工作场所募捐: 上级与同事捐赠额信息对员工捐赠额的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0279

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 工作场所募捐是慈善捐赠的重要来源。在工作场所募捐实践中, 上级通常会率先捐赠以期发挥榜样作用, 但这种策略的效果如何却少有检验。本研究通过7项实验, 以同事率先捐赠为对照条件, 检验了组织内部上级(包括直接上级、更高级别的上级以及旁部门的上级)率先捐赠对员工捐赠行为的影响及其心理机制。结果发现：在上级捐赠额信息示范下, 员工捐赠额更低, 并且这种影响由员工感知到的劣势感(自己在职位、薪水和职业前景方面的劣势)所中介。本研究对工作场所的募捐理论和实践有重要启示。

关键词: 工作场所募捐, 社会影响, 社会比较, 感知劣势

Abstract:

Workplace fundraising, which serves as an important source of charitable funding is an effective means of quickly engaging a large pool of potential donors. A common strategy involves having superiors donate first, aiming to set an example and encourage employees to participate. However, the effectiveness of this approach warrants further investigation. To explore this, we conducted seven experimental studies with employed individuals aged 18 and above, examining how donations made by superiors (versus coworkers) might suppress employees’ donation amounts and identify the psychological mechanisms underlying this effect. Experiment 1a (N = 313) adopted a between-subjects design with five groups: 2 (previous donor identity: direct superior versus coworkers) × 2 (donation anchor value: high versus low) plus a group without social information. The results showed that employees donated less when informed of their superiors’ (versus coworkers) donation amounts. Additionally, under the high-anchor condition, employees increased their donation amounts. The interaction between the previous donor and donation anchor was not significant. Experiment 1b (N = 307), using a different charity scenario and a fixed set of seven donation options, replicated the suppressive effect of superiors’ (versus coworkers’) donations on employee contributions. Experiment 2a (N = 252) examined the mediating role of perceived disadvantage and ruled out two alternative explanations, shared responsibility and other-enhanced motivation. Experiment 2b (N = 247) employed an incentive-compatible charitable donation task to further examine the mediating mechanism of perceived disadvantage and to eliminate alternative interpretations of social pressure. Experiment 3 (N = 210) further validated the mediating role of perceived disadvantage by manipulating this mediator. A 2 (previous donor: superior versus coworker) × 2(perceived disadvantage manipulation: present versus absent) between-subjects design was employed. In the perceived disadvantage-manipulation condition, participants were instructed to imagine that their superiors or coworkers performed worse than themselves in various domains including ability, goal achievement speed, resources, and respect. The results showed that the manipulation increased donation amounts for both the superior and coworker groups. These results further validated the mediating role of perceived disadvantage. Experiment 4 (N = 286) further categorized superiors into direct superiors, higher-level superiors, and superiors from other departments using a four-group (previous donor type: coworkers, direct superiors, higher-level superiors, and other department superiors) between-subjects design. The results showed that participants donated significantly less when informed about donations from any type of superior compared to coworkers. These results further supported the hypothesis that donations made by superiors (versus coworkers) suppress employee donation amounts and reinforced the mediating role of perceived disadvantages. Experiment 5 (N = 250) compared the effects of monetary and time donations on workplace fundraising. Using a 2 (charitable resource: money versus time) × 2 (previous donor type: superior versus coworkers) between-subjects design, the results showed that donations made by superiors suppress employees’ monetary contributions, but this suppression effect is not observed in the case of time-based donations. These findings suggest that in the context of workplace fundraising, the current top-down donation strategy may not be the most effective. In a top-down approach, employees’ donation decisions are influenced by upward social comparisons, where the perception of being disadvantaged relative to superiors suppresses their willingness to contribute. To mitigate this effect, organizations can minimize the impact of upward comparisons during fundraising campaigns. Encouraging generous employees to take the lead in making donations may be a more effective approach to maximizing overall contributions.

Key words: workplace fundraising, social influence, social comparison, perceived disadvantage

中图分类号:

B849: C91

江程铭, 杨小娟, 余淑琦, 陈李娜, 马家涛. (2026). 工作场所募捐: 上级与同事捐赠额信息对员工捐赠额的影响. 心理学报, 58(2), 279-291.

JIANG Chengming, YANG Xiaojuan, YU Shuqi, CHEN Lina, MA Jiatao. (2026). Workplace fundraising: The impact of donation information from superior and coworker on employee donations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(2), 279-291.

图/表 4

图1 感知劣势在先前捐赠者身份对员工捐赠额影响的中介作用注：***代表在0.001水平上显著, 图中回归系数均为非标准化回归系数

图2 感知劣势在先前捐赠者身份对员工捐赠额影响的中介作用注: ***代表在0.001水平上显著, **代表在0.01水平上显著, 图中回归系数均为非标准化回归系数

表1 感知劣势的中介效应分析

中介路径	估计值	95% CI
以同事组为参照
直接上级→感知劣势→捐赠额	−4.38	[−8.47, −0.33]
直接上级→捐赠额	−24.77	[−33.23, −16.29]
更高级别的上级→感知劣势→捐赠额	−5.39	[−10.33, −0.33]
更高级别的上级→捐赠额	−35.46	[−44.04, −26.89]
旁部门上级→感知劣势→捐赠额	−3.57	[−6.98, −0.25]
旁部门上级→捐赠额	−21.98	[−30.61, −13.35]

图3 上级(vs. 同事)的不同捐赠资源信息对员工捐赠行为影响

参考文献 49

[1]	Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1146/psych.2001.52.issue-1 URL
[2]	Bi X. Y., Jin J., Ma M. J., & He J. S. (2010). The reach of Danwei mobilization: An analysis on urban residents’ charitable giving to Project Hope. Sociological Studies, 25(6), 149-177.
	[毕向阳, 晋军, 马明洁, 何江穗. (2010). 单位动员的效力与限度——对我国城市居民“希望工程”捐款行为的社会学分析. 社会学研究, 25(6), 149-177.]
[3]	Blass T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 398-413. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398 URL
[4]	Bohra K. A., & Pandey J. (1984). Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122(2), 217-222. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1984.9713483 URL
[5]	Breeze B., & Wiepking P. (2020). Different drivers: Exploring employee involvement in corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3), 453-467. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-4093-x
[6]	Brown D. J., Ferris D. L., Heller D., & Keeping L. M. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 59-75. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.003 URL
[7]	Campbell E. M., Liao H., Chuang A., Zhou J., & Dong Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845-866. doi: 10.1037/apl0000183 pmid: 28191991
[8]	Christensen R. K., Nesbit R., & Agypt B. (2016). To give or not to give: Employee responses to workplace giving campaigns over time. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(6), 1258-1275. doi: 10.1177/0899764015619704 URL
[9]	Christensen R. K., Nesbit R., & Stritch J. M. (2018). The role of employees’ public service motives and organizational commitment in workplace giving campaigns. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(7), 644-658. doi: 10.1177/0275074017701223 URL
[10]	Cialdini R. B., & Goldstein N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi: 10.1146/psych.2004.55.issue-1 URL
[11]	Croson R., & Shang J. (2013). Limits of the effect of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods: Evidence from field experiments. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 473-477. doi: 10.1111/ecin.2013.51.issue-1 URL
[12]	Deci E. L., & Ryan R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & T. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416-436). Sage Publications Ltd.
[13]	Du L., Zhao F., & Zhang C. (2014). Impact of mobilization context on employees' donation intentions in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(1), 115-124. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.115 URL
[14]	Duffy J., & Kornienko T. (2010). Does competition affect giving?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74(1-2), 82-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.001 URL
[15]	Fang J., Wen Z. L., & Zhang M. Q. (2017). Mediation analysis of categorical variables. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(2), 471-477.
	[方杰, 温忠麟, 张敏强. (2017). 类别变量的中介效应分析. 心理科学, 40(2), 471-477.]
[16]	Fang X., & Zhang M. (2025). The vision of common prosperity and individual charitable giving: A study on the self-realization of common prosperity. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, (1), 127-138.
	[方兴, 张明. (2025). 共同富裕愿景与个人慈善捐赠——兼论共同富裕的自我实现. 经济社会体制比较, (1), 127-138.]
[17]	Farmer A., Kidwell B., & Hardesty D. M. (2020). Helping a few a lot or many a little: Political ideology and charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 614-630. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.v30.4 URL
[18]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Method*s, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 URL
[19]	Fischer T., & Sitkin S. B. (2023). Leadership styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 331-372. doi: 10.5465/annals.2020.0340 URL
[20]	Fitzsimons G. M., & Kay A. C. (2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 547-557. pmid: 15107155
[21]	Forehand M. R., Deshpandé R., & Reed II A. (2002). Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1086-1099. pmid: 12558216
[22]	Gächter S., & Renner E. (2018). Leaders as role models and ‘belief managers’ in social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 154, 321-334. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.08.001 URL
[23]	Goswami I., & Urminsky O. (2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 829-846. doi: 10.1509/jmr.15.0001 URL
[24]	Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, Kindle Edition.
[25]	Jiang C. M., Ma J. T., & Sun H. Y. (2019). Nudge charity donation by setting default options. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(5), 1174-1179.
	[江程铭, 马家涛, 孙红月. (2019). 助推爱心:利用默认选项促进捐赠行为. 心理科学, 42(5), 1174-1179.]
[26]	Jin M. H., & McDonald B. (2017). Understanding employee engagement in the public sector: The role of immediate supervisor, perceived organizational support, and learning opportunities. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 881-897. doi: 10.1177/0275074016643817 URL
[27]	Karlsson N., Gärling T., Dellgran P., & Klingander B. (2005). Social comparison and consumer behavior: When feeling richer or poorer than others is more important than being so. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1206-1222. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2005.35.issue-6 URL
[28]	Kiewitz C., Zagenczyk T. J., Shoss M., & Cruz K. S. (2023). O’Coworker, who art thou? The conundrum of not knowing who is or is not one’s coworker and a preliminary definition. Group & Organization Management.
[29]	Keating B., Pitts R., & Appel D. (1981). United way contributions: Coercion, charity or economic self-interest?. Southern Economic Journal, 47(3), 816-823. doi: 10.2307/1057377 URL
[30]	Kumar K., & Beyerlein M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 619-627. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619 URL
[31]	Li R., & Tian, X. M. (2014). Supervisor authoritarian leadership and subordinate proactive behavior: Test of a mediated- moderation model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(11), 1719-1733. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01719 URL
	[李锐, 田晓明. (2014). 主管威权领导与下属前瞻行为: 一个被中介的调节模型构建与检验. 心理学报, 46(11), 1719-1733.]
[32]	Lou H. X. (2009). On the function of the Charities in the national income redistribution. Studies in Ethics, 42(4), 40-45.
	[楼慧心. (2009). 慈善活动及其社会利益调节功能. 伦理学研究, 42(4), 40-45.]
[33]	Mogilner C. (2010). The pursuit of happiness: Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348-1354. doi: 10.1177/0956797610380696 pmid: 20732902
[34]	Nesbit R., Christensen R. K., & Gossett L. M. (2012). Charitable giving in the public workplace: A framework for understanding employees' philanthropic performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 35(3), 449-474.
[35]	Paharia N., Keinan A., Avery J., & Schor J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790. doi: 10.1086/656219 URL
[36]	Shang J., & Croson R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422-1439. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x URL
[37]	Shang J., Reed A., & Croson R. (2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 351-361. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351 URL
[38]	Simpson B., White K., & Laran J. (2018). When public recognition for charitable giving backfires: The role of independent self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1257-1273. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx101 URL
[39]	Spencer S. J., Zanna M. P., & Fong G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845-851. pmid: 16393019
[40]	Sun L. P., Jin J., He J. S., & Bi X. Y. (Eds). (1999). Mobilization and participation: A case study of third sector fundraising mechanisms. Zhejiang People’s Publishing House.
	[孙立平, 晋军, 何江穗, 毕向阳.(编). (1999). 动员与参与:第三部门募捐机制个案研究.浙江人民出版社.]
[41]	Van Teunenbroek C., Bekkers R., & Beersma B. (2020). Look to others before you leap: A systematic literature review of social information effects on donation amounts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 53-73. doi: 10.1177/0899764019869537
[42]	Wagner III J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-173. doi: 10.2307/256731 URL
[43]	Walker I., & Smith H. J. (Eds.). (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration. Cambridge University Press.
[44]	Wang D., Qin Y., & Zhou W. (2021). The effects of leaders’ prosocial orientation on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior - The roles of affective commitment and workplace ostracism. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1171-1185. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S324081 pmid: 34393526
[45]	Zhang H., Liu M., & Tian Y. (2016). Individual-based relative deprivation (IRD) decreases prosocial behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 655-666. doi: 10.1007/s11031-016-9564-8 URL
[46]	Zhao X., Cai F., & Yang Z. (2023). Are people less generous after a family member gives to charity? The interaction of self-construal and relationship type. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(2), 398-416. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.11.003 URL
[47]	Zhao X., Lynch Jr J. G., & Chen Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. doi: 10.1086/651257 URL
[48]	Zheng X. Y., Peng S. Q., & Peng L. L. (2015). Feeling better and becoming more benevolent: Impact of social comparison on prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(2), 243-250. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00243 URL
	[郑晓莹, 彭泗清, 彭璐珞. (2015). “达”则兼济天下?社会比较对亲社会行为的影响及心理机制. 心理学报, 47(2), 243-250.]
[49]	Zoogah D. B. (2010). Why should I be left behind? Employees’ perceived relative deprivation and participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 159-173. doi: 10.1037/a0018019 pmid: 20085413