关键词: 社会阶层, 生存类捐助, 发展类捐助, 调节聚焦, 慈善助推

Abstract:

Who donates more generously between high and low social classes? Existing studies have provided different answers. One potential reason is that prior research fails to distinguish between categories of survival and developmental donation. We conducted five studies to examine the differences in donor behaviour between high and low social classes in terms of preference for survival or developmental categories of donation and the underlying mechanisms involved in this decision.

In Study 1, we manipulated participants’ relative sense of social class by comparing them with the highest or lowest class and measured their preference for survival and developmental donations. Results found that participants with a sense of high social class were more likely to choose developmental donations, whereas those with a sense of low social class were more likely to choose survival donations. In Study 2, we measured the participant’s’ true social class, their tendency to regulatory focus, and their preference between survival and development donations. Results found that those of high social class chose more developmental donations, whereas those of low social class chose more survival donations. Additionally, those of a higher social class had a higher promotion focus and lower prevention focus; thus, they preferred developmental donations, which supports the regulatory focus explanation. In Study 3, we adopted a between-subject design and measured participants’ true social class and their own survival or development demand, as well as their preference for survival or development donations. Results revealed that only the index of subjective social class and not objective social class showed a consistent tendency with Studies 1 and 2. The survival or development demand of high/low social class did not predict the participants’ own survival and development donations, which did not support the demand migration explanation. In Study 4, we set up survival and development items with prevention/promotion focus representation to separate the regulatory focus and demand migration explanations. We observed that subjective social classes’ choice preferences changed with representations of regulatory focus, rather than such individuals consistently choosing survival or developmental items owing to the migration of requirements. In Study 5, we set up different representations (regulatory focus × intertemporal orientation) of survival and developmental items to test whether participants’ preferences changed with representations of regulatory focus motivation or intertemporal orientation. The results showed that when developmental items were characterized as a long-term-promoted focus, high subjective social class individuals preferred developmental donations, whereas low subjective social class individuals preferred survival donations when survival items were characterized as a short-term-preventive focus. When developmental items were characterized as a long-term-preventive focus, low subjective social class individuals preferred developmental donations, whereas high social class individuals preferred survival donations when survival items were characterized as a short-term-promoted focus. These results suggest that subjective social classes’ preference for survival/developmental donation changes with the representation of regulatory focus motivation but is not consistent with the representation of intertemporal orientation; this supports the regulatory focus explanation and rejects the demand migration explanation and intertemporal preference explanation.

These findings provide new insights into donation contradictions, variable mechanisms for donation between high and low social classes, and the precise motivations for providing survival and developmental donations.

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