网络公益平台默认选项设置对个人捐赠意愿的影响及作用机制
|
摘要
本文探讨了在网络公益背景下默认选项金额对个人捐赠意愿的影响及其心理机制。通过4个实验,本文发现在网络公益平台中将默认选项设置为高金额会显著地减少个人的捐赠意愿,而感知被操控在该影响过程中起到了中介作用。具体而言,当公益机构将默认选项的金额设置为高金额(vs.低金额)时,人们的被操控感知增强,进而捐赠意愿降低,产生了默认效应的反作用。此外,个体道德认同水平在这一影响中发挥了调节作用。当个体道德认同水平较低时,高金额默认选项(vs.低金额默认选项)会降低其捐赠意愿,而对于道德认同水平较高的个体而言,他们的捐赠意愿在高/低金额默认选项时不存在显著差异。研究结论推进了默认效应在捐赠决策领域的理论研究,同时对于当前快速发展的网络公益平台进行捐赠金额的设置具有重要的实践意义。
Increasingly, people are turning to the online donation platform as their preferred means of giving. Thus,determining how donors' donation intention on the web can be improved has been increasingly emphasized.However, few studies have explored how the option settings of online donation platform affect individuals' donation behavior. Based on the literature of default effect and marketplace metacognition, we proposed that default amounts(high vs. low) have negative effect on donation intention in an online call-for-donation message.High default amounts(vs. low default amounts) led to lower donation intention, because it triggered individuals' perceived inference of manipulation. This study also examined the moderating role of individuals' moral identity in the aforementioned effect.Four studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. Study 1 was designed to test the main effect of default amounts on donation behavior. Participants were assigned randomly to two conditions(high vs. low amount) in the lab setting. They first read a call-for-donation message that introduced a fictitious donation request(to build libraries) from a fictitious online charitable organization. Four amount options were then presented with $12 as default in the high amount condition and $5 in the low amount condition. Finally, their donation intentions and actual donation behavior were measured. Study 2 validated the results of Study 1 by conducting a field study among part-time MBA students. In Study 3, we employed a three-group(default option: high-amount vs.low-amount vs. no default) between-subjects design to examine the mediating role of perceived inference of manipulation, while ruling out the potential explanations of reactance and emotions. Study 3 was conducted online using a different donation message. Study 4 examined further the moderating role of individual's moral identity using a two(default option: high-amount vs. low-amount) × two(moral identity: high vs. low)between-subjects design. Moral identity was manipulated by instructing participants to copy nine moral-related words(vs. ordinary words) twice and write a related story.In line with our predictions, high default amounts(vs. low default amounts) led to lower donation intention and lower donation amounts, driven by perceived inference of manipulation. This effect was robust by using both student and non-student samples, different call-for-donation messages, and different default amounts. Our results also revealed the significant moderating role of moral identity. The default amount effect was only significant when individuals were primed with low moral identity(vs. high moral identity).Our findings contribute to literature in several different areas. First, by examining how default amount influences individual's donation behavior, this research extends the default effect in the donation decision area.Second, our findings shed light on the default effect by exploring the backfire effect and its underlying mechanism of default options. Third, the current research contributes to donation decision literature by proposing that options settings(i.e., default amount) is a meaningful influencing factor that may elicit a negative effect on donation. Finally, we also extend the application of moral consistent theories in default effect research.
Increasingly, people are turning to the online donation platform as their preferred means of giving. Thus,determining how donors' donation intention on the web can be improved has been increasingly emphasized.However, few studies have explored how the option settings of online donation platform affect individuals' donation behavior. Based on the literature of default effect and marketplace metacognition, we proposed that default amounts(high vs. low) have negative effect on donation intention in an online call-for-donation message.High default amounts(vs. low default amounts) led to lower donation intention, because it triggered individuals' perceived inference of manipulation. This study also examined the moderating role of individuals' moral identity in the aforementioned effect.Four studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. Study 1 was designed to test the main effect of default amounts on donation behavior. Participants were assigned randomly to two conditions(high vs. low amount) in the lab setting. They first read a call-for-donation message that introduced a fictitious donation request(to build libraries) from a fictitious online charitable organization. Four amount options were then presented with $12 as default in the high amount condition and $5 in the low amount condition. Finally, their donation intentions and actual donation behavior were measured. Study 2 validated the results of Study 1 by conducting a field study among part-time MBA students. In Study 3, we employed a three-group(default option: high-amount vs.low-amount vs. no default) between-subjects design to examine the mediating role of perceived inference of manipulation, while ruling out the potential explanations of reactance and emotions. Study 3 was conducted online using a different donation message. Study 4 examined further the moderating role of individual's moral identity using a two(default option: high-amount vs. low-amount) × two(moral identity: high vs. low)between-subjects design. Moral identity was manipulated by instructing participants to copy nine moral-related words(vs. ordinary words) twice and write a related story.In line with our predictions, high default amounts(vs. low default amounts) led to lower donation intention and lower donation amounts, driven by perceived inference of manipulation. This effect was robust by using both student and non-student samples, different call-for-donation messages, and different default amounts. Our results also revealed the significant moderating role of moral identity. The default amount effect was only significant when individuals were primed with low moral identity(vs. high moral identity).Our findings contribute to literature in several different areas. First, by examining how default amount influences individual's donation behavior, this research extends the default effect in the donation decision area.Second, our findings shed light on the default effect by exploring the backfire effect and its underlying mechanism of default options. Third, the current research contributes to donation decision literature by proposing that options settings(i.e., default amount) is a meaningful influencing factor that may elicit a negative effect on donation. Finally, we also extend the application of moral consistent theories in default effect research.
引文
Amir,O.,&Levav,J.(2008).Choice construction versus preference construction:The instability of preferences learned in context.Journal of Marketing Research,45(2),145-158.
Andreoni,J.(1990).Impure altruism and donations to public goods:A theory of warm-glow giving.The Economic Journal,100(401),464-477.
Aquino,K.,&Reed II,A.(2002).The self-importance of moral identity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83(6),1423-1440.
Bi,S.,Pang,J.,&Lv,Y.L.(2016).The effect of stress on consumers’nostalgic preference.Journal of Marketing Science,12(1),38-50.[毕圣,庞隽,吕一林.(2016).压力对怀旧偏好的影响机制.营销科学学报,12(1),38-50.]
Brown,C.L.,&Krishna,A.(2004).The skeptical shopper:Ametacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice.Journal of Consumer Research,31(3),529-539.
Campbell,M.C.(1995).When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent:The importance of balancing benefits and investments.Journal of Consumer Psychology,4(3),225-254.
Clee,M.A.,&Wicklund,R.A.(1980).Consumer behavior and psychological reactance.Journal of Consumer Research,6(4),389-405.
Croson,R.,&Shang,J.Y.(2008).The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions.Experimental Economics,11(3),221-233.
Ding,Y.,&Gong,X.S.(2016).The influence of social exclusion on consumer preference for products with different textures and its underlying process.Acta Psychologica Sinica,48(10),1302-1313.[丁瑛,宫秀双.(2016).社会排斥对产品触觉信息偏好的影响及其作用机制.心理学报,48(10),1302-1313.]
Dinner,I.,Johnson,E.J.,Goldstein,D.G.,&Liu,K.(2011).Partitioning default effects:Why people choose not to choose.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied,17(4),332-341.
Fitzsimons,G.J.,&Lehmann,D.R.(2004).Reactance to recommendations:When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses.Marketing Science,23(1),82-94.
Flavell,J.H.(1976).Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.The Nature of Intelligence,12,231-235.
Goswami,I.,&Urminsky,O.(2016).When should the ask be a nudge?The effect of default amounts on charitable donations.Journal of Marketing Research,53(5),829-846.
Hardy,S.A.(2006).Identity,reasoning,and emotion:An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation.Motivation and Emotion,30(3),205-213.
Hayes,A.F.(2012).PROCESS:A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,moderation,and conditional process modeling[White paper].Retrieved June 7,2018,from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
He,Y.Q.,Tang,Y.Y.,&Zhang,J.F.(2016).Consumer psychological reactance:A literature review and prospects.Foreign Economics&Management,38(2),49-61.[贺远琼,唐漾一,张俊芳.(2016).消费者心理逆反研究现状与展望.外国经济与管理,38(2),49-61.]
Hong,S.M.,&Faedda,S.(1996).Refinement of the hong psychological reactance scale.Educational and Psychological Measurement,56(1),173-182.
Janoff-Bulman,R.,Sheikh,S.,&Hepp,S.(2009).Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality:Two faces of moral regulation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(3),521-537.
Johnson,E.J.,Bellman,S.,&Lohse,G.L.(2002).Defaults,framing and privacy:Why opting in-opting out.Marketing Letters,13(1),5-15.
Johnson,E.J.,Hershey,J.,Meszaros,J.,&Kunreuther,H.(1993).Framing,probability distortions,and insurance decisions.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,7(1),35-51.
Johnson,E.J.,&Goldstein,D.(2003).Do defaults save lives?Science,302(5649),1338-1339.
Kahneman,D.,Knetsch,J.L.,&Thaler,R.H.(1991).Anomalies:The endowment effect,loss aversion,and status quo bias.Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(1),193-206.
Krishna,A.(2011).Can supporting a cause decrease donations and happiness?The cause marketing paradox.Journal of Consumer Psychology,21(3),338-345.
Levav,J.,&Zhu,R.(2009).Seeking freedom through variety.Journal of Consumer Research,36(4),600-610.
Monin,B.,&Jordan,A.H.(2009).The dynamic moral self:Asocial psychological perspective.In Narvaez D.,&Lapsley D.K.(Eds.),Personality,identity,and character:Explorations in moral psychology(pp.341-354).New York,NY:Cambridge University Press.
Oppenheimer,D.M.,Meyvis,T.,&Davidenko,N.(2009).Instructional manipulation checks:Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(4),867-872.
Park,C.W.,Jun,S.Y.,&Macinnis,D.J.(2000).Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want:An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions.Journal of Marketing Research,37(2),187-202.
Preacher,K.J.,&Hayes,A.F.(2004).SPSS and SASprocedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.Behavior Research Methods,Instruments,&Computers,36(4),717-731.
Prelec,D.,Wernerfelt,B.,&Zettelmeyer,F.(1997).The role of inference in context effects:Inferring what you want from what is available.Journal of Consumer Research,24(1),118-125.
Reed,A.,Aquino,K.,&Levy,E.(2007).Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors.Journal of Marketing,71(1),178-193.
Rooij,M.V.,&Teppa,F.(2014).Personal traits and individual choices:Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions.Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,100,33-43.
Shang,J.,Reed,A.,&Croson,R.(2008).Identity congruency effects on donations.Journal of Marketing Research,45(3),351-361.
Slovic,P.(1995).The construction of preference.American Psychologist,50(5),364-371.
Thaler,R.H.,&Sunstein,C.R.(2008).Nudge:Improving decisions about health,wealth and happiness.New Haven:CT Yales University Press.
Wang,X.,&Tong,L.(2015).Hide the light or let it shine?Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’happiness.International Journal of Research in Marketing,32(4),418-424.
Wei,M.L.,Fischer,E.,&Main,K.J.(2008).An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing.Journal of Public Policy&Marketing,27(1),34-44.
Wright,P.(2002).Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence.Journal of Consumer Research,28(4),677-682.
Zhang,H.W.,&Li,Y.(2014).Moral behavior under two kinds of moral self-regulation mechanisms.Advances in Psychological Science,22(7),1178-1187.[张宏伟,李晔.(2014).两种道德自我调节机制下的道德行为.心理科学进展,22(7),1178-1187.]
1 https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/index.html
2 3名回答不符合逻辑,10名回答时间过短。
3在排除顺序效应时,我们仅对(1)5元/8元/12元/不捐赠和(2)12元/8元/5元/不捐赠两种顺序进行了随机设置,并未完全打破4个备选项的顺序进行随机设置,因为在实际的网络默认金额设置中未有出现乱序的情况(如12/5/8或者5/12/8),且乱序会引发被试的认知失调继而干扰其后续行为决策。
4无效样本共计12个,其中5人打开链接后只阅读到第1页;7人未按照其选择的金额进行支付(支付了其他金额,如50元,100元等);有效样本中,3人阅读到第二页捐赠金额选项后放弃捐赠。
5其中,有7名被试未完成注意力测试,3名完成时间过短,3名完成时间过长。
6其中,11名没有通过注意力测试项;7名未完成故事回忆任务,5名完成时间过短,2名完成时间过长。
7操控检验结果中的低道德认同组的均值超过了平均值3.5,因此在此称其为“低道德认同”略为不妥。但是出于对前人做法的遵从(如Aquino&Reed,2002;Wang&Tong,2015)和对行文一致性的保证,我们在此维持“低道德认同”这一表述方式。
Andreoni,J.(1990).Impure altruism and donations to public goods:A theory of warm-glow giving.The Economic Journal,100(401),464-477.
Aquino,K.,&Reed II,A.(2002).The self-importance of moral identity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83(6),1423-1440.
Bi,S.,Pang,J.,&Lv,Y.L.(2016).The effect of stress on consumers’nostalgic preference.Journal of Marketing Science,12(1),38-50.[毕圣,庞隽,吕一林.(2016).压力对怀旧偏好的影响机制.营销科学学报,12(1),38-50.]
Brown,C.L.,&Krishna,A.(2004).The skeptical shopper:Ametacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice.Journal of Consumer Research,31(3),529-539.
Campbell,M.C.(1995).When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent:The importance of balancing benefits and investments.Journal of Consumer Psychology,4(3),225-254.
Clee,M.A.,&Wicklund,R.A.(1980).Consumer behavior and psychological reactance.Journal of Consumer Research,6(4),389-405.
Croson,R.,&Shang,J.Y.(2008).The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions.Experimental Economics,11(3),221-233.
Ding,Y.,&Gong,X.S.(2016).The influence of social exclusion on consumer preference for products with different textures and its underlying process.Acta Psychologica Sinica,48(10),1302-1313.[丁瑛,宫秀双.(2016).社会排斥对产品触觉信息偏好的影响及其作用机制.心理学报,48(10),1302-1313.]
Dinner,I.,Johnson,E.J.,Goldstein,D.G.,&Liu,K.(2011).Partitioning default effects:Why people choose not to choose.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied,17(4),332-341.
Fitzsimons,G.J.,&Lehmann,D.R.(2004).Reactance to recommendations:When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses.Marketing Science,23(1),82-94.
Flavell,J.H.(1976).Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.The Nature of Intelligence,12,231-235.
Goswami,I.,&Urminsky,O.(2016).When should the ask be a nudge?The effect of default amounts on charitable donations.Journal of Marketing Research,53(5),829-846.
Hardy,S.A.(2006).Identity,reasoning,and emotion:An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation.Motivation and Emotion,30(3),205-213.
Hayes,A.F.(2012).PROCESS:A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,moderation,and conditional process modeling[White paper].Retrieved June 7,2018,from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
He,Y.Q.,Tang,Y.Y.,&Zhang,J.F.(2016).Consumer psychological reactance:A literature review and prospects.Foreign Economics&Management,38(2),49-61.[贺远琼,唐漾一,张俊芳.(2016).消费者心理逆反研究现状与展望.外国经济与管理,38(2),49-61.]
Hong,S.M.,&Faedda,S.(1996).Refinement of the hong psychological reactance scale.Educational and Psychological Measurement,56(1),173-182.
Janoff-Bulman,R.,Sheikh,S.,&Hepp,S.(2009).Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality:Two faces of moral regulation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(3),521-537.
Johnson,E.J.,Bellman,S.,&Lohse,G.L.(2002).Defaults,framing and privacy:Why opting in-opting out.Marketing Letters,13(1),5-15.
Johnson,E.J.,Hershey,J.,Meszaros,J.,&Kunreuther,H.(1993).Framing,probability distortions,and insurance decisions.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,7(1),35-51.
Johnson,E.J.,&Goldstein,D.(2003).Do defaults save lives?Science,302(5649),1338-1339.
Kahneman,D.,Knetsch,J.L.,&Thaler,R.H.(1991).Anomalies:The endowment effect,loss aversion,and status quo bias.Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(1),193-206.
Krishna,A.(2011).Can supporting a cause decrease donations and happiness?The cause marketing paradox.Journal of Consumer Psychology,21(3),338-345.
Levav,J.,&Zhu,R.(2009).Seeking freedom through variety.Journal of Consumer Research,36(4),600-610.
Monin,B.,&Jordan,A.H.(2009).The dynamic moral self:Asocial psychological perspective.In Narvaez D.,&Lapsley D.K.(Eds.),Personality,identity,and character:Explorations in moral psychology(pp.341-354).New York,NY:Cambridge University Press.
Oppenheimer,D.M.,Meyvis,T.,&Davidenko,N.(2009).Instructional manipulation checks:Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(4),867-872.
Park,C.W.,Jun,S.Y.,&Macinnis,D.J.(2000).Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want:An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions.Journal of Marketing Research,37(2),187-202.
Preacher,K.J.,&Hayes,A.F.(2004).SPSS and SASprocedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.Behavior Research Methods,Instruments,&Computers,36(4),717-731.
Prelec,D.,Wernerfelt,B.,&Zettelmeyer,F.(1997).The role of inference in context effects:Inferring what you want from what is available.Journal of Consumer Research,24(1),118-125.
Reed,A.,Aquino,K.,&Levy,E.(2007).Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors.Journal of Marketing,71(1),178-193.
Rooij,M.V.,&Teppa,F.(2014).Personal traits and individual choices:Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions.Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,100,33-43.
Shang,J.,Reed,A.,&Croson,R.(2008).Identity congruency effects on donations.Journal of Marketing Research,45(3),351-361.
Slovic,P.(1995).The construction of preference.American Psychologist,50(5),364-371.
Thaler,R.H.,&Sunstein,C.R.(2008).Nudge:Improving decisions about health,wealth and happiness.New Haven:CT Yales University Press.
Wang,X.,&Tong,L.(2015).Hide the light or let it shine?Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’happiness.International Journal of Research in Marketing,32(4),418-424.
Wei,M.L.,Fischer,E.,&Main,K.J.(2008).An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing.Journal of Public Policy&Marketing,27(1),34-44.
Wright,P.(2002).Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence.Journal of Consumer Research,28(4),677-682.
Zhang,H.W.,&Li,Y.(2014).Moral behavior under two kinds of moral self-regulation mechanisms.Advances in Psychological Science,22(7),1178-1187.[张宏伟,李晔.(2014).两种道德自我调节机制下的道德行为.心理科学进展,22(7),1178-1187.]
1 https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/index.html
2 3名回答不符合逻辑,10名回答时间过短。
3在排除顺序效应时,我们仅对(1)5元/8元/12元/不捐赠和(2)12元/8元/5元/不捐赠两种顺序进行了随机设置,并未完全打破4个备选项的顺序进行随机设置,因为在实际的网络默认金额设置中未有出现乱序的情况(如12/5/8或者5/12/8),且乱序会引发被试的认知失调继而干扰其后续行为决策。
4无效样本共计12个,其中5人打开链接后只阅读到第1页;7人未按照其选择的金额进行支付(支付了其他金额,如50元,100元等);有效样本中,3人阅读到第二页捐赠金额选项后放弃捐赠。
5其中,有7名被试未完成注意力测试,3名完成时间过短,3名完成时间过长。
6其中,11名没有通过注意力测试项;7名未完成故事回忆任务,5名完成时间过短,2名完成时间过长。
7操控检验结果中的低道德认同组的均值超过了平均值3.5,因此在此称其为“低道德认同”略为不妥。但是出于对前人做法的遵从(如Aquino&Reed,2002;Wang&Tong,2015)和对行文一致性的保证,我们在此维持“低道德认同”这一表述方式。