关键词: 个体捐赠, 支付渠道数量, 元认知推断, 感知商业化, 可诊断性

Abstract:

Almost all transactions require the information of payment--payment mechanism. It is increasingly common nowadays that venders prone to harness multiple payment mechanism to provide potential convenience for their consumers, including under donation scenarios. Inevitably, the morality people valued in donation scenarios are different from other transactions. A growing of recent studies have investigated the donation payment, while surprisingly very few studies have examined whether a donation activity should be accompanied with either one payment mechanism or multiple payment mechanism. In the current study, we extend the extent literature by examining how potential donators respond to donation with either one payment mechanism or multiple payment mechanisms.
People subjectively associate things that often come together. In our daily lives, multiple payment mechanism is applied in commercial scenarios so frequently that people may elicit a conclusion that is “multiple payment mechanisms = commercialization.” In this research, we propose that when consumers encounter multiple payment mechanisms (versus one payment mechanism) with the information of seeking help, they would feel incongruence and then make metacognitive inferences about their evaluations toward the target based on the “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief. Specifically, we propose that compared to one payment mechanism, multiple payment mechanism leads people less likely to donate via the following metacognition inference process: consumers (1) notice the multiple payment mechanism, (2) infer that the information of donation must contain commercial components, based on the “multiple payment mechanisms = commercialization” lay belief, to explain their inner feelings, and (3) because the perception of commercialization is contrary to the positive moral expectations (e.g., loyalty, sanctity), consumers may be skeptical to the morality of the target which in turn attenuates their donation. Further, we suggest that the main effect of the number of payment mechanism on individual donation should be contingent on the diagnosticity of the lay belief. When the “multiple payment mechanisms = commercialization” is low diagnositic, the negative effect of multiple (vs. one) payment mechanism on donation should be suppressed.
One pilot study and six experimental studies were conducted to examine our hypotheses. Pilot study used supraliminal tasks to examine the existence of the “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief. Study 1a ( N = 342) was a 4 (number of payment mechanism: one vs. two vs. three vs. four) between-subjects design, excluding the impact of different number of payment mechanisms. Study 1b (N = 295) was a 5 (number of payment mechanism: control vs. one [Bestpay] vs. one [Bank of China] vs. one [Alipay] vs. three) with the purpose of excluding the impact of different types of payment mechanisms and initially validating the mediating role of perceived commercialization. Study 2 (N = 298) further confirmed the robustness of the main effect for different receiving targets with a 2 (number of payment mechanism: one vs. four) × 2 (target: person vs. organization) between-subjects design. Study 3 ( N = 140) examined the serial mediating effect of perceived commercialization and moral suspicion. Studies 4 (N = 173) and 5 (N = 224) identified the moderating effect of the diagnosticity of “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief by using different manipulations of diagnosticity. Specifically, Study 4 was a field study in which we measured people’s real donation behavior. To document a robust effect, we varied the context of donation and payment methods across all studies.
Our investigation suggests that relative to one payment mechanism, multiple payment mechanism may dampen individual donate. This effect would be attenuated when the “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief is not used (i.e., low diagnosticity). These findings offer novel insights on literature regarding donation, payment, number effect, and metacognition inference, while practically suggesting that sponsor of donation activities must carefully consider the number of payment mechanism.

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