“More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413

Abstract

Abstract:

Payment mechanism is usually an essential element of the donation information. Based on metacognitive inference theory, the current research explores how and why the number of payment mechanisms (multiple vs. single) influences individual donation. Using six studies and a single-paper meta-analysis, we show that compared to single payment mechanism, multiple payment mechanism can impair the amount and willingness of individual donation, with the sequential mediation of perceived commercialization and moral skepticism. This is because individuals hold a “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief due to the prevailing co-occurance of multiple payment mechanism and commercialization activities. When individuals notice the information of payment mechanism, they draw on an underlying lay belief that multiple payment mechanism implies commercialization to make metacognitive inference that the donatee has commercialized characteristics, which further leads to greater moral skepticism and less donations. In addition, the diagnosticity of the lay belief plays a moderating role. Specifically, low diagnosticity of the “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief could attenuate the metacognitive inference process of perceived commercialization, thus weakening the negative effect of multiple (vs. single) payment mechanism on individual donation.

Key words: individual donation, number of payment mechanism, metacognitive inference, perceived commercialization, diagnosticity

RAN Yaxuan, NIU Yixin, CHEN Siyun. (2021). “More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(4), 413-430.

Figures/Tables 14

References 56

[1]	Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270-301. doi: 10.1177/1094428112470848 URL
[2]	Alhidari, I. S., Veludo-de-oliveira, T., Yousafzai, S., & Yani-de-soriano, M. (2018). Modeling the effect of multidimensional trust on individual monetary donations to charitable organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 623-644. doi: 10.1177/0899764017753559 URL
[3]	Briñol, P., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2015). Naïve theories about persuasion: Implications for information processing and consumer attitude change. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 85-106.
[4]	Brown, M. (2018). The moralization of commercialization: Uncovering the history of fee-charging in the U.S. nonprofit human services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 960-983.
[5]	Ceravolo, M. G., Fabri, M., Fattobene, L., Polonara, G., & Raggetti, G. (2019). Cash, card or smartphone: The neural correlates of payment methods. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1188.
[6]	Chatterjee, P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). Do payment mechanisms change the way consumers perceive products? Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1129-1139.
[7]	Chen, S. Y., Wei, H. Y., & Meng, L. (2019). The impact of congruency between moral appeal and social perception on charitable donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(12), 1351-1362.
[8]	Cheng, Y., Mukhopadhyay, A., & Williams, P. (2020). Smiling signals intrinsic motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(5), 915-935.
[9]	Chu, W., & Huang, W. (2017). Cultural difference and visual information on hotel rating prediction. World Wide Web, 20(4), 595-619.
[10]	de Kerviler, G., Demoulin, N. T. M., & Zidda, P. (2016). Adoption of in-store mobile payment: Are perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 334-344.
[11]	Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How lay theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1185-1201.
[12]	Falk, T., Kunz, W. H., Schepers, J. J. L., & Mrozek, A. J. (2016). How mobile payment influences the overall store price image. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2417-2423.
[13]	Fan, Y. F., Jiang, J., & Cui, W. Q. (2019). The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 415-427.
[14]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL pmid: 19897823
[15]	Feinberg, R. A. (1986). Credit cards as spending facilitating stimuli: A conditioning interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 348-356.
[16]	Galperin, R. V., Hahl, O., Sterling, A. D., & Guo, J. (2020). Too good to hire? Capability and inferences about commitment in labor markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2), 275-313.
[17]	Goebel, R. A., & Stewart, C. G. (1971). Effects of studyer bias and induced subject expectancy on hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(2), 263-272.
[18]	Goenka, S., & van, Osselaer, S. M., J. (2019). Charities can increase the effectiveness of donation appeals by using a morally congruent positive emotion. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 774-790.
[19]	Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How does moral judgment work. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517-523. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02011-9 URL pmid: 12475712
[20]	Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit: Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123-138.
[21]	Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.
[22]	Hashimoto, T., Hayashi, Y., & Seta, K. (2019). Metacognitive inference activity support by visualizing eye-movement graph during critical reading. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 1995-2004.
[23]	Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454-462.
[24]	Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 133-168.
[25]	Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340-1343. doi: 10.1126/science.1251560 URL pmid: 25214626
[26]	Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Studyal Psychology: General, 133(1), 23-30.
[27]	Hung, C. K. (2020). Commercialization and nonprofit donations: A meta-analytic assessment and extension. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(2), 287-309. doi: 10.1002/nml.v31.2 URL
[28]	Kamleitner, B., & Erki, B. (2013). Payment method and perceptions of ownership. Marketing Letters, 24(1), 57-69. doi: 10.1007/s11002-012-9203-4 URL
[29]	Kyung, E. J., Thomas, M., & Krishna, A. (2017). When bigger is better (and when it is not): Implicit bias in numeric judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 62-79.
[30]	Lee, S., Bolton, L. E., & Winterich, K. P. (2017). To profit or not to profit? The role of greed perceptions in consumer support for social ventures.[J] ournal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 853-876.
[31]	Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross Jr, W. T. (2014). I’m moral, but I won’t help you: The distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678-696.
[32]	Leyman, P., van Driessche, N., Vanhoucke, M., & de Causmaecker, P. (2019). The impact of solution representations on heuristic net present value optimization in discrete time/cost trade-off project scheduling with multiple cash flow and payment models. Computers and Operations Research, 103, 184-197. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.011 URL
[33]	Lin, C., Ma, N., Wang, X., & Chen, J. (2020). Rapido: Scaling blockchain with multi-path payment mechanism. Neurocomputing, 406, 322-332.
[34]	Lönnqvist, J. E., Rilke, R. M., & Walkowitz, G. (2015). On why hypocrisy thrives: Reasonable doubt created by moral posturing can deter punishment. Journal of Studyal Social Psychology, 59, 139-145.
[35]	Mai, R., Hoffmann, S., Lasarov, W., & Buhs, A. (2019). Ethical products = less strong: How explicit and implicit reliance on the lay theory affects consumption behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 659-677.
[36]	McShane, B. B., & Böckenholt, U (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048-1063.
[37]	Menon, G., Raghubir, P., & Schwarz, N. (1995). Behavioral frequency judgments: An accessibility-diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 212-228.
[38]	Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192-203. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192 URL
[39]	Mukhopadhyay, A., & Johar, G. V. (2005). Where there is a will, is there a way? Effects of lay theories of self-control on setting and keeping resolutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 779-786.
[40]	Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/brm.40.3.879 URL pmid: 18697684
[41]	Prelec, D., & Simester, D. (2001). Always leave home without it: A further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 12 (1), 5-12.
[42]	Ran, Y. X., Liu, J. N., Zhang, Y. S., & Wei, H. Y. (2020). The magic of one person: The effect of the number of endorsers on brand attitude. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3), 371-385.
[43]	Ran, Y. X., Wei, H. Y., Maglio, S. J., Huang, M., & Li, Q. (2017). How and when the size of apology representative affects consumer forgiveness. Nankai Business Review, 20(4), 38-48.
[44]	Savary, J., Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. (2015). Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 27-38.
[45]	Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-48.
[46]	Shang, J., Reed, A., Sargeant, A., & Carpenter, K. (2020). Marketplace donations: The role of moral identity discrepancy and gender. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(2), 375-393.
[47]	Sharma, I., Jain, K., & Behl, A. (2020). Effect of service transgressions on distant third-party customers: The role of moral identity and moral judgment. Journal of Business Research, 121, 696-712. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.005
[48]	Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2006). Moral Skepticisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[49]	Smith, R. W., & Schwarz, N. (2012). When promoting a charity can hurt charitable giving: A metacognitive analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 558-564.
[50]	Soetevent, A. R. (2011). Payment choice, image motivation and contributions to charity: Evidence from a field study. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(1), 180-205.
[51]	Thomas, M., Desai, K. K., & Seenivasan, S. (2011). How credit card payments increase unhealthy food purchases: Visceral regulation of vices. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 126-139. doi: 10.1086/657331 URL
[52]	Wan, E. W., Chen, R. P., & Jin, L. (2017). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1008-1030.
[53]	Winterich, K. P., 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
[54]	Wu, E. C., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2019). Wine for the table: Self-construal, group size, and choice for self and others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 508-527. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy082 URL
[55]	Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., de Moura, G. R., & Hopthrow, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 353-363. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.781 URL
[56]	Zane, D. M., Smith, R. W., & Reczek, R. W. (2020). The meaning of distraction: How metacognitive inferences from distraction during multitasking affect brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(5), 974-994. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz035 URL

Condition	“most likely come from which website? ”		“least likely come from which website? ”		the image of the vender using multiple (vs. single) payment mechanism. ”	degree of perceived commercialization
Condition	Commercial website	Non-commercial website	Commercial website	Non-commercial website		degree of perceived commercialization
Multiple payment mechanism	64.29%	35.71%	32.14%	67.86%	3.43 (1.43)	5.61 (0.92)
Single payment mechanism	34.62%	65.38%	69.23%	30.77%	-1.85 (3.03)	3.00 (1.94)

Condition	“most likely come from which website? ”		“least likely come from which website? ”		the image of the vender using multiple (vs. single) payment mechanism. ”	degree of perceived commercialization
Condition	Commercial website	Non-commercial website	Commercial website	Non-commercial website		degree of perceived commercialization
Multiple payment mechanism	64.29%	35.71%	32.14%	67.86%	3.43 (1.43)	5.61 (0.92)
Single payment mechanism	34.62%	65.38%	69.23%	30.77%	-1.85 (3.03)	3.00 (1.94)

Study	Study material	Condition	Manipulation method	Mean	SD	Sample size	Donation measurement
Study 1A	Mutual aid activity for university students	Single payment mechanism	1 Bank Card	41.27	37.83	103	Donation proportion
Study 1A	Mutual aid activity for university students	Multiple payment mechanism	Two, three, four bank cards	29.09	34.30	239	Donation proportion
Study 1B	Charity——helping the blind girl	Control	No payment information	5.36	1.14	58	Willingness to donate
		Single payment mechanism	Wing Pay, Alipay, Bank of China	5.50	1.68	185
		3 payment mechanisms	3 payments	4.91	1.20	52
Study 2	Baby Reback Home public welfare project	Single payment mechanism	1 Bank Card	29.39	33.09	153	Donation proportion
Study 2	Baby Reback Home public welfare project	4 payment mechanisms	Four Bank cards	16.81	22.72	145	Donation proportion
Study 3	Give 2-yuan and help soldier Wang Weihua!	Control	No payment information	5.14	1.01	47	Imagine the amount of the donation, the willingness to donate
		Single payment mechanism	Unionpay	5.10	1.32	51
		5 payment mechanisms	Unionpay, Alipay, Caifutong, Baidu Wallet, Fastpay	4.47	1.18	42
Field Study 4	Green Rose Women Workers Organization’s fundraiser	Single Mechanism of Payment	Wechat pay	4.95	4.32	41	Real pay behavior and real donation
Field Study 4	Green Rose Women Workers Organization’s fundraiser	4 payment mechanism	Wechat pay, Alipay, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China	3.37	3.54	50	Real pay behavior and real donation
Study 5	Helping girls in mountain who need a ticket to school	Single Mechanism of Payment	Unionpay	6.14	0.75	56	Willingness to donate
Study 5	Helping girls in mountain who need a ticket to school	4 payment mechanism	Unionpay, Alipay, Apple Pay, QQ wallet	5.49	1.40	55	Willingness to donate

Study	Study material	Condition	Manipulation method	Mean	SD	Sample size	Donation measurement
Study 1A	Mutual aid activity for university students	Single payment mechanism	1 Bank Card	41.27	37.83	103	Donation proportion
Study 1A	Mutual aid activity for university students	Multiple payment mechanism	Two, three, four bank cards	29.09	34.30	239	Donation proportion
Study 1B	Charity——helping the blind girl	Control	No payment information	5.36	1.14	58	Willingness to donate
		Single payment mechanism	Wing Pay, Alipay, Bank of China	5.50	1.68	185
		3 payment mechanisms	3 payments	4.91	1.20	52
Study 2	Baby Reback Home public welfare project	Single payment mechanism	1 Bank Card	29.39	33.09	153	Donation proportion
Study 2	Baby Reback Home public welfare project	4 payment mechanisms	Four Bank cards	16.81	22.72	145	Donation proportion
Study 3	Give 2-yuan and help soldier Wang Weihua!	Control	No payment information	5.14	1.01	47	Imagine the amount of the donation, the willingness to donate
		Single payment mechanism	Unionpay	5.10	1.32	51
		5 payment mechanisms	Unionpay, Alipay, Caifutong, Baidu Wallet, Fastpay	4.47	1.18	42
Field Study 4	Green Rose Women Workers Organization’s fundraiser	Single Mechanism of Payment	Wechat pay	4.95	4.32	41	Real pay behavior and real donation
Field Study 4	Green Rose Women Workers Organization’s fundraiser	4 payment mechanism	Wechat pay, Alipay, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China	3.37	3.54	50	Real pay behavior and real donation
Study 5	Helping girls in mountain who need a ticket to school	Single Mechanism of Payment	Unionpay	6.14	0.75	56	Willingness to donate
Study 5	Helping girls in mountain who need a ticket to school	4 payment mechanism	Unionpay, Alipay, Apple Pay, QQ wallet	5.49	1.40	55	Willingness to donate