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

IF 5.1 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Marketing Research Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1177/00222437241270225
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

慈善捐赠会受到慈善事业在实现筹款目标方面的进展程度的影响。目前的研究表明,共同考虑一个以上的慈善事业及其目标进展信息会如何改变消费者的捐赠决策。当对慈善事业进行联合评估(与单独评估相比)时,比较会使相对的帮助需求更加突出,也更容易评估,从而导致对距离目标较远的慈善事业提供更多捐赠。一项涉及六项预先登记的实验研究、七项补充研究和一个微型众筹平台上超过 10,000 个项目的大型二手数据集的多方法调查为这一现象提供了证据,并证明了这一现象在慈善事业类型、项目数量和捐赠者是否能够亲自完成目标等方面的变化中都是稳健的。相反,如果对慈善机构进行单独评估(因为相对帮助需求不那么突出)、慈善机构之间的差距较小(因为对相对帮助需求的感知减弱)或对营利性企业进行评估(因为环境不会提高对需求的敏感度),则会消除或逆转这种效应。这项研究为目标进展和评估模式研究做出了贡献,并对众筹等比较环境下的慈善捐赠产生了影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
6.60%
发文量
79
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.
期刊最新文献
EXPRESS: Who Shares Fake News? Uncovering Insights from Social Media Users' Post Histories EXPRESS: Monitoring Technologies in Industrial Systems EXPRESS: How Listening versus Reading Alters Consumers’ Interpretations of News EXPRESS: The Closing-the-Gap Effect: Joint Evaluation Leads Donors to Help Charities Farther from Their Goal EXPRESS: Zooming in on the Very Early Days: The Role of Trademark Applications in the Acquisition of Venture Capital Seed Funding
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1