募捐信息该强调恢复还是改善受事件可控性调节

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01133

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

求助者境况是募捐信息的重要内容之一, 对境况的不同描述理应影响募捐效果, 却未引起学者们的关注。本研究根据对求助者境况变化过程的不同描述, 将募捐信息分为两类：“恢复/重建” (强调求助者过去境况较好, 当前变得很差, 捐赠使其由损失境况恢复至原状)和“改善/提高” (强调捐赠使求助者由当前很差的境况变得更好)。通过1个二手数据(N = 978, 研究1)和6个实验(N = 1163, 研究2/3a/3b/4/5a/5b)发现, “恢复/重建” (vs.“改善/提高”)类描述使捐赠者感知慈善项目更有利于求助者减少损失(vs.增加获得), 而当捐赠者面对不可控(vs.可控)事件时也更关注减少损失(vs.增加获得)。因此, 基于调节焦点的匹配, 对不可控事件采用“恢复/重建” (vs.“改善/提高”)类描述, 对可控事件采用“改善/提高” (vs.“恢复/重建”)类描述, 个体的捐赠意愿(研究5)和实际捐赠(二手数据)更高。本文在理论上提出了新的募捐信息分类并证明其后续影响, 在实践上可以指导慈善组织根据事件可控性合理设计募捐信息。

关键词: “恢复/重建”信息类型, “改善/提高”信息类型, 事件可控性, 调节匹配, 捐赠意愿

Abstract:

The framing of charity advertising is important for charitable fundraising and common prosperity. Using a static perspective, previous research has identified different ways to classify charitable fundraising information, with framing such as positive vs. negative or for-self vs. for-other. In contrast, the current research focuses on the process of change and suggests classifying fundraising information from a new perspective that emphasizes recovery vs. improvement.

This research examines the following hypotheses: 1) a description of recovery focuses on reducing loss, while that of improvement focuses on increasing gain; 2) uncontrollable events lead people to focus on reducing loss, while controllable events lead people to focus on increasing gain; and 3) matching the fundraising description and event controllability increases willingness to donate. One secondary data analysis and six experiments were conducted to test these hypotheses.

Study 1, the secondary data analysis, confirmed that classifying fundraising information by a “recovery-improvement” framework is reasonable, and found that recovery-description (vs. improvement- description) and uncontrollable events (vs. controllable events) often appear together in charity advertising. Study 2 adopted a one-factor (fundraising information: recovery vs. improvement) between-subjects design to conceptually replicate that association. The results showed that participants wrote down more uncontrollable events (vs.controllable events) when recalling a charity advertisement emphasizing recovery (vs. improvement). Using real and recalled fundraising information generated from Studies 1 and 2, Studies 3a and 3b adopted a one-factor within-subject design to demonstrate H1. Participants reported that recovery-description (vs. improvement-description) tended to focus more on reducing loss rather than increasing gain. Study 4 adopted a one-factor between-subjects design to demonstrate H2. Participants who encountered an uncontrollable (vs. controllable) event focused more on providing aid to help-seekers for reducing loss (vs. increasing gain).

Studies 1-4 showed that participants encountering uncontrollable events focused more on reducing loss, which is also the focus of recovery-description; whereas those encountering controllable events focused more on increasing gain, which is also the focus of improvement-description. Drawing on regulatory fit theory, Studies 5a and 5b aimed at showing that matching fundraising information and event controllability through their regulatory focus contributed to willingness to donate (i.e., H3). The results of these two studies showed that for uncontrollable events, recovery-description led to higher willingness to donate than improvement-description; for controllable events, improvement-description led to higher willingness to donate than recovery-description.

This research is the first to propose and demonstrate the validity of classifying fundraising information into recovery-description and improvement-description, and thus it contributes to the comprehensive understanding of how charitable appeal makes an effect. Moreover, by demonstrating that the regulatory fit between fundraising information and event controllability increases willingness to donate, this research adds to regulatory fit theory and offers practical strategies to increase personal donation.

Key words: recovery-description, improvement-description, event controllability, regulatory fit, willingness to donate

中图分类号:

B849: C91

宋文静, 陈怡煖, 黄韫慧. (2023). 募捐信息该强调恢复还是改善受事件可控性调节. 心理学报, 55(7), 1133-1147.

SONG Wenjing, CHEN Yixuan, HUANG Yunhui. (2023). Emphasizing recovery or improvement in charitable fundraising should depend on event controllability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(7), 1133-1147.

图/表 12

参考文献 53

[1]	Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33-49. doi: 10.1086/321946 URL
[2]	Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556-574. pmid: 10900996
[3]	Ashraf, A. R., & Thongpapanl, N. T. (2015). Connecting with and converting shoppers into customers: Investigating the role of regulatory fit in the online customer’s decision- making process. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32, 13-25. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2015.09.004 URL
[4]	Bateson, J. E. G. (1985). Self-service consumer: An exploratory study. Journal of Retailing, 61(3), 49-76.
[5]	Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (pp. 463- 484). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[6]	Baum, A., & Fleming, I. (1993). Implications of psychological research on stress and technological accidents. American Psychologist, 48(6), 665-672. pmid: 8328731
[7]	Bhattacharjee, A., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1086/674724 URL
[8]	Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388-404. pmid: 15008644
[9]	Chang, C. T. (2011). Guilt appeals in cause-related marketing: The subversive roles of product type and donation magnitude. International Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 587-616. doi: 10.2501/IJA-30-4-587-616 URL
[10]	Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935. doi: 10.1111/(ISSN)1559-1816 URL
[11]	Cohen, J. (Eds). (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Routledge.
[12]	Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 297-348). Erlbaum.
[13]	Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(8), 1-31.
[14]	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 Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[15]	Feiler, D. C., Tost, L. P., & Grant, A. M. (2012). Mixed reasons, missed givings: The costs of blending egoistic and altruistic reasons in donation requests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1322-1328. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.014 URL
[16]	Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. D. (2008). An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 519-531. doi: 10.1086/586909 URL
[17]	Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5(3), 182-201. doi: 10.1080/15534511003707352 URL
[18]	Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.52.12.1280 pmid: 9414606
[19]	Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992 URL
[20]	Hildebrand, D., DeMotta, Y., Sen, S., & Valenzuela, A. (2017). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) contribution type. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 738-758. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx063 URL
[21]	Huang, Y. H., Jia, Y. L., & Robert, S. W. J. (2017). The effects of physical distance from a brand extension on the impact of brand-extension fit. Psychology & Marketing, 34(1), 59-69. doi: 10.1002/mar.20973 URL
[22]	Jain, S. P., Lindsey, C., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2007). For better or for worse? Valenced comparative frames and regulatory focus. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1086/513046 URL
[23]	Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
[24]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. doi: 10.2307/1914185 URL
[25]	Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x URL
[26]	Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350-367. doi: 10.1086/670610 URL
[27]	Kulow, K., & Kramer, T. (2016). In pursuit of good karma: When charitable appeals to do right go wrong. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 334-353. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw018 URL
[28]	Lavery, J. F., & Valerie, A. C. (1996). Causal attributions, coping strategies, and adjustment to breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 19(1), 20-28. pmid: 8904383
[29]	Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764-766. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013 URL
[30]	Liu, W. M. (2019). Having power, donating more time? The effect of donors’ power on their charitable donation intention of time and the underlying mechanisms. Nankai Business Review, 22(2), 23-32.
	[柳武妹. (2019). 权力越高越倾向于捐赠时间吗: 慈善营销中捐赠者的权力对其时间捐赠意愿的影响及机制研究. 南开管理评论, 22(2), 23-32.]
[31]	Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854-864. pmid: 12374440
[32]	McGuire, W. (1969). The Nature of attitudes and attitude change. In C. Lindezy & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed, pp. 136-314). Addison-Wesley.
[33]	Moran, N., & Bagchi, R. (2019). The power of emotional benefits: Examining the role of benefit focus on donation behavior. Journal of Advertising, 48(3), 1-8. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2018.1556138 URL
[34]	Park, K., & Lee, S. S. (2015). The role of beneficiaries’ group identity in determining successful appeal strategies for charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 32(12), 1117-1132. doi: 10.1002/mar.20852 URL
[35]	Ran, Y. X., Niu, Y. X., & Chen, S. Y. (2021). “More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(4), 413-430. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413
	[冉雅璇, 牛熠欣, 陈斯允. (2021). “多”反而少: 元认知推断视角下支付渠道数量对个体捐赠的影响. 心理学报, 53(4), 413-430.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00413
[36]	Rothman, A. J., Desmarais, K. J., & Lenne, R. L. (2019). Moving from research on message framing to principles of message matching: The use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior. Advances in Motivation Science, 7, 43-73.
[37]	Ryoo, Y., Sung, Y., & Chechelnytska, I. (2020). What makes materialistic consumers more ethical? Self-benefit vs. other-benefit appeals. Journal of Business Research, 110, 173-183. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.019 URL
[38]	Savary, J., Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. (2014). Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 27-38. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0244 URL
[39]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005 URL
[40]	Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind... even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1554-1562. doi: 10.1177/0956797614534450 URL
[41]	Steiger, J. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(2), 164-182. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164 pmid: 15137887
[42]	Swanson, S. R., & Hsu, M. K. (2011). The effect of recovery locus attributions and service failure severity on word- of-mouth and repurchase behaviors in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(4), 511-529.
[43]	Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1193 pmid: 14674824
[44]	Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Reast, J., & Van Popering, N. (2012). To do well by doing good: Improving corporate image through cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 259-274. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1134-0 URL
[45]	Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28-38. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.1.28 URL
[46]	Wang. J., Song. Q. Y., Xu. Y. P., Jia. B. B., & Hu. C. P. (2019). Calculating confidence intervals of Cohen’s d and Eta- squared: A practical primer. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 7(5), 284-296.
	[王珺, 宋琼雅, 许岳培, 贾彬彬, 胡传鹏. (2019). 效应量置信区间的原理及其实现. 心理技术与应用, 7(5), 284-296.]
[47]	White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other- benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124.
[48]	Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117. doi: 10.1126/science.1159845 pmid: 18832647
[49]	Winterich, K., Mittal, V., & Aquino, K. (2013). When does recognition increase charitable behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 121-134. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0477 URL
[50]	Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274-293. doi: 10.1086/675927 URL
[51]	Yang, W. Q., Li, Q., Guo, M. Y., Fan, Q., & He, Y. L. (2017). The effects of power on human behavior: The perspective of regulatory focus. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(3), 404-415. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00404
	[杨文琪, 李强, 郭名扬, 范谦, 何伊丽. (2017). 权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角. 心理学报, 49(3), 404-415.]
[52]	Zagefka, H., & James, T. (2015). The psychology of charitable donations to disaster victims and beyond: The psychology of charitable donations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 155-192. doi: 10.1111/sipr.2015.9.issue-1 URL
[53]	Zheng, L., Zhu, Y., & Jiang, R. (2019). The mediating role of moral elevation in cause-related marketing: A moral psychological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 439-454. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3614-3

募捐信息类型	事件可控性 n (%)			两样本率z检验(可控vs.不可控)
募捐信息类型	未明确	可控	不可控	两样本率z检验(可控vs.不可控)
研究1
“恢复/重建”	3 (3.6%)	6 (7.1%)	75 (89.3%)	z = −10.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [−0.91, −0.74]
“改善/提高”	2 (1.3%)	134 (87.0%)	18 (11.7%)	z = 13.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.68, 0.83]
研究2
“恢复/重建”	9 (22.5%)	11 (27.5%)	20 (50.0%)	z = −2.07, p = 0.039, 95% CI: [−0.43, −0.02]
“改善/提高”	12 (25.0%)	28 (57.2%)	8 (16.3%)	z = 4.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.24, 0.59]

募捐信息类型	事件可控性 n (%)			两样本率z检验(可控vs.不可控)
募捐信息类型	未明确	可控	不可控	两样本率z检验(可控vs.不可控)
研究1
“恢复/重建”	3 (3.6%)	6 (7.1%)	75 (89.3%)	z = −10.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [−0.91, −0.74]
“改善/提高”	2 (1.3%)	134 (87.0%)	18 (11.7%)	z = 13.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.68, 0.83]
研究2
“恢复/重建”	9 (22.5%)	11 (27.5%)	20 (50.0%)	z = −2.07, p = 0.039, 95% CI: [−0.43, −0.02]
“改善/提高”	12 (25.0%)	28 (57.2%)	8 (16.3%)	z = 4.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.24, 0.59]

测量内容		“恢复/重建”		“改善/提高”		成对样本t检验
测量内容		α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	成对样本t检验
研究3a
感知信息类型	恢复程度	0.70	5.95 (0.70)	0.91	3.60 (1.41)	t(79) = 13.08, p < 0.001
感知信息类型	改善程度	0.92	5.29 (1.27)	0.81	6.25 (0.64)	t(79) = −6.16, p < 0.001
感知功能	减少损失	0.75	5.80 (1.12)	0.86	4.45 (1.48)	t(79) = 9.88, p < 0.001
感知功能	增加获得	0.82	5.79 (1.20)	0.79	6.68 (0.95)	t(79) = −6.84, p < 0.001
研究3b
感知信息类型	改善程度(相较于恢复程度)	0.83	3.76 (1.46)	0.74	5.88 (0.67)	t(99) = −13.10, p < 0.001
感知功能	增加获得(相较于减少损失)	0.85	3.57 (1.51)	0.81	5.93 (0.76)	t(99) = −13.83, p < 0.001

测量内容		“恢复/重建”		“改善/提高”		成对样本t检验
测量内容		α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	成对样本t检验
研究3a
感知信息类型	恢复程度	0.70	5.95 (0.70)	0.91	3.60 (1.41)	t(79) = 13.08, p < 0.001
感知信息类型	改善程度	0.92	5.29 (1.27)	0.81	6.25 (0.64)	t(79) = −6.16, p < 0.001
感知功能	减少损失	0.75	5.80 (1.12)	0.86	4.45 (1.48)	t(79) = 9.88, p < 0.001
感知功能	增加获得	0.82	5.79 (1.20)	0.79	6.68 (0.95)	t(79) = −6.84, p < 0.001
研究3b
感知信息类型	改善程度(相较于恢复程度)	0.83	3.76 (1.46)	0.74	5.88 (0.67)	t(99) = −13.10, p < 0.001
感知功能	增加获得(相较于减少损失)	0.85	3.57 (1.51)	0.81	5.93 (0.76)	t(99) = −13.83, p < 0.001

	募捐信息简介
“恢复/重建”组	帮助泸州地震受灾群众早日恢复正常生活。
	推动河南省受灾地区灾后重建工作, 保障复学复课。
	一起清理外来入侵物种, 复种红树, 重建海上森林。
	点滴之爱汇聚成海, 帮助大病家庭重燃希望。
	你守护了我的安危, 我来守护你的健康, 帮助伤残退役军人重返健康。
	携手相助贫困重疾家庭, 帮助重疾患者早日恢复健康。
“改善/提高”组	一起帮农民增收, 走乡村振兴康庄大道。
	以微爱凝聚大善, 助力贫困儿童更好成长。
	帮助学校改善和提升饮水水质。
	为山区儿童筹集爱心卫生包, 培养良好的卫生习惯, 助力孩子们健康快乐地成长。
	改善老年人的生活质量, 让老人过上一个祥和平安的晚年。
	为困难家庭的听障残疾提供数字助听器和验配服务, 提升他们生活质量。