The Combined Effect of Two Types Reputation Information of Charity on Donation Intention

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.06.014

Abstract

Abstract:

The reputation information of charities in the form of “news reports - thread comments” often jointly affects online audiences. This study examined the combined effects of news and comment valence on donation intention through quasi-experimental designs. The results showed that: 1) Comment valence played a significant moderating role in the relationship between news valence and donation intention. Only when the comments were positive, participants who processed positive (vs. negative) news reports were more likely to donate. 2) The effect of news valence on high (vs. low) altruistic donors was significantly different. Only for those people with low-level altruistic personality, the positive news had an improved effect on donation intention under the condition of negative comments. 3) Trust could mediate the effect of news valence on donation intention. However, the moderating effect of altruistic personality and comment valence could not be exerted through the mediation of trust, and could only directly affect donation intention. The research provides empirical support for charities to build a reputation system based on the network platform and implement effective donation strategies.

Key words: news valence, comment valence, altruistic personality, trust, donation intention

摘要：

“新闻报道−跟帖评论”形式的慈善组织声誉信息常联合作用于网络受众。本研究采用实验法考察了新闻和跟帖效价对捐赠意愿的影响，结果发现：（1）跟帖效价调节新闻效价的说服效应，仅跟帖正向时，正向新闻比负向新闻对捐赠意愿的影响更强；（2）对不同利他人格者，跟帖效价调节新闻效价与捐赠意愿之间关系的调节作用不同，仅低利他人格者在跟帖负向时，正向新闻比负向新闻对捐赠意愿的影响更强；（3）信任能中介新闻效价对捐赠意愿的影响，但利他人格和跟帖效价的调节作用不通过信任产生影响，只能直接作用于捐赠意愿。研究为慈善组织基于网络平台构建声誉体系提供了实证支持。

关键词: 新闻效价, 跟帖效价, 利他人格, 信任, 捐赠意愿

CLC Number:

B849

Xiaofei LIU, Xiaoyan LIANG, Ziqiang XIN. The Combined Effect of Two Types Reputation Information of Charity on Donation Intention[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(6): 813-820.

刘晓飞, 梁晓燕, 辛自强. 慈善组织两类声誉信息效价对受众捐赠意愿的联合作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(6): 813-820.

Figures/Tables 5

References

	杜晓梦, 赵占波, 崔晓评论效价、新产品类型与调节定向对在线评论有用性的影响. 心理学报, 2015, 47 (4): 555- 568.
	蒋多, 徐富明, 陈雪玲, 刘腾飞, 张军伟, 林崇德消费决策中羊群行为的心理机制. 心理科学, 2011, 34 (4): 905- 910.
	汤舒俊, 舒博, 张文渊《利他人格自陈量表》在大学生群体中的修订. 长江大学学报(社科版), 2015, 38 (7): 87- 89.
	望海军品牌信任和品牌情感: 究竟谁导致了品牌忠诚?——一个动态研究. 心理学报, 2012, 44 (6): 830- 840.
	徐富明, 张军伟, 刘腾飞, 蒋多, 文桂婵模糊规避的形成机制: 基于可评价性假设的视角. 心理科学, 2012, 35 (1): 177- 179.
	张梅, 丁书恒, 刘国芳, 徐亚珍, 傅鑫媛, 张巍, 辛自强网络突发事件中的负性偏向: 产生与表现. 心理学报, 2021, 53 (12): 1361- 1375.
	张冉社会转型期我国非营利组织声誉研究: 危机溯源与重塑路径. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2014, 44 (1): 100- 112.
	Adena, M., Alizade, J., Bohner, F., Harke, J., & Mesters, F. Quality certification for nonprofits, charitable giving, and donor’s trust: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2019, 159, 75- 100.
	Bebbington, K., MacLeod, C., Ellison, T. M., & Fay, N. The sky is falling: Evidence of a negativity bias in the social transmission of information. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2017, 38 (1): 92- 101. DOI
	Berkey, B. The philosophical core of effective altruism. Journal of Social Philosophy, 2021, 52 (1): 92- 113. DOI
	Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., & Small, D. A. Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 2018, 29 (5): 834- 844. DOI
	Bilgin, Y., & Kethüda, Ö. (2022). Charity social media marketing and its influence on charity brand image, brand trust, and donation intention. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00426-7
	Boot, A. B., Dijkstra, K., & Zwaan, R. A. The processing and evaluation of news content on social media is influenced by peer-user commentary. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2021, 8 (1): 209. DOI
	Butera, L., & Horn, J. “Give less but give smart”: Experimental evidence on the effects of public information about quality on giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2020, 171, 59- 76.
	Byun, K. A. K., Ma, M. H., Kim, K., & Kang, T. Buying a new product with inconsistent product reviews from multiple sources: The role of information diagnosticity and advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2021, 55, 81- 103. DOI
	Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., & Speer, A. L. The altruistic personality: In what contexts is it apparent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991, 61 (3): 450- 458. DOI
	Caviola, L., Schubert, S., & Greene, J. D. The psychology of (In) effective altruism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2021, 25 (7): 596- 607. DOI
	Cernadas-Curotto, P., Sander, D., d’Argembeau, A., & Klimecki, O. Back to the future: A way to increase prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 2022, 17 (8): e0272340. DOI
	Chapman, C. M., Hornsey, M. J., & Gillespie, N. To what extent is trust a prerequisite for charitable giving? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2021, 50 (6): 1274- 1303. DOI
	Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 2011, 37 (1): 39- 67. DOI
	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 2007, 39 (2): 175- 191. DOI
	Gitlin, T. (2003). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left, with a new preface. Berkeley: University of California Press.
	Guo, Q. K., Sun, P., Cai, M. H., Zhang, X. L., & Song, K. X. Why are smarter individuals more prosocial? A study on the mediating roles of empathy and moral identity. Intelligence, 2019, 75, 1- 8. DOI
	Hilbig, B. E. Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009, 45 (4): 983- 986. DOI
	Hou, J. D., Zhang, C., & King, R. A. Understanding the dynamics of the individual donor’s trust damage in the philanthropic sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2017, 28 (2): 648- 671. DOI
	Jiao, R. H., Przepiorka, W., & Buskens, V. Reputation effects in peer-to-peer online markets: A meta-analysis. Social Science Research, 2021, 95, 102522. DOI
	Jones, J. A., Cantrell, R. A., & Lindsey, A. B. America’s worst charities: The effect of bad press on philanthropic giving behavior. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2019, 24 (1): e1616. DOI
	Kassim, M., Embi, N. A. C., Haron, R., & Ibrahim, K. Internal factors affecting continuous donations among cash Waqf donors. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2019, 9 (9): 1304- 1311.
	Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224–245). London: SAGE Publications.
	Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1981, 2 (4): 293- 302. DOI
	Schultz, C., Einwiller, S., Seiffert-Brockmann, J., & Weitzl, W. When reputation influences trust in nonprofit organizations. The role of value attachment as moderator. Corporate Reputation Review, 2019, 22 (4): 159- 170. DOI
	Shen, L., & Bigsby, E. (2013). The effects of message features: Content, structure, and style. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 20–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
	Spence, M. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1973, 87 (3): 355- 374. DOI
	Sung, K. H., & Lee, M. J. Do online comments influence the public’s attitudes toward an organization? Effects of online comments based on individuals’ prior attitudes. The Journal of Psychology, 2015, 149 (4): 325- 338. DOI
	Waddell, T. F. What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society, 2018, 20 (8): 3068- 3083.
	Wiencierz, C., Pöppel, K. G., & Röttger, U. Where does my money go? How online comments on a donation campaign influence the perceived trustworthiness of a nonprofit organization. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2015, 9 (2): 102- 117. DOI
	Zloteanu, M., Harvey, N., Tuckett, D., & Livan, G. Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy. PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (12): e0209071. DOI

自变量	因变量：捐赠意愿（Y）
自变量	B	SE	t	p
新闻效价（X）	1.56	6.54	0.24	0.813
跟帖效价（W）	−9.03	6.54	−1.38	0.170
X×W	21.79	9.26	2.35	0.020

自变量	因变量：捐赠意愿（Y）
自变量	B	SE	t	p
新闻效价（X）	1.56	6.54	0.24	0.813
跟帖效价（W）	−9.03	6.54	−1.38	0.170
X×W	21.79	9.26	2.35	0.020

自变量	因变量：捐赠意愿（Y）
自变量	B	SE	t	p
新闻效价（X）	16.75	8.51	1.97	0.051
跟帖效价（W）	27.02	8.59	3.14	0.002
利他人格（Z）	21.86	8.68	2.52	0.013
X×W	−28.87	11.76	−2.45	0.015
X×Z	−26.69	12.08	−2.21	0.029
W×Z	−17.99	11.89	−1.51	0.132
X×W×Z	41.74	16.52	2.53	0.012

自变量	因变量：捐赠意愿（Y）
自变量	B	SE	t	p
新闻效价（X）	16.75	8.51	1.97	0.051
跟帖效价（W）	27.02	8.59	3.14	0.002
利他人格（Z）	21.86	8.68	2.52	0.013
X×W	−28.87	11.76	−2.45	0.015
X×Z	−26.69	12.08	−2.21	0.029
W×Z	−17.99	11.89	−1.51	0.132
X×W×Z	41.74	16.52	2.53	0.012

自变量	因变量：信任（M）				因变量：捐赠意愿（Y）
自变量	B	SE	t	p	B	SE	t	p
新闻效价（X）	2.15	0.29	7.32	<0.001	3.99	9.52	0.42	0.675
跟帖效价（W）	0.72	0.30	2.43	0.016	22.75	8.57	2.65	0.009
利他人格（Z）	0.68	0.30	2.28	0.024	17.80	8.65	2.06	0.041
X×W	−0.17	0.41	−0.41	0.684	−27.89	11.55	−2.41	0.017
Z×X	−0.73	0.42	−1.74	0.084	−22.38	11.96	−1.87	0.063
Z×W	−0.03	0.41	−0.07	0.942	−17.81	11.67	−1.53	0.129
X×W×Z	0.24	0.57	0.43	0.670	40.30	16.22	2.48	0.014
信任（M）					5.93	2.13	2.79	0.006