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

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01190

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究聚焦于当前互联网捐赠转化率普遍较低的问题, 基于心理学理论, 提出了一个能够影响和促进个体互联网捐赠意愿的潜在因素: 增加“捐赠箱” (即, 互联网“捐赠箱”效应)。通过1项模拟真实募捐平台的小程序实验和5项控制实验, 本研究验证了该策略的有效性并揭示了背后机制: 在互联网募捐情境中, 增加(vs. 未增加)“捐赠箱”为个体提供了一个感知难度较低的初始决策(即, 是否“加入捐赠箱”比是否“立即捐赠”的决策难度低), 从而提升了他们的决策意愿(即, 加入捐赠箱意愿更高)。而这一初始决策会增强个体与之相关的一致性动机, 进而提高其后续捐赠意愿。此外, 我们识别了互联网“捐赠箱”效应的边界条件: 该效应在一致性偏好较低(vs. 较高)的个体中将被削弱。本研究丰富和拓展了捐赠行为决策相关的理论研究, 并为公益行业从业者开展互联网公益实践提供了重要的启示与参考。

关键词: 个体捐赠, 互联网捐赠, 决策难度, 一致性动机, 一致性偏好

Abstract: In online charitable giving, low donation conversion rates present a significant challenge. While much of the prior research in this area has concentrated on factors tied to existing fundraising practices, our research proposes and examines a novel factor that could significantly impact donation conversion rates: the addition of a 'donation cart'. Our findings suggest that adding a 'donation cart' can boost donations in online fundraising, which we termed the online 'donation cart' effect. This effect occurs because adding a 'donation cart' makes it easier for people to make initial decisions (i.e., deciding to add to the donation cart) and subsequently ensures consistency in their donation decisions. Furthermore, we propose that the preference for consistency moderates the 'online donation cart' effect, such that this effect is attenuated among those with a lower (vs. higher) preference for consistency.
We conducted six preregistered studies to test our propositions. Study 1 was a mini-program experiment designed to simulate a real online fundraising environment. We developed two simulated donation platforms—one with the addition of a 'donation cart' and one without—to compare their fundraising performances. Subsequently, Studies 2A, 2B, and 3 were three controlled experiments that examined the joint underlying mechanisms of the online 'donation cart' effect: perceived decision difficulty and consistency motive. Specifically, Studies 2A and 2B compared individuals' perceived decision difficulty and their decision intention when deciding whether to 'add to the donation cart' vs. 'donate immediately'. Study 3 evaluated the impact of adding (vs. not adding) a 'donation cart' on individuals' consistency motive and donation intention. Lastly, Studies 4A and 4B both measured and manipulated individuals' preference for consistency, examining the interaction effect between adding (vs. not adding) a 'donation cart' and levels (lower vs. higher) of preference for consistency on individuals' donation intentions.
As predicted, Study 1 demonstrated that adding (vs. not adding) a 'donation cart' significantly boosted donations, thus supporting the online 'donation cart' effect. Studies 2A and 2B further revealed that deciding whether to 'add to the donation cart' (vs. 'donate immediately') was perceived as easier, thereby increasing individuals' decision intention. Study 3 then established that adding (vs. not adding) a 'donation cart' strengthened individuals' motivation for consistency related to their initial decisions, which ultimately increased their donation intention. Lastly, Studies 4A and 4B found that the online 'donation cart' effect was attenuated in individuals with a lower (vs. higher) preference for consistency, confirming the moderating role of the preference for consistency.
This research contributes to the literature on donation behavior, deepening our grasp of online charitable behavior by uncovering previously unexplored determinants. Moreover, it provides practitioners in the charitable sector with important practical insights, setting the stage for more effective strategies in digital philanthropy.

Key words: individual giving, online giving, decision difficulty, consistency motive, preference for consistency

中图分类号:

B849: C91

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.

ZHAO Yuanjie, MO Zichuan, MA Jingjing. (2024). Online 'donation cart' effect: The impact of 'donation cart' on online charitable giving. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(9), 1190-1209.

参考文献

[1] Adena, M., & Huck, S. (2020). Online fundraising, self-image, and the long-term impact of ask avoidance. Management Science, 66(2), 722-743.
[2] Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.
[3] Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139-167.
[4] Arkes, H. R., & Gaissmaier, W. (2012). Psychological research and the prostate-cancer screening controversy. Psychological Science, 23(6), 547-553.
[5] Bain. (2019). China internet charity: Stimulating individual donation enthusiasm. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.bain.cn/pdfs/201905060155228407.pdf
[贝恩. (2019). 中国互联网慈善: 激发个人捐赠热情. 2023- 09-07取自https://www.bain.cn/pdfs/201905060155228407.pdf]
[6] Bator, R. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2006). The nature of consistency motivation: Consistency, aconsistency, and anticonsistency in a dissonance paradigm. Social Influence, 1(3), 208-233.
[7] Berliner, L. S., & Kenworthy, N. J. (2017). Producing a worthy illness: Personal crowdfunding amidst financial crisis. Social Science & Medicine, 187, 233-242.
[8] Broniarczyk, S. M., & Griffin, J. G. (2014). Decision difficulty in the age of consumer empowerment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 608-625.
[9] Chartrand T., Pinckert S., & Burger J. M. (1999). When manipulation backfires: The effects of time delay and requester on the foot‐in‐the‐door technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 211-221.
[10] Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 170-183.
[11] Cho E. K., Khan U., & Dhar R. (2013). Comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges: The role of mental representation in choice difficulty. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 505-516.
[12] Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
[13] Cialdini R. B., Trost M. R., & Newsom J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 318-328.
[14] Cialdini R. B., Wosinska W., Barrett D. W., Butner J., & Gornik-Durose M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1242-1253.
[15] Close, A. G., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2010). Beyond buying: Motivations behind consumers' online shopping cart use. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 986-992.
[16] Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
[17] Dhar, R. (1996). The effect of decision strategy on deciding to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 265-281.
[18] Ein-Gar D., Levontin L., & Kogut T. (2021). The adverse effect of choice in donation decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 570-586.
[19] 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.
[樊亚凤, 蒋晶, 崔稳权. (2019). 网络公益平台默认选项设置对个人捐赠意愿的影响及作用机制. 心理学报, 51(4), 415-427.]
[20] Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
[21] Fisher, R. J., & Ma, Y. (2014). The price of being beautiful: Negative effects of attractiveness on empathy for children in need. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 436-450.
[22] Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195-202.
[23] Gawronski B.,& Strack, F. (2012). Cognitive consistency as a basic principle of social information processing. In B. Gawronski, & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 1-16). The Guilford Press.
[24] Ge Y., Li X., Li F., Chen F., Sun B., & Li W. (2023). Benefit-cost trade-offs-based empathic choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 200, 111875.
[25] Gneezy A., Gneezy U., Nelson L. D., & Brown A. (2010). Shared social responsibility: A field experiment in pay- what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science, 329(5989), 325-327.
[26] Gneezy A., Imas A., Brown A., Nelson L. D., & Norton M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179-187.
[27] Guadagno R. E., Asher T., Demaine L. J., & Cialdini R. B. (2001). When saying yes leads to saying no: Preference for consistency and the reverse foot-in-the-door effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 859-867.
[28] Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings. Social Influence, 5(3), 152-163.
[29] Gul P., Keesmekers N., Elmas P., Köse F. E., Koskun T., Wisman A., & Kupfer T. R. (2022). Disease avoidance motives trade-off against social motives, especially mate- seeking, to predict social distancing: Evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(8), 1281-1293.
[30] Hanselmann, M., & Tanner, C. (2008). Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 51-63.
[31] Hayes A. F.(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
[32] Hsee C. K., Zhang J., Lu Z. Y., & Xu F. (2013). Unit asking: A method to boost donations and beyond. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1801-1808.
[33] Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.
[34] Jussim L., Yen H., & Aiello J. R. (1995). Self-consistency, self-enhancement, and accuracy in reactions to feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(4), 322-356.
[35] Kristofferson K., White K., & Peloza J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149-1166.
[36] Kukar-Kinney, M., & Close, A. G. (2010). The determinants of consumers' online shopping cart abandonment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 240-250.
[37] Kwak D. H. A., Ramamurthy K. R., Nazareth D., & Lee S. (2018). The moderating role of helper's high in anchoring process: An empirical investigation in the context of charity website design. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 230-244.
[38] Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. Island Press.
[39] 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.
[40] Li, W. Y., & Zhou, X. Y. (2020). The effect of Suiyuan on charitable giving through online fundraising platforms. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 26(4), 298-306.
[李婉悦, 周欣悦. (2020). “随缘”对网络公益平台捐赠金额的影响. 应用心理学, 26(4), 298-306.]
[41] Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 409-433.
[42] Lv, L., & Huang, M. (2024). Can personalized recommendations in charity advertising boost donation? The role of perceived autonomy. Journal of Advertising, 53(1), 36-53.
[43] Mullen, E., & Monin, B. (2016). Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 363-385.
[44] Nail P. R., Correll J. S., Drake C. E., Glenn S. B., Scott G. M., & Stuckey C. (2001). A validation study of the preference for consistency scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1193-1202.
[45] Olson, N. J., & Ahluwalia, R. (2021). When sharing isn't caring: The influence of seeking the best on sharing favorable word of mouth about unsatisfactory purchases. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 1025-1046.
[46] Pascual A., Carpenter C. J., Guéguen N., & Girandola F. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the low-ball compliance-gaining procedure. European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 261-267.
[47] Rhee E., Uleman J. S., & Lee H. K. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: Confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 1037-1054.
[48] Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96(2), 341-357.
[49] Savary, J., & Dhar, R. (2020). The uncertain self: How self-concept structure affects subscription choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(5), 887-903.
[50] Sela A., Berger J., & Liu W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941-951.
[51] Sepehri A., Duclos R., Kristofferson K., Vinoo P., & Elahi H. (2021). The power of indirect appeals in peer‐to‐peer fundraising: Why “S/He” can raise more money for me than “I” can for myself. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 612-620.
[52] Smith S., Windmeijer F., & Wright E. (2015). Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. The Economic Journal, 125(585), 1053-1071.
[53] Snyder J., Crooks V. A., Mathers A., & Chow-White P. (2017). Appealing to the crowd: Ethical justifications in Canadian medical crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(6), 364-367.
[54] Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
[55] Thompson D. V., Hamilton R. W., & Petrova P. K. (2009). When mental simulation hinders behavior: The effects of process-oriented thinking on decision difficulty and performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 562-574.
[56] Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3(6), 358-361.
[57] Valenzuela A., Dhar R., & Zettelmeyer F. (2009). Contingent response to self-customization procedures: Implications for decision satisfaction and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 754-763.
[58] Van Ittersum K., Wansink B., Pennings J. M., & Sheehan D. (2013). Smart shopping carts: How real-time feedback influences spending. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 21-36.
[59] Wang H. Y., Fei X. Z., & Wang Y. W. (2022). The effect of the number of donation amount options on individual donation intention. Nankai Business Review. Advance online publication. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/12.1288.f.20220913.1345.004.html
[王海燕, 费显政, 王涯薇. (2022). 捐赠金额选项数量对个体捐赠意愿的影响. 南开管理评论. 网络首发. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/12.1288.f.20220913.1345.004.html]
[60] Wang, Z. W., & Wang, X. C. (2021). Trust and donation: The role of social network in donation-based crowdfunding. Journal of Management World, 37(3), 34-50, 4-7.
[王正位, 王新程. (2021). 信任与捐赠: 社会网络在捐赠型众筹中的认证作用. 管理世界, 37(3), 34-50, 4-7.]
[61] Zhou X., Kim S., & Wang L. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 953-972.