4.2 Article

Emotional mechanisms and format effects of motivational questions for blood donation

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 60, Issue 9, Pages 1998-2009

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.15942

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Prior studies suggest that responding to online motivational questions increases blood donation intention. The present studies were designed to extend these findings by (a) exploring the impact of methodologic variations in the content and order of administration of specific questions on donation intention and (b) examining anticipated positive and negative emotional reactions as potential mediators. Study Design and Methods In the first study, 4709 respondents (51.2% female; mean +/- SD age, 38.4 +/- 12.1 years) were randomly assigned to one of four motivational questions or a no-question control. In the second study, 5291 respondents (52.7% female; mean +/- SD age, 37.3 +/- 11.9 years) were randomly assigned to one of six motivational questions or a no-question control. In both studies, the motivational questions were followed by measures of donation intention, anticipated warm glow, and anticipated regret. Results In Study 1, three of the four questions were associated with higher donation intentions, with anticipated warm glow being a potential partial mediator for two of the questions. In Study 2, five of the six questions were associated with higher donation intentions, with anticipated warm glow and anticipated regret being potential partial mediators for three of the questions. These effects were largely consistent among donors and nondonors. Conclusion These studies expand our understanding of the association between particular motivational questions and donation intentions and provide preliminary support for the notion that specific questions may influence donation intention by increasing anticipated positive and negative emotional reactions to the thought of giving or not giving, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available