Advances in Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (3): 557-570.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2026.0557
• Regular Articles • Previous Articles
LIAO Sihua, LYU Xiaokang
Received:2025-06-09
Online:2026-03-15
Published:2026-01-07
LIAO Sihua, LYU Xiaokang. Keep it simple and concrete: A construal level perspective on public preferences for solicitation messages[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2026, 34(3): 557-570.
| [1] 阿平萤光计划. [小红书号: 0000_emo]. (2025, 4月17日). 你消费我买单. #环卫工人 #劳动人民最光荣 #人间烟火 [视频]. 小红书. https://www.xiaohongshu.com/ discovery/item/680100650000000009017c8d?app_platform=android&ignoreEngage=true&app_version=9.2.0&share_from_user_hidden=true&xsec_source= app_share&type=video&xsec_token=CBYBxwUXPXYjAIKDh4lgYFFVO4RuouXdGhbT6rBOrEHUM%3D&author_share=1&share_id=d805c6709c1f433f99f4cce4b5 ee9f8f#pushState [2] 段珅, 刘凤军, 李园园, 孟陆.(2023). 捐助者还是受助者? 不同慈善捐赠主角与慈善捐赠类型匹配作用对捐赠行为的影响. 管理评论, 35(1), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2023.01.012 [3] 金晶. (2024). 从现实交流到虚拟呈现——“自我呈现”理论综述. 新闻传播科学, 12(5), 1263-1275. https://doi.org/10.12677/jc.2024.125192 [4] 李艾丽莎, 张庆林. (2006). 决策的选择偏好研究述评.心理科学进展, 14(4), 618-624. [5] 李雁晨, 周庭锐, 周琇. (2009). 解释水平理论:从时间距离到心理距离.心理科学进展, 17(4), 667-677. [6] 柳武妹, 王璐. (2024). 流浪动物慈善救助中的“远狗近猫”效应及其机制探析. 心理学报, 56(6), 777-805. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00777 [7] 刘新燕, 张惠天, 王璐. (2023). “悲”天悯人, 还是“乐”善好施: 受助者困境态度效价与心理距离对捐赠意愿的交互影响.南开管理评论, 26(2), 48-60. [8] 路西, Hsee C.K.(2018). 联合评估和单独评估: 富有潜力的助推手段. 心理学报, 502018.00827 [9] 冉雅璇, 牛熠欣, 陈斯允.(2021). “多”反而少: 元认知推断视角下支付渠道数量对个体捐赠的影响. 心理学报, 53(4), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413 [10] 宋文静, 陈怡煖, 黄韫慧.(2023). 募捐信息该强调恢复还是改善受事件可控性调节. 心理学报, 55(7), 1133-1151. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01133 [11] 石荣, 刘昌, 唐慧琳, 郝俊懿, 沈汪兵.(2024). 自发的善行: 加工模式和情境紧急性影响亲社会行为. 心理学报, 56(9), 1239-1251. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01239 [12] 孙庆洲, 黄靖茹, 虞晓芬, 高倾德.(2023). 授人以鱼还是授人以渔?高、低社会阶层的捐助行为差异. 心理学报, 55(10), 1677-1699. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01677 [13] 谢晨岚, 叶一舵, 张志聪. (2020). 时间距离与解释水平对捐赠参与意愿及可能性的影响.心理研究, 13(2), 162-167. [14] 张雪姣, 刘聪慧.(2017). 亲社会行为中的“眼睛效应”. 心理科学进展, 25(3), 475-485. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.00475 [15] 赵宁, 刘鑫, 李纾, 郑蕊.(2022). 默认选项设置的助推效果: 来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 30(6), 1230- 1241. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01230 [16] 赵远婕, 莫子川, 马京晶.(2024). 互联网“捐赠箱”效应: 增加“捐赠箱”对个体互联网捐赠意愿的影响. 心理学报, 56(9), 1190-1209. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01190 [17] 郑晓莹, 韩润蕾, 刘汝晗, 徐菁.(2024). 信息加工流畅性与真实性对互联网公益捐助的影响. 心理学报, 56(2), 226-238. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00226 [18] Abraham D., Powers J. P., & McRae K. (2023). Emotional appraisal, psychological distance and construal level: Implications for cognitive reappraisal. Emotion Review, 15(4), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739231196577 [19] Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564 [20] Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133 [21] Brown A. L., Meer J.,& Williams, J. F.(2019). Why do people volunteer? An experimental analysis of preferences for time donations. Management Science, 652017.2951 [22] Butts M. M., Lunt D. C., Freling T. L.,& Gabriel, A. S.(2019). Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 16-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.006 [23] Chapman C. M., Masser B. M., & Louis W. R. (2020). Identity motives in charitable giving: Explanations for charity preferences from a global donor survey. Psychology & Marketing, 37(9), 1277-1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21362 [24] Chapman C. M., Spence J. L., Hornsey M. J., & Dixon L. (2025). Social identification and charitable giving: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640251317403 [25] Choi S. Y., Park H. S., & Oh J. Y. (2012). Temporal distance and blood donation intention. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(4), 590-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311421048 [26] Costello, J. P., & Malkoc, S. A. (2022). Why are donors more generous with time than money? The role of perceived control over donations on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(4), 678-696. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac011 [27] Cryder C. E., Loewenstein G.,& Scheines, R.(2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1202012.08.002 [28] Ein‐Gar D., Levontin L., & Kogut T. (2021). The adverse effect of choice in donation decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 570-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1230 [29] Erlandsson A., Dickert S., Moche H., Västfjäll D.,& Chapman, C.(2024). Beneficiary effects in prosocial decision making: Understanding unequal valuations of lives. European Review of Social Psychology, 352023.2272238 [30] Ho C. M.-S., Chin, S.-C.(Daniel), & Wang, T. R.2025.115317 [31] Hoover J., Johnson K., Boghrati R., Graham J., & Dehghani M. (2018). Moral framing and charitable donation: Integrating exploratory social media analyses and confirmatory experimentation. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.129 [32] Hsee C. K., Loewenstein G. F., Blount S., & Bazerman M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576-590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576 [33] Johnson S. G.B., & Park, S. Y.(2021). Moral signaling through donations of money and time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.05.004 [34] Kassirer, S., & Touré-Tillery, R. (2025). Giving time or money: Which altruism feels more effective? Marketing Letters. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-025-09782-6 [35] Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “Identified Victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157-167. [36] Kogut T., Ritov I., Rubaltelli E., & Liberman N. (2018). How far is the suffering? The role of psychological distance and victims' identifiability in donation decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(5), 458-466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008731 [37] Kronrod A.,& Huber, J.(2019). Ad wearout wearout: How time can reverse the negative effect of frequent advertising repetition on brand preference. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 362018.11.008 [38] Law K. F., Campbell D., & Gaesser B. (2022). Biased benevolence: The perceived morality of effective altruism across social distance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(3), 426-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211002773 [39] Lee A. Y., Keller P. A., & Sternthal B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1086/605591 [40] Lee S.,& Feeley, T. H.(2016). The identifiable victim effect: A meta-analytic review. Social Influence, 112016.1216891 [41] Lee, S., & Feeley, T. H. (2018). The identifiable victim effect: Using an experimental-causal-chain design to test for mediation. Current Psychology, 37(4), 875-885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9570-3 [42] Liberman N., Trope Y.,McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J.(2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 432005.12.009 [43] Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112 [44] Lucke, S., & Koenigstorfer, J. (2018). Construal-level perspective on consumers' donation preferences in relation to the environment and health. Marketing: ZFP - Journal of Research and Management, 40(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.15358/0344-1369-2018-1-21 [45] Macdonnell, R., & White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 551-563. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv042 [46] Maier M., Wong Y. C., & Feldman G. (2024). Revisiting and rethinking the identifiable victim effect: Replication and extension of Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic (2007). Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), Article 90203. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.90203 [47] Markowitz E. M., Slovic P., Västfjäll D., & Hodges S. D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 397- 406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000526X [48] Mrkva, K., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Salience theory of mere exposure: Relative exposure increases liking, extremity, and emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1118-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000184 [49] Sakakibara J., Kyriazis E., & Algie J. (2019). Poisoning the well: A donation request fatigue behaviour model. Third Sector Review, 25(2), 115-146. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.929362411796166 [50] Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000061 [51] Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219 [52] 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, 1022006.01.005 [53] Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(6), 860-876. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000089 [54] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 [55] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 [56] Västfjäll D., Slovic P., Mayorga M., & Peters E. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLOS ONE, 9(6), e100115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115 [57] Wang Y., Kirmani A., & Li X. (2021). Not too far to help: Residential mobility, global identity, and donations to distant beneficiaries. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 878-889. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa053 [58] Xiao A., Huang Y., Bortree D. S., & Waters R. D. (2021). Designing social media fundraising messages: An experimental approach to understanding how message concreteness and framing influence donation intentions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(4), 832-856. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211022838 [59] Xu A. J., Rodas M. A.,& Torelli, C. J.(2020). Generosity without borders: The interactive effect of spatial distance and donation goals on charitable giving. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.007 [60] Xue, F., & Zhou, L. (2023). Understanding social influence in Facebook fundraising: Relationship strength, immediacy of needs, and number of donations. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28(4), Article e1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1749 |
| [1] | LI Caiwen, ZANG Fenying, XUAN Yuming, FU Xiaolan. Estimating the time-to-collision with a threatening object [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(10): 1650-1661. |
| [2] | CHEN Lin, TIAN Xiaoming, DUAN Jinyun. The cognitive mechanism of advice taking [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 149-159. |
| [3] | ZHANG Yue, DOU Donghui, XIN Ziqiang. The effect of construal levels on self-control [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(10): 1878-1889. |
| [4] | LI Ming-Hui, RAO Li-Lin. Moral judgment from construal level theory perspective [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(8): 1423-1430. |
| [5] | JIANG Duo, HE Guibing. Decision making: Based on the perspective of psychological distance [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(11): 1992-2001. |
| [6] | WANG Caiyu; LEI Li; WU Bo. The influence of temporal reference on inaction inertia of green innovative consumption [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(1): 1-11. |
| [7] | ZHANG Yue; XIN Ziqiang. Priming research in social psychology: Approaches and challenges [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 844-854. |
| [8] | DENG Ying; XU Fu-Ming; LI Ou; SHI Yan-Wei; LIU Cheng-Hao. The framing effect on social preferences [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(4): 622-632. |
| [9] | ZHANG Hongwei;LI Ye. Moral Behavior under Two Kinds of Moral Self-regulation Mechanisms [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(7): 1178-1187. |
| [10] | LIU Yongfang;WANG Peng;ZHUANG Jinying;ZHONG Jun;SUN Qingzhou;LIU Yi. Self-Other Differences in Decision-Making: Questions, Studies and Reflection [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(4): 580-587. |
| [11] | LIU Cuicui;CHEN Bin;LIU Leixin;YUAN Xianxue;WANG Zuojun. Does Standers-by Always See More Than Gamesters?A Review on the Self-other Decision Making Differences [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(5): 879-885. |
| [12] | YAN Jin;LOU Chunhua. Decision-making under Ethical Temptation: How Construal Level Theory May Help [J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(11): 2047-2056. |
| [13] |
LI Yan-Chen; ZHOU Ting-Rui; ZHOU Xiu.
Theoretical Models of Multisensory Cues Integration……WEN Xiao-Hui, LIU Qiang, SUN Hong-Jin, et al.(666) Construal Level Theory: From Temporal Distance to Psychological Distanc [J]. , 2009, 17(4): 667-677. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||