Willingness to Supply Human Body Parts: Some Empirical Results

Pessemier, Edgar A.; Bemmaor, Albert C.; Hanssens, Dominique M.

doi:10.1086/208688

Cited by 76 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Impact of demographics on donation behavior: The estimation result also shows that a donor's demographics do play a significant part in whether she will upgrade or maintain status quo or dropout in a particular period. This concurs with the findings in the extant literature that say that there are significant demographic differences between donors and non-donors (Burnett, 1981;Pessemier, Beamon, & Hanssens, 1977), between heavy donors and light donors (Danko & Stanley, 1986;Harvey, 1990), and that demographics do indeed have a high correlation with motivation for charity (Broadbridge & Horne, 1994) and propensity towards transition across various donation states (Netzer et al, 2008). The direct effects for most of the demographics are as expected by the firm.…”

Section: Intrinsic (Baseline) Upgrading Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 89%

To retain? To upgrade? The effects of direct mail on regular donation behavior

Thomas

Feng

Krishnan

2015

International Journal of Research in Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Intrinsic (Baseline) Upgrading Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 89%

To retain? To upgrade? The effects of direct mail on regular donation behavior

Thomas

Feng

Krishnan

2015

International Journal of Research in Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One consistent finding is that humanitarian values and religiosity are correlated with giving (see e.g. Burnett 1981;Pessemier, Bemmaor, and Hanssens 1977). Findings regarding other demographic variables such as age and gender have obtained mixed results (for a review see pages 63-66 in Camerer 2003).…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Donormentioning

confidence: 99%

Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior

Small

Simonsohn

2006

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do different people give to different causes? We show that the sympathy inherent to a close relationship with a victim extends to other victims suffering from the same misfortunes that have afflicted their friends and loved ones. Both sympathy and donations are greater among those related to a victim, and they are greater among those in a communal relationship as compared to those in an exchange relationship. Experiments that control for information support causality and rule out the alternative explanation that any effect is driven by the information advantage possessed by friends of victims. The Wharton School uws@wharton.upenn.edu Why do different people give to different causes? We argue that knowing people with specific misfortunes is an important determinant of preference. Four studies demonstrate that knowing a victim increases prosocial behavior directed toward other victims of the same misfortune in the lab and field, for both donated time and money. An experiment shows that the relationship is causal, not due to unobserved heterogeneity. Survey data suggests that knowing a victim decreases social distance and increases perceived responsibility for others' welfare, together fully mediating the effect on prosocial behavior.We would like to thank Rachel Croson, Eli Finkel, Barbara Kahn, George Loewenstein, Jay Russo, Maurice Schweitzer, Jack Soll and Ebonya Washington for valuable comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank

show abstract

“…Previous research has examined request variables such as the size of the request (eg Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1995;Fraser et al, 1988) and requests for donations of different types (eg Fisher and Ackerman, 1998;Broadbridge and Horne, 1994;Allen and Butler, 1993;Allen and Maddox, 1990;Pessemier et al, 1977), but there is little prior research into charitable giving that considers the effects of 'who' makes the request. The typical scenario for charitable giving is that a representative of the charitable organisation asks consumers for help on behalf of the beneficiaries.…”

Section: External Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%