RISHAD HABIB, DAVID J. HARDISTY, KATHERINE WHITE, BAEK JUNG KIM
{"title":"快讯缩小差距效应:联合评估导致捐助者帮助慈善机构远离目标","authors":"RISHAD HABIB, DAVID J. HARDISTY, KATHERINE WHITE, BAEK JUNG KIM","doi":"10.1177/00222437241270225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Charitable donations can be influenced by the level of progress of a cause towards its fundraising goal. The current work demonstrates how jointly considering more than one charitable cause along with their goal progress information shifts consumers’ donation decisions. When charitable causes are evaluated jointly (vs. separately), the comparison makes relative need for help more salient and easier to evaluate, leading to greater giving to the cause farther from its goal. A multi-method investigation, involving six pre-registered experimental studies, seven supplemental studies, and a large secondary dataset with over 10,000 projects from a micro-crowdfunding platform, provides evidence for this phenomenon and demonstrates that it is robust to variations in the type of cause, number of projects, and the donor being able to personally complete the goal. Conversely, the effect is eliminated or reversed when charities are evaluated separately (as relative need for help is less salient), when the gap between charities is smaller (as perceptions of relative need for help are diminished), or when for-profit businesses are evaluated (as the context does not heighten sensitivity to need). This work contributes to research on goal progress and evaluation mode and has implications for charitable giving in comparative contexts like crowdfunding.","PeriodicalId":48465,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marketing Research","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EXPRESS: The Closing-the-Gap Effect: Joint Evaluation Leads Donors to Help Charities Farther from Their Goal\",\"authors\":\"RISHAD HABIB, DAVID J. HARDISTY, KATHERINE WHITE, BAEK JUNG KIM\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00222437241270225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Charitable donations can be influenced by the level of progress of a cause towards its fundraising goal. The current work demonstrates how jointly considering more than one charitable cause along with their goal progress information shifts consumers’ donation decisions. When charitable causes are evaluated jointly (vs. separately), the comparison makes relative need for help more salient and easier to evaluate, leading to greater giving to the cause farther from its goal. A multi-method investigation, involving six pre-registered experimental studies, seven supplemental studies, and a large secondary dataset with over 10,000 projects from a micro-crowdfunding platform, provides evidence for this phenomenon and demonstrates that it is robust to variations in the type of cause, number of projects, and the donor being able to personally complete the goal. Conversely, the effect is eliminated or reversed when charities are evaluated separately (as relative need for help is less salient), when the gap between charities is smaller (as perceptions of relative need for help are diminished), or when for-profit businesses are evaluated (as the context does not heighten sensitivity to need). This work contributes to research on goal progress and evaluation mode and has implications for charitable giving in comparative contexts like crowdfunding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Marketing Research\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Marketing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437241270225\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marketing Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437241270225","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
EXPRESS: The Closing-the-Gap Effect: Joint Evaluation Leads Donors to Help Charities Farther from Their Goal
Charitable donations can be influenced by the level of progress of a cause towards its fundraising goal. The current work demonstrates how jointly considering more than one charitable cause along with their goal progress information shifts consumers’ donation decisions. When charitable causes are evaluated jointly (vs. separately), the comparison makes relative need for help more salient and easier to evaluate, leading to greater giving to the cause farther from its goal. A multi-method investigation, involving six pre-registered experimental studies, seven supplemental studies, and a large secondary dataset with over 10,000 projects from a micro-crowdfunding platform, provides evidence for this phenomenon and demonstrates that it is robust to variations in the type of cause, number of projects, and the donor being able to personally complete the goal. Conversely, the effect is eliminated or reversed when charities are evaluated separately (as relative need for help is less salient), when the gap between charities is smaller (as perceptions of relative need for help are diminished), or when for-profit businesses are evaluated (as the context does not heighten sensitivity to need). This work contributes to research on goal progress and evaluation mode and has implications for charitable giving in comparative contexts like crowdfunding.
期刊介绍:
JMR is written for those academics and practitioners of marketing research who need to be in the forefront of the profession and in possession of the industry"s cutting-edge information. JMR publishes articles representing the entire spectrum of research in marketing. The editorial content is peer-reviewed by an expert panel of leading academics. Articles address the concepts, methods, and applications of marketing research that present new techniques for solving marketing problems; contribute to marketing knowledge based on the use of experimental, descriptive, or analytical techniques; and review and comment on the developments and concepts in related fields that have a bearing on the research industry and its practices.