Abstract
Previous research on charitable donations have explored donors’ attitudes and behaviours in response to one type of fundraising message (separate evaluation, SE). However, people are increasingly exposed to multiple fundraising messages based on which they make giving decisions (joint evaluation, JE). This study investigates charitable decision-making in joint evaluation through three scenario-based experiments. Study 1 found that decision-making was based on category attributes in SE and numerical attributes in JE, resulting in preference reversal across evaluation modes. Study 2 and Study 3 further demonstrated that the framing of charity appeals affected donation decisions. Participants’ risk-based choices in joint evaluation are consistent with the value curve of prospect theory. Participants showed risk aversion in the positive framing, and risk preference in the negative framing. These findings enrich the research on evaluability theory together with donation under joint evaluation context and provide important insights for charities and charitable fundraisers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The raw data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
Bazerman, M. H., Gino, F., Shu, L. S. L., & Tsay, C. J. (2011). Joint evaluation as a real-world tool for managing emotional assessments of morality. Emotion Review, 3(3), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402370.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927.
Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.198.
Bergh, R., & Reinstein, D. (2020). Empathic and numerate giving: The joint effects of victim images and charity evaluations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893968.
Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., & Small, D. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747648.
Bhati, A., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2016). Faces of the needy: The portrayal of destitute children in the fundraising campaigns of NGOs in India. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1542.
Bullard, O., & Penner, S. (2017). A regulatory-focused perspective on philanthropy: Promotion focus motivates giving to prevention-framed causes. Journal of Business Research, 79, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.06.013.
Bünzli, F. (2021). Improving the effectiveness of prosocial advertising campaigns: Message strategies to increase support from less empathic individuals. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 27(1), e1711. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1711.
Butts, M. M., Lunt, D. C., Freling, T. L., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.006.
Cao, X. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: The effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1536.
Capraro, V., & Vanzo, A. (2019). The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3186134.
Caserotti, M., Rubaltelli, E., & Slovic, P. (2019). How decision context changes the balance between cost and benefit increasing charitable donations. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003429.
Caviola, L., Faulmüller, N., Everett, J. A. C., Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2014). The Evaluability Bias in charitable giving: Saving Administration costs or saving lives? Judgment & Decision Making, 9(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1028.9287.
Chang, C., & Lee, Y. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2910–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00555.xhttps://hfbic1b13095ec5284139sfkxnovkfcnx56kvkfiac.eds.tju.edu.cn/ 00555.x.
Chang, C., & Lee, Y. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 195–220. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048710201129.
Cheng, Y. H., Chuang, S. C., Huang, M. C. J., & Hsieh, W. C. (2012). More than two choices: The influence of context on the framing effect. Current Psychology, 31(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9150-5.
Choi, J., & Park, H. Y. (2021). How donor’s regulatory focus changes the effectiveness of a sadness-evoking charity appeal. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(3), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.08.005.
Choi, J., Rangan, P., & Singh, S. N. (2016). Do cold images cause cold-heartedness? The impact of visual stimuli on the effectiveness of negative emotional charity appeals. Journal of Advertising, 45, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1185982.
Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., & Milanol, A. (2007). Is more information always better? An experimental study of charitable giving and Hurricane Katrina. Southern Economic Journal, 74(2), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.2307/20111974.
Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2017). Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005246.
Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Vstfjll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(8), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2018.1452828.
Fan, Y., Jiang, J., & Cui, W. (2019). The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1041.2019.00415.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.
Genevsky, A., & Knutson, B. (2015). Neural affective mechanisms predict market-level microlending. Psychological Science, 26, 1411–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615588467.
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0077.
Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. A. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374586.
Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Wang, L., & Zhang, S. (2013). Magnitude, time, and risk differ similarly between joint and single evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1086/669484.
Huber, M., Van Boven, L., McGraw, A. P., & Johnson-Graham, L. (2011). Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.003.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.
Kemp, E., Kennett-Hensel, P. A., & Kees, J. (2013). Pulling on the heartstrings: Examining the effects of emotions and gender in persuasive appeals. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.749084.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The singularity effect of identitied victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003.
Lee, S., & Feeley, T. H. (2018). The identifiable victim effect: Using an experimental-causal-chain design to test for mediation. Current Psychology, 37(4), 875–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9570-3.
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 Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.
Metzger, L., & Günther, I. (2019). Is it what you say or how you say it? The impact of aid effectiveness information and its framing on donation behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 83, 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101461.
Nam, Y., Park, H. G., & Kim, Y. H. (2021). Do you favor positive information or dislike negative information? Cultural variations in the derivation of the framing effect. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01234-w.
Nan, X., Daily, K., & Qin, Y. (2018). Relative persuasiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages: A review of theoretical perspectives and developing an integrative framework. Review of Communication, 18, 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1519845.
Putrevu, S. (2014). Effects of mood and elaboration on processing and evaluation of goal-framed appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20682.
Rubaltelli, E., & Slovic, P. (2008). Affective reactions and context-dependent processing of negations. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(8), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000156X.
Ryazanov, A. A., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2018). On the limited role of efficiency in charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 939–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018773899.
Saxton, G. D., & Wang, L. (2013). The social network effect. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 850–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013485159.
Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8647-1_3.
Sussman, A. B., Sharma, E., & Alter, A. L. (2015). Framing charitable donations as exceptional expenses increases giving. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 21(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000047.
Tian, Y., & Konrath, S. (2021). The Effects of similarity on charitable giving in Donor-Donor Dyads: A systematic literature review. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00165-w.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.
Willemsen, M. C., & Keren, G. (2004). The role of negative features in joint and separate evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.476.
Xie, Y., & Zhou, J. (2012). Emotions and framing effect Influence Monetary donations decision making: An Experimental Research. Journal of Psychological Science, 35(4), 951. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.04.039.
Xu, J., & Huang, G. (2020). The relative effectiveness of gain-framed and loss‐framed messages in charity advertising: Meta‐analytic evidence and implications. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 25(4), https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1675.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72172102), Tianjin Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project Office (Grant No. TJGL17-012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Tianjin University.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, they were informed about possible consequences and their rights were protected.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zheng, C., Wang, J., He, H. et al. The impact of evaluation modes on charitable giving: the framing effect in joint evaluation. Curr Psychol 43, 11435–11446 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05269-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05269-7