4.5 Article

The more the better? The negative effect of disseminators' donations in online donation

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 1179-1195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21803

关键词

disseminator; donation; empathy; perceived responsibility; tie strength

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the impact of disseminators' donation amounts on potential donors' likelihood to contribute. The findings show that potential donors are less likely to contribute to unfamiliar initiators when disseminators contribute large amounts. The effect is driven by psychological response and is influenced by tie strength and empathy. This research enriches the literature on others' donations and online donation and provides managerial guidance for the success of online donation projects.
Online donation platforms often present information regarding disseminators' donations to stimulate donations, but it is unclear how it affects potential donors' behavior. This paper examines how disseminators' donation amounts impact potential donors' donation likelihood. The findings of six studies show that potential donors are less (vs. more) likely to contribute to unfamiliar initiators when disseminators contribute large (vs. small) amounts. The following psychological response drives the effect: when potential donors observe disseminators contribute more, they infer that disseminators have assumed greater responsibility and thus reduce their perceived responsibility to the unfamiliar initiator. We also confirm the boundary conditions of tie strength and empathy. This effect is significant when donors have low levels of empathy or strong ties with the disseminator. In contrast, this effect is reversed when tie strength is high and attenuated when potential donors have high levels of empathy. Our research enriches the literature concerning the effects of others' donations and online donation and provides managerial guidance to enable the success of online donation projects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据