劝捐策略和框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用两个3×2完全随机实验设计，考察劝捐策略和目标框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响，结果表明：（1）劝捐策略和目标框架效应的主效应显著，信用劝捐被试捐赠更多，决策时间更短，损失目标框架比收益目标框架的被试决策时间更短，捐赠更多，被试在信用X损失框架情境中捐赠最多，反应时最短；（2）劝捐策略和框架效应的交互效应均显著，情感策略受框架效应影响较大，在损失框架下被试反应时更短，捐赠更多。

关键词: 劝捐策略, 框架效应, 捐赠

Abstract: This study examined the effect of persuasion appeal and framing effect on RT and individual giving amount. A completely random designed experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses in the context of charity. Results were as follows：the main effects of persuasion appeal and framing were different. Credibility persuasion appeal raised the giving amount and shortened the decision-making more greatly than effective appeal and rational appeal. The negative of goal framing stimulates the giving and shortens the time for decision-making than positive framing among the subjects. The interaction effect between persuasion appeal and framing effect was significant, suggesting the affective persuasion appeal greatly influenced by froming. Giving amount rises and the time for decision-making shortens under the circumstance of negative goal framing.

Key words: persuasion appeal, framing effect, giving decision

中图分类号:

B849

陈剑梅,傅琦. 劝捐策略和框架效应对个体捐赠决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(3): 377-383.

Chen Jianmei, Fu Qi. Persuasion Appeal and Framing Effect Influence Giving Decision-Making[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(3): 377-383.

参考文献

[1] 谢晔, 周军.(2012). 情绪和框架效应对个体捐赠决策影响的实验研究. 心理科学, 35(4), 951-954.
[2] Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, R. H.(2000). Consumer responses to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203-214.
[3] Bendapudi, N., Singh, S., & Bendapudi, V.(1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3),33-49.
[4] Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A.(2005). Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation. Journal of Economics, 89(8), 1457-1468.
[5] Buda, R., & Zhang, Y.(2000). Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 229-242.
[6] Chang, C.(2007). Interactive effects of message framing, product perceived risk, and mood: The case of travel healthcare product advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(1), 51-65.
[7] Chang, C.(2010). Health-care product advertising: The influences of message framing and perceived product characteristics. Psychology and Marketing, 24(2), 143-169.
[8] Chang, C., & Lee, Y.(2010).Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195-220.
[9] Cialdini, R. B., & Fultz, J.(1990). Interpreting negative mood-helping literature via mega-analysis: A contrary view. Psychology Bulletin, 107(2), 210-214.
[10] Connor, U., & Upton, T.(2003). Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In C. Meyer & P. Leistyna(Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use. Amsterdam: Rodopi publishers.
[11] Connor, U., & Gladkov, K.(2004). Rhetorical appeals in fundraising direct mail letters,(257-277). In U. Connor & T. Upton(Eds), Discourse in the Professions-Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John benjamins north america.
[12] Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R.(2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1078-1083.
[13] Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J.(2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising message: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175.
[14] Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I.(2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687-1688.
[15] Gass, R., & Seiter, J.(2007). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining（3rd.). Boston：pearson.
[16] Goering, E., Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Steinberg, R.(2011). Persuation in fundraising letters:An interdiscipliary study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quaterly, 40(2), 228-246.
[17] Handy, F.(2000). How we beg: The analysis of direct mail appeals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(3), 439-454.
[18] Jarvis, W. G., & Petty, R. E.(1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 72-194.
[19] Joffe, H.(2008). The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes, 55(1), 84-93.
[20] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
[21] Kopfman, J. E., Smith, S. W., Ah Yun, J. K., & Hodges, A.(1998). Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(3), 279-300.
[22] Lambert S. W.(2014). The rhetorical methods of persuasion. http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ 20140908200113-88912307-ethically-persuasive-non-profit-fundraising.
[23] LeMier, K. M.(2009). A new look at nonprofit online fundraising: Persuasion through the means of credibility and psychological consistency. Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University,(9), 10.
[24] Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J.(1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Health Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
[25] Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A.,(2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology , 11(2), 1-15.
[26] Marchand, J., & Filiatrault, P.(2001). AIDS prevention advertising: Different message strategies for different communication objectives. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), 271-287.
[27] Martin, B. A. S.(1995). Is the glass half-empty or half-full? How the framing of advertising messages affects consumer responses. New Zealand Journal of Business, 17(1), 95-105.
[28] Mayer, J. D., Gaschke, Y. N., Braverman, D. L., & Evans, T.W.(1992). Mood-congruent judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 119-132.
[29] Morman, M. T.(2000). The influence of fear appeals, message design, and masculinity on men′s motivation to perform the testicular self-exam. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(2), 91-116.
[30] Nan, X.(2013). Perceived source credibility and advertising persuasiveness: An investigation of moderators and psychological processes. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 34, 195-211.
[31] Nelson, M. R., Brunel, F. F., Supphellen, M., & Manchanda, R.V.(2006). Effects of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 45-56.
[32] O′Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D.(2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623-644.
[33] Reynolds, R. A., & Reynolds, J. L.(2002).“Evidence”. In J. E. Dillard, & M. Pfau(Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice(pp513-542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[34] Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B. & Salovey, P.(1999). The systematic influence of gain-and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1355-1369.