2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thinking, feeling, and giving: The effects of scope and valuation on consumer donations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…in-groups vs out-groups) (Cavanaugh et al , 2015; Winterich et al , 2009). The scope (Hasford et al , 2015) and amount (Müller et al , 2014) of donation might further influence these effects. In line with this research direction, prior research suggests that gratitude has high social connectedness (Bartlett and DeSteno, 2006; Cavanaugh, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in-groups vs out-groups) (Cavanaugh et al , 2015; Winterich et al , 2009). The scope (Hasford et al , 2015) and amount (Müller et al , 2014) of donation might further influence these effects. In line with this research direction, prior research suggests that gratitude has high social connectedness (Bartlett and DeSteno, 2006; Cavanaugh, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior research on scope of impact has produced mixed findings in terms of its effectiveness in increasing charitable donations. Some studies have found that scope of impact is an important psychological mechanism that promotes donations (Cryder, Loewenstein, and Seltman 2013; Duncan 2004; Erlandsson, Björklund, and Bäckström 2015), whereas others suggest that donors are not always influenced by the overall impact of their donation makes on the underlying problem supported by the charity (Hasford, Farmer, and Waites 2015; Hsee and Rottenstreich 2004; Kahneman and Knetsch 1992; Smith, Faro, and Burson 2013). For example, Desvouges et al (1993) examine impact in terms of donations to help save 2,000, 20,000, and 200,000 birds and find no difference between participant donations despite the number of birds to be helped.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Efforts to assuage these concerns with this population may increase solicitation conversion rates. One such approach may be to manipulate ask amounts (Crow et al, 2019; De Bruyn & Prokopec, 2013; Hasford et al, 2015), perhaps by setting smaller ask amounts for younger than for older donors. Other approaches may be to manipulate how campaign progress is reported and publicized (Anik et al, 2014; Chen, 2020; Goswami & Urminsky, 2020); perhaps younger donors are more likely to donate if the contributions of all donors, large and small, are publicized in some form or another.…”
Section: Literature Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%