.05	0.65	0.96	?0.04	0.05	0.58	0.96
Subjective social class × Regulatory focus representation									0.57^***	0.05	112.29	1.77	0.58^***	0.05	114.00	1.79
Subjective social class × Intertemporal orientation representation									0.08	0.05	2.31	1.09	0.08	0.06	2.25	1.09
Subjective social class × Regulatory focus representation × Intertemporal orientation representation													0.10	0.06	3.62	1.11
R²	0.02				0.02				0.11				0.12
ΔR²	0.02				0.01				0.09				0.01

Table 5 Study 5 Regression analysis of each variable

Variables	Donation preference
	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3				Model 4
	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR	B	SE	Wald	OR
Gender	0.08	0.05	2.33	1.08	0.08	0.05	2.31	1.08	0.07	0.05	1.77	1.07	0.07	0.05	1.81	1.07
Age	0.03	0.05	0.26	1.03	0.01	0.05	0.06	1.01	0.01	0.05	0.03	1.01	0.01	0.05	0.03	1.01
Empathy	0.04	0.05	0.62	1.04	0.04	0.05	0.73	1.04	0.05	0.05	0.88	1.05	0.04	0.05	0.70	1.04
Prosocial preference	0.21^**	0.05	17.72	1.23	0.21^**	0.05	17.47	1.23	0.22^**	0.05	17.15	1.24	0.21^**	0.05	16.56	1.24
Donation context	0.02	0.05	0.23	1.02	0.02	0.05	0.23	1.02	0.03	0.05	0.25	1.03	0.03	0.05	0.25	1.03
Subjective social class					0.08	0.05	2.72	1.08	0.07	0.06	1.58	1.07	0.07	0.06	1.60	1.07
Regulatory focus representation					0.03	0.05	0.45	1.03	0.03	0.05	0.45	1.03	0.04	0.05	0.49	1.04
Intertemporal orientation representation					?0.02	0.05	0.14	0.98	?0.04	0.05	0.65	0.96	?0.04	0.05	0.58	0.96
Subjective social class × Regulatory focus representation									0.57^***	0.05	112.29	1.77	0.58^***	0.05	114.00	1.79
Subjective social class × Intertemporal orientation representation									0.08	0.05	2.31	1.09	0.08	0.06	2.25	1.09
Subjective social class × Regulatory focus representation × Intertemporal orientation representation													0.10	0.06	3.62	1.11
R²	0.02				0.02				0.11				0.12
ΔR²	0.02				0.01				0.09				0.01

References

Related Articles 15

[1]	CHEN Sijing, YANG Shasha, WANG Hao, WAN Fenghua. Subjective social class positively predicts altruistic punishment [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(12): 1548-1561.
[2]	BAI Jie, YANG Shenlong, XU Buxiao, GUO Yongyu. How can successful people share their goodness with the world: The psychological mechanism underlying the upper social classes’ redistributive preferences and the role of humility [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(10): 1161-1172.
[3]	WEI Qingwang, LI Muzi, CHEN Xiaochen. Social class and social perception: Is warmth or competence more important? [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(2): 243-252.
[4]	YANG Linchuan, MA Hongyu, JIANG Hai, LIANG Juan, QI Ling. When do procedural justice and outcome justice interact to influence legitimacy of authorities? The moderating effect of social class [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 980-994.
[5]	HUANG Minxue; WANG Yiting; LIAO Junyun; LIU Maohong. Mixed effects of inconsistent reviews on consumers: The moderating roles of product attributes and regulatory focus [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 370-382.
[6]	. The effects of power on human behavior: The perspective of regulatory focus [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 404-415.
[7]	GENG Xiaowei, JIANG Hongyi. Influence of regulatory focus and regulatory fit on impact biases in affective forecast [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1537-1547.
[8]	HU Xiaoyong, GUO Yongyu, LI Jing, YANG Shenlong. Perceived societal fairness and goal attainment: The differnet effects of social class and their mechanism [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(3): 271-289.
[9]	YANG Shenlong, GUO Yongyu, HU Xiaoyong, SHU Shouli, LI Jing. Do lower class individuals possess higher levels of system justification? An examination from the social cognitive perspectives [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(11): 1467-1478.
[10]	DU Xiaomeng; ZHAO Zhanbo; CUI Xiao. The Effect of Review Valence, New Product Types and Regulatory Focus on New Product Online Review Usefulness [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 555-568.
[11]	WANG Tao;XIE Zhipeng;CUI Nan. Have A Good Chat with the Brand: The Impact of Personified Brand Communication on Consumer Brand Attitude [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(7): 987-999.
[12]	TIAN Yang;WANG Haizhong;LIU Wumei;HE Liu;HUANG Yunhui. Can Brand Commitment Resist Negative Publicity? —— the Moderate Effect of Regulatory Focus [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(6): 864-875.
[13]	WANG Ling,LIN Hui-Yun,PANG Xiao-Ming. The Coincidence between the Regulatory Fit Effects Based on Chronic Regulatory Focus and Situational Regulatory Focus [J]. , 2011, 43(05): 553-560.
[14]	YAO Qi,MA Hua-Wei,YUE Guo-An. Success Expectations and Performance: Regulatory Focus as a Moderator [J]. , 2010, 42(06): 704-714.
[15]	ZHU Hua-Wei,TU Rung-Ting,Lin Cheryl C.J.,Tu Pikuei. Prefactual Thinking, Regulatory Focus and Unplanned Purchase [J]. , 2009, 41(07): 649-658.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Comments

Abstract
Figures/Tables
References
Related Articles
Recommended Articles
Metrics
Comments

TOP