“Talking About Money Hurts Feelings”? The Influence of Sociality Mental Modes on Charitable Donation

Abstract

Abstract: People often get along with others in different sociality mental modes——communal mode and market mode. Picture prime is used to investigate whether sociality mental modes can affect the charitable donation. In Experiment 1, we explore the effects of sociality mental modes and the costs on charitable donation. The results show that charitable donation is not affected by sociality mental modes in the low-cost and the medium-cost condition. In the high-cost condition, market mode is lower than communal mode and control group. However, there is no difference between communal mode and control group. In Experiment 2, we explore the effects of sociality mental modes and donor relationship on charitable donation. The results show that the donation is decreased progressively in high self-related charities, middle self-related charities and low self-related charities in the communal mode and control group. However, in the market mode, the donation is the highest in high self-related charities. There is little difference between middle self-related charities and low self-related charities. These results reveal that sociality mental modes impact charitable donation. People in market mode are inclined to focus on the personal costs and benefits, and weaken the individual's pro-social behavior motivation. But cost can moderate the effects of sociality mental modes on charitable donation. In the market model, people in market mode perception of social relations are more alienated.

Key words: sociality mental modes, cost, self-relevance, charitable donation

摘要： 人们通常以不同的社交心理模式进行相处，即：市场模式和公共模式。本研究两个实验通过图片启动考察社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响。实验一探讨社交心理模式和成本对慈善捐赠的影响。结果发现在中、低成本下，慈善捐赠不受社交心理模式的影响；而在高成本下，市场模式组的捐赠低于公共模式组和控制组，但公共模式组与控制组之间差异不显著。实验二探讨社交心理模式和捐赠关系对慈善捐赠的影响。结果发现在公共模式组和控制组，被试对高、中、低自我相关的慈善机构的捐赠逐步递减，且两两差异显著；而市场模式组，被试对高自我相关的慈善机构的捐赠显著大于中、低自我相关的慈善机构，但中、低自我相关的慈善机构的差异不显著。这些结果表明，慈善捐赠受到社交心理模式的影响。以市场模式为导向的个体倾向于成本-收益的计算，削弱其亲社会行为动机，但这种影响会受到成本的调节；且市场模式主导下的个体对社会关系的感知更加疏远。

关键词: 社交心理模式, 成本, 自我相关性, 慈善捐赠

CLC Number:

B842.1

ZHONG Yiping, LI Mei, LI Jin, ZHAN Youlong. “Talking About Money Hurts Feelings”? The Influence of Sociality Mental Modes on Charitable Donation[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(3): 368-376,421.

钟毅平, 李梅, 李琎, 占友龙. “谈钱伤感情”？社交心理模式对慈善捐赠的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 368-376,421.

References

?定险峰, 刘华山. (2011). 个体不幸情境下的慈善捐赠-共情的中介效应. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(6), 759-762
定险峰, 易晓明. (2011). 群体灾难下的慈善捐赠-共情的中介效应. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(3), 363-366
葛岩, 秦裕林. (2012). 善行的边界:社会与市场规范冲突中的公益选择——基于上海交通大学学生的研究. 中国社会科学, (8), 72-88
张雪姣, 刘聪慧. (2017). 亲社会行为中的"眼睛效应". 心理科学进展, 25(3), 475-485
张振, 张帆, 原胜, 郭丰波, 王益文. (2015). 社会价值取向滑块测验中文版的测量学分析. 心理与行为研究, 13(3), 404-409
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101.
Carlson, R. W., Aknin, L. B., & Liotti, M. (2016). When is giving an impulse? An ERP investigation of intuitive prosocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1121-1129.
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 29-35.
Chatterjee, P., Rose, R. L., & Sinha, J. (2013). RETRACTED ARTICLE:Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money. Marketing Letters, 24(2), 109-118.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships:What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684-691.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006). Do donors care about subsidy type? An experimental study. Research in Experimental Economics, 11(6), 157-175.
Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance:Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197-211.
Eisenberg, N., & Shell, R. (1986). Prosocial moral judgment and behavior in children:The mediating role of cost. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 426-433.
Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it:The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(6), 581-604.
Fathi, M., Bateson, M., & Nettle, D. (2014). Effects of watching eyes and norm cues on charitable giving in a surreptitious behavioral experiment. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 878-887.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality:Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.
Gasiorowska, A., Chaplin, L. N., Zaleskiewicz, T., Wygrab, S., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Money cues increase agency and decrease prosociality among children:Early signs of market-mode behaviors. Psychological Science, 27(3), 331-344.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice:Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179-187.
Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment:A tale of two markets. Psychological Science, 15(11), 787-793.
Li, J., Zhan, Y. L., Fan, W., Liu, L., Li, M., Sun, Y., & Zhong, Y. P. (2018). Sociality mental modes modulate the processing of advice-giving:An event-related potentials study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 42.
Mogilner, C. (2010). The pursuit of happiness:Time, money, and social connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348-1354.
Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(42), 15623-15628.
Nettle, D., Harper, Z., Kidson, A., Stone, R., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Bateson, M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game:It's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34(1), 35-40.
Oda, R., & Ichihashi, R. (2016). The watching eyes effect on charitable donation is boosted by fewer people in the vicinity. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 7(2), 9-12.
Pfeffer, J., & DeVoe, S. E. (2009). Economic evaluation:The effect of money and economics on attitudes about volunteering. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 500-508.
Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2012). A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 279(1742), 3556-3564.
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427-430.
Rigdon, M., Ishii, K., Watabe, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 358-367.
Savani, K., Mead, N. L., Stillman, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). No match for money:Even in intimate relationships and collectivistic cultures, reminders of money weaken sociomoral responses. Self and Identity, 15(3), 342-355.
Sparks, A., & Barclay, P. (2013). Eye images increase generosity, but not for long:The limited effect of a false cue. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34(5), 317-322.
van Hoorn, J., van Dijk, E., Güroğlu, B., & Crone, E. A. (2016). Neural correlates of prosocial peer influence on public goods game donations during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(6), 923-933.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154-1156.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208-212.

[1]	LIU Xu, CAI Jia, CUI Zhe, SONG Meihan, WANG Li. Effects of Item Competitive Intensity on Retrieval-Induced Forgetting in College Students with Internet Addiction [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(1): 8-14.
[2]	ZHAO Sainan, LI Lin, ZHANG Lijuan, WANG Jingxin. The Influence of Constrictive Context on the Processing of Unpredictable Word in Chinese Reading [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[3]	HENG Shupeng, ZHAO Huanfang, XIONG Jianping, ZHOU Zongkui. The Relationship Between Facial Emotion Expression and Online Charity Donation: A Mediated Moderation Model [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 92-99.
[4]	GAO Lei, GAO Xiaolei, BAI Xuejun, CHEN Meixiang, GUO Zhiying. Language Switching and Switching Cost in Language Comprehension of Tibetan-Chinese Bilinguals With Different Proficiency Levels [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(6): 744-750.
[5]	Liu Mingfan, Jiang Ying, Zhang Hui, Wu Hou, Weng Meitao. Ability to Manipulate Negative Information in Working Memory and its Relation with Rumination for Depressed Individuals [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2015, 13(6): 758-762.
[6]	Peng Weiwei. The Effect of Indirect Self-relevance and Debiasing strategies on Hindsight Bias in Legal Decision-making [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2013, 11(4): 541-546.
[7]	Liu Li. The Effects of Processing Time and Processing Rate on Working Memory Span [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2013, 11(3): 333-339.
[8]	Yang Xiujie, Han Yuge, Wang Dahua. The Aging Effect of Task Switching [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2013, 11(3): 359-366.
[9]	Cai Chaoqun；Meng Yingfang. The Mechanism of Non-target Language Processing in Lexical Comprehension Switching [J]. , 2013, 11(1): 55-60.
[10]	Li Dan；Huang Qiangwei；Ding Xuechen. of Life Belief Scale for Chinese Adults [J]. , 2012, 10(5): 347-354.
[11]	Huang Silin. THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF STIMULUS AND FOREKNOWLEDGE ON TASK SWITCHING [J]. , 2011, 9(3): 209-213.
[12]	Huang Silin,Lin Chongde. THEORETICAL CONTROVERSY AND INTEGRATION OF TASK SWITCHING RESEARCH [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2009, 7(4): 304-311.