传染病线索和招募信息中主角对献血意愿的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01282

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本文探讨了传染病线索和招募信息中主角对献血意愿的联合作用、潜在心理机制及边界条件。通过4项实验发现, 当传染病线索显著时, 以受助者(vs.捐助者)为主角的招募信息会降低献血意愿。在此基础上, 探讨了潜在心理机制, 即当传染病线索显著时, 以受助者(vs.捐助者)为主角的招募信息将提升人们的状态焦虑水平, 从而降低献血意愿。同时, 还进一步验证了自我建构的调节作用。具体而言, 在传染病线索显著时, 互依自我倾向个体面对以受助者(vs.捐助者)为主角的招募信息更容易感到状态焦虑, 从而降低献血意愿。

关键词: 传染病线索, 招募信息中主角, 状态焦虑, 自我建构, 献血意愿

Abstract: When infectious diseases are prevalent, people are often reluctant to give blood for fear of infection, resulting in a “blood shortage” In response, blood collection agencies across China have launched relevant initiatives to encourage the public to donate blood. To recruit blood donors, blood collection agencies use different advertising strategies to attract people's attention. For example, some display people in need of help and others display blood donors in their recruitment campaigns. What type or types of donation protagonist are most effective in recruitment campaigns during an infectious disease outbreak? This issue has become particularly important in recent years, with the increasing emergence of infectious diseases. It is therefore essential to understand how blood collection agencies should recruit donors when signs of infectious disease appear. Motivated by this issue, this study explored the joint impact of infectious disease cues and donation protagonists on the intention to donate blood and the psychological mechanisms underlying this impact.
Study 1 adopted a 2 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient) × 2 (infectious disease cues: yes vs. no) between-subjects design and used a reading comprehension task to manipulate the salience of infectious disease cues. We recruited 207 college students and randomly assigned them to one group with infectious disease cues and one without. The participants then viewed recruitment messages with different donation protagonists (donor vs. recipient). Next, the participants were asked whether they would be willing to donate blood. For those who answered yes and were willing to leave their contact details, we helped them make an appointment to donate blood at the nearest blood bank. Study 1 provided preliminary evidence that recipient (vs. donor) protagonists reduce people's intention to donate blood when infectious disease cues are salient.
Studies 2A and 2B further supported the results of Study 1 by adding a no-donation protagonist and two control groups (accidental threat and non-infectious disease threat). Specifically, Study 2A adopted a 3 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient vs. none) × 2 (threat type: infectious disease vs. accident) between-subjects design and recruited 306 participants from a questionnaire platform. We manipulated the threat type through a slideshow. After viewing the slides, the participants viewed recruitment messages with different donation protagonists and reported their intention to donate blood. Study 2B adopted a 3 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient vs. none) × 2 (threat type: infectious disease vs. non-infectious disease) between-subjects design and recruited 285 participants from the questionnaire platform. We used pictures and text to manipulate the contagiousness of the disease. After viewing the slides, the participants viewed recruitment messages with different donation protagonists and reported their intention to donate blood. The results showed that compared with donor protagonists, recipient protagonists played a less effective role and reduced people's willingness to donate blood when exposed to an infectious disease (vs. accident and non-infectious disease) threat.
Study 3 adopted a single-factor (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient vs. none) between-groups design and recruited 151 participants from the questionnaire platform. The priming material for the infectious disease cues was a short news report on COVID-19 reinfection. The participants were randomly divided into three groups after viewing the news report to view recruitment information on donation protagonists. The participants then reported their willingness to donate blood using the same measurement scale as in Study 2A. Next, the participants reported their state anxiety. In addition, to rule out alternative explanations, the participants reported their levels of empathy, perceived threat, medical fear, and other state-based emotions (disgust and fear). The results showed that recipient (vs. donor) protagonists increased the participants' anxiety levels, thereby reducing their willingness to donate blood.
Studies 4A and 4B examined the moderating role of self-construal by measuring chronic self-construal and situational self-construal and further verified the mediating role of state anxiety. Specifically, Study 4A adopted a 2 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient) × 2 (self-construal: interdependent vs. independent) between-subjects design and recruited 199 participants from the questionnaire platform. We measured the participants' blood donation intention, state anxiety, empathy, perceived threat, medical fear, and other state-based emotions (disgust and fear) by priming infectious disease cues as salient. Finally, the participants' chronic self-construal was measured. Study 4B adopted a 2 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient) × 2 (self-construal: interdependent vs. independent) × 2 (infectious disease cues: yes vs. no) between-subjects design and recruited 357 participants from the questionnaire platform. Study 4B used the pronoun-circling method to manipulate self-construal, and the participants then reported information consistent with Study 4A. The results revealed that the participants with an interdependent orientation who viewed recruitment messages with recipient (vs. donor) protagonists exhibited increased state anxiety, which reduced their intention to donate blood.
In summary, the results of the four studies provide strong empirical evidence for the joint effect of infectious disease cues and donation protagonists on blood donation intention, the moderating impact of self-construal on this joint effect, and the underlying psychological mechanism due to state anxiety.

Key words: infectious disease cues, donation protagonists, state anxiety, self-construal, blood donation intention

中图分类号:

B849: C913.4

龚钰雯, 代颖, 马祖军. (2024). 传染病线索和招募信息中主角对献血意愿的影响. 心理学报, 56(9), 1282-1298.

GONG Yuwen, DAI Ying, MA Zujun. (2024). Effects of infectious disease cues and donation protagonists on blood donation intention. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(9), 1282-1298.

参考文献

[1] Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56-70.
[2] Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2016). Avoiding extraverts: Pathogen concern downregulates preferences for extraverted faces. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(4), 278-286.
[3] DeWall C. N., Baumeister R. F., Gailliot M. T., & Maner J. K. (2008). Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful: Helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1653-1662.
[4] Drury J., Novelli D., & Stott C. (2013). Psychological disaster myths in the perception and management of mass emergencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2259-2270.
[5] Duan S., Liu F., Li Y., & Meng L. (2023). Donors or victims? the effect of matching charity appeal protagonist focus and donation types on donation behavior. Management Review, 35(1), 187-198.
[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.]
[6] Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93-108.
[7] Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197-211.
[8] Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.
[9] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[10] Galoni C., Carpenter G. S., & Rao H. (2020). Disgusted and afraid: Consumer choices under the threat of contagious disease. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(3), 373-392.
[11] Gardner W. L., Gabriel S., & Lee A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321-326.
[12] Gershon, R., & Cryder, C. (2018). Goods donations increase charitable credit for low-warmth donors. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 451-469.
[13] Gilchrist P. T., Masser B. M., Horsley K., & Ditto B. (2019). Predicting blood donation intention: The importance of fear. Transfusion, 59(12), 3666-3673.
[14] Gong Y., Dai Y., Ma Z., & Li J. (2022). Do incentives work to motivate voluntary blood donation? Psychology & Marketing, 40(4), 656-673.
[15] Guo N., Wang J., Ness P., Yao F., Bi X., Li J., ... Component, N. R. E. D. S.-I. I. (2012). First-time donors responding to a national disaster may be an untapped resource for the blood centre. Vox Sanguinis, 102(4), 338-344.
[16] Hawkins, R. L., & Maurer, K. (2011). 'You fix my community, you have fixed my life': The disruption and rebuilding of ontological security in new orleans. Disasters, 35(1), 143-159.
[17] Hayes A. F.(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
[18] Huang, Y., & Sengupta, J. (2020). The influence of disease cues on preference for typical versus atypical products. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(3), 393-411.
[19] Hung, I. W., & Wyer, R. S. (2009). Differences in perspective and the influence of charitable appeals: When imagining oneself as the victim is not beneficial. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 421-434.
[20] Krohne H. W., Egloff B., Varner L. J., Burns L. R., Weidner G., & Ellis H. C. (2000). The assessment of dispositional vigilance and cognitive avoidance: Factorial structure, psychometric properties, and validity of the mainz coping inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(3), 297-311.
[21] Lee S., Winterich K. P., & Ross 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.
[22] Leung H. T., Gong W.-J., Sit S. M. M., Lai A. Y. K., Ho S. Y., Wang M. P., & Lam T. H. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic fatigue and its sociodemographic and psycho-behavioral correlates: A population-based cross-sectional study in Hong Kong. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16114.
[23] Liu, Y. (2011). Self-construal: Review and prospect. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(3), 427-439.
[刘艳. (2011). 自我建构研究的现状与展望. 心理科学进展, 19(3), 427-439.]
[24] Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
[25] Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2012). Threat(s) and conformity deconstructed: Perceived threat of infectious disease and its implications for conformist attitudes and behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 180-188.
[26] Murray D. R.,& Schaller, M. (2016). Chapter two - the behavioral immune system: Implications for social cognition, social interaction, and social influence. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 75-129): Academic Press.
[27] Olatunji B. O., Ebesutani C., Sawchuk C. N., McKay D., Lohr J. M., & Kleinknecht R. A. (2012). Development and initial validation of the medical fear survey-short version. Assessment, 19(3), 318-336.
[28] Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993-1009.
[29] Park J. H., Schaller M., & Crandall C. S. (2007). Pathogen- avoidance mechanisms and the stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 410-414.
[30] Pfattheicher S., Nockur L., Böhm R., Sassenrath C., & Petersen M. B. (2020). The emotional path to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Science, 31(11), 1363-1373.
[31] Sawada N., Auger E., & Lydon J. E. (2018). Activation of the behavioral immune system: Putting the brakes on affiliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(2), 224-237.
[32] Schaller, M. (2015). The behavioral immune system. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1-19): Wiley.
[33] Septianto, F., & Paramita, W. (2021). Sad but smiling? how the combination of happy victim images and sad message appeals increase prosocial behavior. Marketing Letters, 32(1), 91-110.
[34] Sharma, E., & Morwitz, V. G. (2016). Saving the masses: The impact of perceived efficacy on charitable giving to single vs. Multiple beneficiaries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 45-54.
[35] Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
[36] Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E., & MacGregor D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(4), 329-342.
[37] 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, 102(2), 143-153.
[38] Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777-787.
[39] Spielberger C. D., Gorsuch R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
[40] Tang, H., & Kuang, C. (2009). Summary of anxiety theories. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17(2), 176-177+199+174.
[41] Trafimow D., Triandis H., & Goto S. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.
[42] Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
[43] van Esch P., Cui Y., & Jain S. P. (2021). COVID-19 charity advertising: Identifiable victim message framing, self- construal, and donation intent. Journal of Advertising, 50(3), 290-298.
[44] von Sivers I., Templeton A., Köster G., Drury J., & Philippides A. (2014). Humans do not always act selfishly: Social identity and helping in emergency evacuation simulation. Transportation Research Procedia, 2, 585-593.
[45] Wang X., Wang Y., & Wang Y. (2021). The influence of infectious disease cues on purchase intention for environmentally friendly products. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 18(16), 8421.
[46] Weidmann C., Derstroff M., Klüter H., Oesterer M., & Müller-Steinhardt M. (2022). Motivation, blood donor satisfaction and intention to return during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vox Sanguinis, 117(4), 488-494.
[47] Winterich, K. P., & Barone, M. J. (2011). Warm glow or cold, hard cash? social identity effects on consumer choice for donation versus discount promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 855-868.
[48] Wu Q., Wu H., Zhou Q., Chen D., Lu S., & Li L. (2022). The ancient behavioral immune system shapes the medical-seeking behavior in contemporary society. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(8), 931-950.
[吴奇, 吴浩, 周晴, 陈东方, 鲁帅, 李林芮. (2022). 行为免疫系统对个体就医行为倾向的影响. 心理学报, 54(8), 931-950.]
[49] Yin, B., & Li, Y. J. (2023). Benefactor- versus recipient- focused charitable appeals: How to leverage in-group bias to promote donations for out-group recipients. Journal of Advertising, 52(5), 739-755.
[50] Zheng C., Liu N., Luo C., & Wang L. (2021). Effects of the severity of collective threats on people's donation intention. Psychology & Marketing, 38(9), 1426-1439.