 

 

E.
.. ...
... 9 3......

Ev;

.. ,
.. x. .. ...: z ....
.. . a. ..
. .3. .E. 43.2..
. ......... .

a 4 z.
1..run....ru¢b..u.
kw... .. .. um... .5“
53.2.5“; Lari».
I . 5‘4... 183‘ I. . tits}?!
,zitnaﬁn aw...’ usiihn
. .é
a.

5‘ . ..
s‘aiiﬁf... ..
tinrhlrxix

15.23;
3.: t:
s5???
Qt. n;.~3o ‘
’32; ‘0‘
i...) «u.

.2.

s L::....vinu.id.urm

'5‘ Hi I) .0!
.1.kius.!k..u.ts

jaw!
. J .. ”v.11.
s. z. 1. ‘
Eu: 3.1..“er
3.1.1.... I... .
1.5.15.5}...1;
(a 2...! xii... .2. 2.
33312.52...

al.5315339,“!- a)
a... .. 3.1.3.:
. an 5... ..

13%;me5raugﬁiuni

rm ts

LIBRARY
8600‘ Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

OPERATIONALIZING KEY CONSTRUCTS OF CONSTRUAL
LEVEL THEORY TO MAXIMIZE DONOR GENEROSITY
TOWARDS ADVERTISING MESSAGES

presented by
CLAY DEDEAUX

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in { Media&|nformation Studies

 

 

   

A)?

 

Major Professor’s Signature
”7qu / 1 2&3?
I ' I

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

_.-..-.0-

--'-o-o- 4-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/PrqlAcc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

OPERATIONALIZIN G KEY CONSTRUCTS OF CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY TO
MAXIMIZE DONOR GENEROSITY TOWARDS ADVERTISING MESSAGES

By

Clay Steven Dedeaux

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing

2009

Copyright by
CLAY DEDEAUX
2009

ABSTRACT

OPERATIONIALIZING KEY CONSTRUCTS OF CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY
TO MAXIMIZE DONOR GENEROSITY TOWARD ADVERTISING MESSAGES

By
Clay Dedeaux

Designing messages which appeal to the generosity of prospective donors is
critically important to those in harm’s way, and secondly to those who advocate for their
care, such as nonproﬁt organizations (NPOs). Contributions needed to combat disease
and malnutrition are far in excess of the relief agencies’ ﬁnancial resources.

Donors typically respond ﬁrst to the appeals of family and friends, before those of
strangers. This suggests that people categorize others as socially close or distant. Donors
also typically respond ﬁrst to urgent appeals for humanitarian aid in response to large-
scale natural catastrophes, before they will donate to less urgent appeals such as
economic development or a capital campaign. This suggests that people categorize
situations on a temporal basis. Two psychological distances (social and temporal) are
theorized by construal level theory (CLT) to create different mental representations of an
object. CLT’s explanation of this phenomenon is based on a representational theory of
the mind, rooted in cognitive science, which takes on the form of semantics to describe
mental states such as the accuracy and truthfulness of thoughts, beliefs, desires,
perceptions, and images about an object. CLT theorizes that mental representations are
formed in concrete language (low-level construals), or abstract language (high-level
construals). The main hypothesis is that donors evaluate charitable messages more

favorably when the diction matches their construal.

A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design successfully manipulated three independent variables
into contrasting levels: social distance (near-distant) as the between-subject variable; with
temporal distance (urgent/less-urgent) and diction (abstract-concrete) as the two within-
subject variables. The dependent variables are: (a) ﬁnancial donations toward the
charitable appeal, and (b) self-report of motivation based upon the value-expressive
attitude function versus the utilitarian attitude function. Data was solicited among 2,076
employees of a major international ﬁrm headquartered in the Mid-Atlantic region and
randomly assigned to one study: a manipulation check (N=124), a revised check (N=26),
a pretest (N=26), and the main experiment (N=221). A random drawing for $1,000
allowed respondents to realistically consider their allocation to a charity, as if the money
were their own. Evidence to support the presence of mental representation as deﬁned by
CLT would have appeared as higher donations in the treatments which matched the
diction (level of abstraction) to the construal. A three-way ANOVA of mean donor
contributions determined that social distance and temporal distance interacted to
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence donor behavior independently of the use of abstract or concrete
language in the stimuli materials, which appear in the form of magazine advertisements.
Evidence does not support the contention that people produce low- or high-level
construals. Signiﬁcant but low correlations were observed between larger contributions
and (a) higher household incomes, (b) extrinsic religious orientation, (c) interdependent
self construal, and (d) personal involvement with charitable issues; but none for (e) value-

expressive attitudes.

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Katie and daughter Jennifer, for their love,

support, and patience during my academic journey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank the following people, without whom I could not

have completed this program:

Dr. Hairong Li, committee chair, who immediately impressed me with his
intellect and ability as a teacher. I was amazed that Hairong could devise so many
different ways to challenge his students in a constructive and enabling manner. His good

nature and encouragement were invaluable to me.

Dr. Richard Cole, a member of my dissertation committee, and department chair,
who brought a wealth of experience from the nonproﬁt sector which kept me grounded in
the true nature of philanthropy. Rick’s upbeat personality was a reminder that our work is

a pleasure and that few people can get paid to do what they love.

Dr. Mary Bresnahan, a member of my dissertation committee, who provided me
with insight to the cultures of another world. I spent time abroad but only now have a
better understanding of that experience. Mary’s work in cross-cultural studies is an

instrument of peace that brings people together in a meaningful way.

Dr. Sandi Smith, a member of my dissertation committee, who helped me make
sense of my 30 years of experience in the advertising industry. Until I met Sandi, I could
honestly say which ads worked and which didn’t, but couldn’t tell you why. I am

indebted to Sandi as she rescued my career and helped me win some new business.

vi

Robert Everett, my brother-in-law, who is a ﬁne and accomplished man. Bob was
very helpful to me throughout the process. Bob has a great command of English and
Western Philosophy which helped me understand the role of rhetoric in a properly

designed study.

Karen Driscoll and Fran Kelly at Arnold Worldwide who provided me time to
attend courses while employed at Arnold Worldwide. As if that were not enough help,

then imagine my delight with the generosity of their tuition assistance program.

Debra Kingsbury, Jennifer Perry, and Dana Cizmadia who allowed me access to

employees at Volkswagen of America for my experiment and survey.

Karen Kancius, current Director of Corporate Relations at the Milwaukee Public
Museum who shared a concern with me that ﬁnancial aid for international causes are
more difﬁcult to raise than is aid for domestic causes. Karen’s problem left a lasting
impression with me. I hope this dissertation, written 25 years after hearing Karen’s
lament, is a signiﬁcant step toward understanding how donors decide to share their

wealth between friends and strangers.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
KEY TO ABREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3
Donor Bias Toward In-Groups ................................................................................... 4
Inadequate Donor Response ....................................................................................... 4
Depressed Giving During Domestic Economic Downturn ......................................... 5
Ineffective Nonproﬁt Communication Campaigns ..................................................... 6
Limited Academic Interest .......................................................................................... 8
The Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 8
Gaps in the Literature ....................................................................................................... 10
Research’s Social Signiﬁcance ........................................................................................ 11
Research Scope and Approach ......................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ................................................................................... 15
Deﬁnition of Key Terms in Prosocial Literature ....................................................... 17
Social Justice ........................................................................................................ 18
Benevolence and its Contrast to Social Justice .................................................... 19
Sentimentality Contrasted to Reason ................................................................... 20
Generosity as a Trait ............................................................................................ 21
Conﬂicting Traits Possessed by Donor ................................................................ 22
Charity .................................................................................................................. 22
Charitable Attitudes and Acts .............................................................................. 22
Ethics of Charity ........................................................................................................ 23
Morality and Ethics in Western Philosophy ........................................................ 23
Aristotle on Moral Virtues ................................................................................... 24
Limiting Moral Obligations ................................................................................. 25
British Moralists’ Philosophy of Charity (1650-1800) ........................................ 26
Utilitarian Philosophy following British Moralists .............................................. 28
Morality of Charity in Modern Society ............................................................... 29
Egoism and Altruism ........................................................................................... 32
Social Learning of Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors ........................................ 33
Values within Religious Context ......................................................................... 36
Religiosity ............................................................................................................ 38

viii

CHAPTER 3

HYPOTHESES AND JUSTIFICATION ........................................................................ 40
Attitudes Toward Charity .......................................................................................... 41
Functional Perspective of Attitudes ..................................................................... 44
Charity and the Value-Expressive Function ........................................................ 51
Attitude Function Inventory ................................................................................. 53
Reciprocity ........................................................................................................... 58
Psychological Distance .............................................................................................. 59
Social Identity ...................................................................................................... 60
Key Constructs Lack Operational Deﬁnition ...................................................... 62
Temporal Distance ............................................................................................... 66
Construal Level Theory ............................................................................................. 67
Summary of CLT ................................................................................................. 70
CLT and Moral Judgments .................................................................................. 71
Dual Coding Theory .................................................................................................. 72
Accessibility of an Attitude ................................................................................. 73
MODE Model ...................................................................................................... 75
Control Variables ....................................................................................................... 75
Cultural Orientation of Values Toward Self or Group Outcomes ....................... 75
Individual Level of Analysis: Self-Construal ...................................................... 75
Personal/Situational Involvement ........................................................................ 77
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 79
Summary .............................................................................................................. 80
CHAPTER 4
METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 81
Research Design ......................................................................................................... 81
Random Assignment to Test Cells ....................................................................... 84
Dependent Variables .................................................................................................. 84
First Measure of Charity: Amount of Donation ................................................... 84
Second Measure of Charity: Value of Gift-in-Exchange-for-Donation .............. 85
First Measure of Generosity: Merit of Giving ..................................................... 85
Second Measure of Generosity: Need for Recognition as Donor ........................ 86
Attitude Function Inventory ................................................................................. 87
Independent Variables ............................................................................................... 87
Social Distance ..................................................................................................... 87
Temporal Distance ............................................................................................... 87
Construal Level .................................................................................................... 87
Control Variables ....................................................................................................... 88
Personal/Situational Involvement ........................................................................ 88
Self-Construal ...................................................................................................... 88
Intrinsic (Motivation Toward Religion ................................................................. 88
Subjects/ Sample ......................................................................................................... 89
Sampling Frame ................................................................................................... 89
Procedures .................................................................................................................. 89
Pretest ................................................................................................................... 90

Online Survey Instrument .......................................................................................... 91

Manipulation Check ................................................................................................... 91
Social Distance ..................................................................................................... 91
Temporal Distance ............................................................................................... 93
Diction Associated to Construal Level ................................................................ 94
Revised Stimuli Material ..................................................................................... 94

Data Preparation ......................................................................................................... 95

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 96

Manipulation Check (MCI) ....................................................................................... 96

Scale Construction ..................................................................................................... 96
Concrete vs. Abstract Language .......................................................................... 96
Temporal Distance ............................................................................................... 98
Factor and Scale Reliability for Language Concreteness .................................... 98
Independent-Samples t Test ............................................................................... 101
Social Distance ................................................................................................... 102
Independent Samples t Test ............................................................................... 104
Corrective Action ............................................................................................... 105

Manipulation Check (MC2) ..................................................................................... 105
Social Distance ................................................................................................... 106
Temporal Distance and Construal Level ............................................................ 106
Independent-Samples t Test of Temporal Distance ........................................... 106
Independent—Samples t Test of Language Concreteness ................................... 107
Corrective Action ............................................................................................... 107

Main Experiment ..................................................................................................... 107
Demographics .................................................................................................... 107

ANOVA ................................................................................................................... 112

CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 116

Findings .................................................................................................................... 116

Rival Explanations ................................................................................................... l 18

Discussion ................................................................................................................ 1 19

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 122

Future Research ....................................................................................................... 123

APPENDIX A
SOLICITATION MATERIALS .................................................................................... 129
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENTS FOR MANIPULATION CHECKS ................................. 131
APPENDIX C
SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR MAIN EXPERIMENT .............................................. 136

APPENDIX D
STIMULI MATERIAL .................................................................................................. 145

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 169

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distinguishing High-Level and Low-Level Construal ....................................... 69
Table 2: Factor Analysis of Language Concreteness ........................................................ 97
Table 3: Data Reduction of Language Concreteness ........................................................ 98
Table 4: Factor analysis of Temporal Distance ................................................................ 99
Table 5: Data Reduction of Temporal Distance .............................................................. 100
Table 6: Donor relationship to Recipient ......................................................................... 102
Table 7: Factor analysis of Social Distance ..................................................................... 103
Table 8: Data reduction of Social Distance ..................................................................... 107
Table 9: Descriptive of Sample Compared to US population .......................................... 108
Table 10: Contributions by HHI ...................................................................................... 109
Table 11: Donor Recognition Requested ........................................................................ 109
Table 12: Amount of Expected Gift ................................................................................ 109
Table 13: Merit ofG1ﬁ109
Table 14: Contribution by Treatment .............................................................................. 110
Table 15: Actual donation by Treatment ........................................................................ 11 1
Table 16: ANOVA of Contribution as the Dependent Variable ...................................... 113

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I: IOS Circles ........................................................................................................ 92
Figure 2: 108 score by social distance ............................................................................. 1.01
Figure 3: Interaction of SD x TD on mean contribution levels ....................................... 114
Figure 4: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 1 ................................................................ 144
Figure 5: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 2 ................................................................ 145
Figure 6: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 3 ................................................................ 146
Figure 7: Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 4 ................................................................ 147
Figure 8: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 5 ................................................................ 148
Figure 9: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 6 ................................................................ 149
Figure 10: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 7 .............................................................. 150
Figure 11: Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 8 .............................................................. 151
Figure 12: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 1 .............................................................. 152
Figure 13: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 2 .............................................................. 153
Figure 14: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 3 .............................................................. 154
Figure 15: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 4 .............................................................. 155
Figure 16: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 5 .............................................................. 156
Figure 17: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 6 .............................................................. 157
Figure 18: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 7 .............................................................. 158
Figure 19: Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 8 .............................................................. 159
Figure 20: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 1 ................................................................ 160
Figure 21: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 2 ................................................................ 161
Figure 22: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 3 ................................................................ 161
Figure 23: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 4 ................................................................ 163

xiii

Figure 24: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 5 ................................................................ 164

Figure 25: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 6 ................................................................ 165
Figure 26: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 7 ................................................................ 166
Figure 27: Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 8 ................................................................ 167

xiv

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAD

AF 1: Attitude Function Inventory
CLT: Construal Level Theory

IOS: Inclusiveness of Other into Self
1V: Independent Variable

MCI: Manipulation Check I

MC2: Manipulation Check 11

NPO: Nonproﬁt Organization

PD: Psychological Distance

SD: Social Distance

TD: Temporal Distance

XV

First Use

122

54

92

15

96

104

105

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Providing for the well—being of the poor and afﬂicted has been an issue of
practical and philosophical importance since antiquity. Ancients debated the role of
reason, duty, morality, and virtue in response to the harm faced by others, and their
theories have had a lasting inﬂuence on crafting a civil response to this age-old problem.
The philosophical works of Aristotle, Plato, Hume, Kant, and Rawls, on subjects of
benevolence, social justice, and self-interest tap into fundamental aspects of our humanity
as viewed from a Western perspective. Plato argued that moral judgments follow from
divinely inspired objective truths, to which the ancient academic skeptics, including
Sextus Empiricus, disagreed in their contention that morality was merely a subjective
human convention (F ieser & Dowden, 2009). Plato’s position favors welfare as a
collective moral duty to serve others; whereas Sextus Empiricus’ position rejects norms
that obligate, in favor of personal agency that is norm-free, so much so that self-interested
outcomes, including pleasure, are morally good. Heeding the sages’ counsel is well-
advised in the formation of contemporary perspectives on social policies toward the
welfare of others and the stability of the state. Their viewpoints and those of latter-day
philosophers and scientists will be consulted as they pertain to the study of charitable
gi Ving at the individual level of analysis.

Moral judgments regarding behavior toward self and others provide an insight as
to how a society treats chronically disadvantaged persons and suddenly compromised
persons, whether they live within or outside of that society’s borders. Welfare debated as
Charity or duty at the societal level can be reframed as inclination versus obligation at the

ind i vidual level. Charity is a deeply personal experience as every adult has been both a

recipient and benefactor of charity; therefore the study expects informed responses from
our survey sample of employed adults; the results should be immediately fruitful and
ultimately suggestive of preferences at the societal level. This research agenda is
ultimately interested in studying conditions in which persuasion may have an effect: a
successful intentional effort at inﬂuencing another’s mental state and/or behavior through
communication in a circumstance in which the persuader has some measure of free
choice (Smith, 2006). Situations in which provision of assistance is necessarily due are
evaluated here in terms of social justice, and as such, impose moral obligations which
deny the donor’s free will, agency, or volition. In these situations, the act cannot
rightfully be described as a donation (Hunt, 1975). This study is situated in the public
sphere, where the solicitor is non-kin or a stranger. Donor preference for members of in-
groups over less similar others is well established in literature ranging from social
psychology (e. g., social identity theory) to evolutionary biological sciences (e.g., survival
of kin). Therefore this study situates the donor at a social distance from the recipient.
Helping others is valued in every society; however, there appear to be rules for how the
beneﬁce is to be applied. The rules addressed in this study are sociological, mostly
concerned with: (1) donor’s welfare orientations primarily directed toward outcomes that
favor self or others; (2) donor’s general pattern of favoritism toward in-groups and
di scrimination toward out-groups, which is related to the moral inclusiveness of others
into self, and social distance; (3) donor’s activation of speciﬁc attitudes based on whether
the design of a persuasive appeal (message) ﬁts their expectations (schema) of the

Ch aritable situation.

The study is especially interested in the encounter between a potential donor and
someone less familiar. Exchanges between strangers are less commonplace and therefore
less studied. An economic exchange without the promise of repayment can be expected to
occur among family and close others; however the normative expectation is that strangers
will enter into formal arrangements that guarantee the terms and conditions of the
payment and reimbursement (Clark, 1981). Strangers do receive aid, but as just noted, far
less in comparison to those who are familiar to the donor. The goal is to develop
message-design strategies that activate the donors’ value-expressive motivations,
including the prosocial values of benevolence and social justice (equality) more so than
the utilitarian motivations that are less often associated with charitable behavior and less
likely to be generous. Our contention is that donors are more likely to activate prosocial
attitudes when the charitable appeal makes appropriate use of language, based on two key
criteria: (a) the personal closeness the donor feels toward the recipient, and (b) the

urgency of the request.

Background of the Problem
Poverty and its negative effect on the immediate health of individuals and future
welfare of groups and society are of great interest and importance to individuals,
societies, and governments throughout the world. Poverty takes its toll on a personal
I eVel, and leads to starvation, disease, and the stigmatizing of entire groups of similarly
afﬂicted people. The number of humans who die of hunger or hunger-related disease is
large at 26,500 per day and growing (Shah, 2008). Human deprivation persists
throughout history and in every region, and even today vexes the most economically

developed countries. The plight of being born in war-tom or economically savaged

country makes a child far more likely to die, a situation demanding more public
awareness, outrage, and response. As Bono, the singer and activist, said in his National
Prayer Day proclamation (2006): “Where you live should no longer determine whether
you live.”
Donor Bias Toward In-Groups

Prosocial acts and charity are far more common between people when they know
each other: People are more sympathetic toward victims who belong to their in-group
rather than their out-group (e.g., Dovidio et al. 1997; F lippen et al. 1996; Levine et al.
2002), who are similar to them (Krebs 1975; Stotland & Walsh 1963), or who have the
same vested interest in a cause (Miller & Ratner 1998; Ratner & Miller 2001). The case
of a donor and familiar others is studied to the extent that this interaction yields clues
useful for promoting aid for the disadvantaged members of society—those most
dissimilar to the dominant members of society. Evidence in support of in-group bias
would provide partial evidence that people categorize others along a continuum between
personal closeness and distance.

Inadequate Donor Response

Beneﬁce as a sentiment may be difﬁcult to quantify; however welfare as a

tangible beneﬁt can be directly accounted for. Americans provided $300 billion in private

donations to national and international causes, the largest of any country. International

development ofﬁcials regard that sum to be too small relative to the wealth of the nation.

Th e criticism is that Americans are stingy, giving just 2.2%of their average disposable

(aﬁer-tax) income (Thomson, 2007). They also argue that American donations of $13.22

hi] 1 ion, at 4.3% of total giving, represent a general unwillingness to support international

and foreign affairs; and further cite that Americans directed three times (33%) as much to

4

religion-related causes, most often their local congregation (Giving USA, 2007). This
paper takes up the challenge to better tap into donor’s willingness to help others; the
paper focuses on giving behaviors in the United States between donors and unfamiliar
others who will be referred to as “strangers” (Schuetz, 1944). The notion of the stranger
may later prove to be analogous to an outsider or foreigner within a cross-cultural
research setting (Berger & Calabrase, 1975). This research is directed at understanding
the structure of prosocial attitudes and how they change depending on the donor’s
appraisal of the situation (donor-stranger interaction depicted in stimuli material), and
normative inﬂuences.
Depressed Giving During Domestic Economic Downturns

The hardships faced by nonproﬁt organizations (NPOs) during the economic
downturn of 2008—2009 were expressed by a trade association executive who said,
“While nonproﬁts are working feverishly to accommodate increased demand, they are
facing severe ﬁnancial constraints that are threatening their ability to go on, much less
expand their services” (Strom, 2008).

Major trends in the economy are signs of a long-term downturn that ﬁrst began to

appear in the ﬁnal quarter of 2007, with its sharpest decline in gross domestic product

Since 2003. This downturn is making managers at social service charities afraid that if

past recessions are a guide, then many charities can expect donations to tumble an

i n flation-adjusted average of 1.4%, as compared to a rise in donations of 4.3% during

non-recessionary periods since 1973. The impact is expected to hit hardest on charities

that rely on $100 to $300 donations from less afﬂuent households seriously affected by

the meltdown in the housing market. Larger gifts from more afﬂuent donors are slowing

too, as the donors are asking for more time for the housing market to recover before

5

honoring their pledge (Hall & Kean, 2008). American donors with middle incomes
reduced giving by 45% in a 2001 Independent Sector study; giving dropped 23%among
less afﬂuent households and 32%among the most afﬂuent. Industry publications report
that overall revenue is down 1.8% during the ﬁrst quarter of 2008 versus the prior year,
and cite a reduction in the number of donors and the average amount donated.
Ineffective Nonproﬁt Communication Campaigns
The study seeks to contribute insights that increase the effectiveness and
efﬁciency of fund-raising campaigns. The design of charitable fund-raising campaigns
appears to lack the marketing discipline common in the for-proﬁt business sector.
Common marketing practices include understanding consumer (donor) behavior,
conducting market analyses, selecting target markets, and developing comprehensive
marketing strategies and tactics, all of which would improve the effectiveness and cost
efﬁciency of the fund-raising campaign. Charitable giving is better regarded as a transfer
of value from donor to recipient, rather than a transaction of two valuable objects
between equal partners (Kotler, 1980); the signiﬁcance is that charity remains
uninformed by the discipline of marketing. The non-economic factors most often cited in
marketing text books to explain charitable giving include: (a) altruism as an
unconditionally benevolent desire to help others, (b) egoism as a self-interested desire for
a good feeling that comes from donating, (c) drive reduction as relief from a sense of
guilt for withholding a donation, and (d) compliance tactics to obligate the recipient who
Can’t reciprocate. One of the few recommendations that marketers have for NPOs is to
Offer a nominal gift (e.g., candle, pen, note pad) in exchange for a donation, a suggestion

0 f Suspect value.

Critics also claim that NPO managers design their donor appeals with “. . .nothing
more than a few rules of thumb” and “intuition” that often does not seem to be insightful
given the large volume of junk mail (Leonhardt, 2008, p. 43). Messages often include
grim statistics and stark images of a multitude of poor, sad, and malnourished victims that
leave the prospective donor appalled and coolly indifferent (Obler, 1986). Nonproﬁt
organizations rarely possess the ﬁnancial resources needed to attract full-time
communication experts and must rely on for-proﬁt advertising agencies to provide expert
help on a pro bono basis; however that help is often suspect as the advertising ﬁrrn’s best
creative talent is assigned to the highest paying clients. Nonproﬁt ads have also been
criticized as “pointless cleverness,” as well as “confusing” and “off point” (Merkle,
2006). A notable exception is the Leo Burnett Chicago advertisement for Greenpeace,
which was recognized as a ﬁnalist during the Magazine Publishers of America annual

Kelly Awards (Magazine Publishers Association, 2008).
Managers of NPOs are much like their counterparts in the business sector, as both
attempts to maximize revenue while minimizing expense. Both managers have

competitors, armed with compelling arguments, who vie for a limited pool of donor
ﬁJnds. Both managers also risk unemployment if their efforts are deemed by their
superiors to be unsatisfactory in accomplishing the organization’s stated goals and
mi 8 Sion. Charitable fund-raising is a business, yet few organizations or scholars treat it as
such. Beneﬁts of this sort are better regarded as a transfer from donor to recipient, rather
that} a transaction of two valuable objects, typically a product or service in exchange for

money, that is mutually satisfying.

Communication managers at NPOs may unwittingly deploy a “one size ﬁts all”
marketing campaign that fails to recognize that people possess a schema to guide their
donor behavior, and that messages which don’t support the schema produce (a)
uncertainty, (b) the activation of risk-averse cognitive process and, (c) less generous
attitudes and behaviors.

Limited Academic Interest

Charitable fund-raising is a highly competitive business, yet academics and
practitioners are reluctant to consider consumer behavior to better understand donor
motivation. Despite the social and economic value of charitable giving to our economy,
there is a dearth of research in this domain (Leonhardt, 2008), and as a result there is a
lack of agreement on the conceptualizations and theorization of even the most standard
concepts in the prosocial literature (Collett & Morrissey, 2007).

Solicitation tactics are not theoretically informed beyond the recognition that

appeals concerning the well-being of others are more persuasive than inner-directed
appeals (Small & Simonsohn, 2008). The NPO’s solicitation skills may improve now that
s ocial scientists are becoming increasingly interested in philanthropy and helpful
behaviors, caused in part by the large and growing amount of funding available to
nonproﬁt institutions (Leonhardt, 2008).
The Purpose of the Study

The focus of this dissertation is to validate the theories of psychological distance,
as they relate to construal level theory (CLT) and psychological distance (PD).
PSYC hological distance is theorized to exist as near or far along four dimensions, two of
W11 ich are studied here: social distance (SD) and temporal distance (TD). Social distance

rC’feI'S to the relationship of the recipient to the donor: as close as two people familiar with

8

one another, or moving along a continuum, as far apart as two strangers. Temporal
distance refers to the elapsed time between the payment of a donation and how soon the
beneﬁt will be realized by the recipient. An urgent appeal for a donation places survival
at the forefront, promising that aid will purchase food or medicine in response to an
emergency. A less urgent appeal, but one which requires immediate funding, will yield its
beneﬁts in the long-term, as is the case with educational endowments and economic
development. Near psychological distance (PD) is associated with low-level construals;
whereas greater PD is associated with high-level construals. This is signiﬁcant in that
donors evaluate the charitable message as favorable when the lexicon is matched to their
construal for that situation, as either concrete or abstract. Concrete representations are
called low-level construals, whereas abstract representations are called high-level
construals (Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope, 2006; Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008;
Liberman, Trope, & Wakslak, 2007; Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007).
Construal level theory predicts that donors’ evaluations of situations vary and
their language expectancies change accordingly. The signiﬁcance of this association is
that messages typically produced by NPOs do not account for differences in construal,
the consequences of which sub Optimize donations. For example, features of all charitable
messages include reference to the recipients, their needs compared to the desired
Condition, and a request for aid; the situation is depicted in a uniform manner, although
don ors will differ in how they construe the situation. The construal level is theorized to
be predicted by the perceived psychological distance between the donor and the recipient

(Lewin, 1951; Bar-Anan et al., 2006; Eyal et al., 2008; Liberman et al. 2007; Todorov et

al., 2 007).

The research goal is to develop communications strategies and tactics that tap into
a prospective donor’s most generous attitudes, while recognizing that generosity is
conditional, meaning that some messages will appeal more than others. It is hypothesized
that a donor will donate more when the message matches the internal language/dialogue
that they typically use to make sense of the charitable situation. The cognitive processing
of a situation is theorized to produce representations which vary on a continuum from
highly concrete to highly abstract.

The objective of this study is to design a persuasive message, with special
attention to speciﬁc text and semantic, that donors will readily recognize as matching the

internal language/dialogue that they use to make sense of the situation.

Gaps in the Literature
Social psychology has underserved the study of prosocial behaviors and
generosity toward others because it concentrates on transient situational cues that
. .promote prosocial acts, instead of focusing on the attention on stable social
psychological process that foster prosocial traits (Collett & Morrissey, 2007, p.25).” The
goal of the research is to close gaps in the existing literature that lead to better
understanding of stable psychological processes.

1. Literature does not address the message-design features that may be manipulated
to match the donor’s construal of the situation. Attitudes that support one of the
value-expressive, social-adjustive, or knowledge functions may dominate others
depending on the psychological distance between donor and recipient.

2. Construal level theory predicts a positive correlation between psychological

distance and the level in which an event is construed when all dimensions are

10

measured as near or far, but fails to test a condition in which the dimensions are
not uniformly near or far. The conditions in which the social and temporal
distances are mismatched will be tested for the presence of the generosity
outcomes related to the value-expressive or utilitarian attitude function.
Construal level theory predicts an equal allocation of beneﬁts for in-groups and
out-groups when semantic abstraction matches the donor’s construal of the
situation; however this ﬁnding is contrary to a well-established pattern of giving
that favors in-groups. This experiment tests whether message design can
overcome in-group bias that appears to be a sociological constant.
Preparing improved designs of existing NPO campaigns has largely been ignored
from a theoretical perspective. Members of the communication industry may
beneﬁt from having their work assessed from a social psychological perspective.
Research’s Social Signiﬁcance

Philosophical consideration of such an important matter as social welfare is

irrelevant if it does not lead in some meaningful way to the improvement in the well-

being of needy others, to the exclusion of none but the fraudulent and truly undeserving.

This paper will contribute to the body of knowledge concerning helping behavior and

health communication to the extent that ﬁnding help will alleviate human suffering. The

research goals are to develop recommendations that:

Government social planners will consider when developing programs for the

public good.

11

2. Communication managers at public charities and their agencies consult will
consider when planning fund raising campaigns for recipients who live within,
and outside, the donor’s country or culture.

3. Religious leaders and public opinion leaders will consider in their advocacy of
prosocial attitudes among their congregations and the general public.

People are pleased to experience and witness positive social attitudes toward
others, and are troubled by antisocial behavior such as neglect, violence, prejudice, and
racism. Dehumanizing others allows for mistreatment without risk of self-condemnation
(Diener, 1977). These behaviors can and must be unlearned through a concerted effort to
change underlying negative attitudes. Withholding help is not an innate behavior, and it
must be unlearned using the same process in which helpful behavior is learned. Not
helping is not always callous and uncaring as doing so may bring harm or is illegal (e.g.,
giving money to purchase illegal drugs, helping rob a bank, aiding a terrorist or escapee).
The goal of the study is to cultivate prosocial attitudes that redress the most egregious
omissions, as when a prospective donor refuses to alleviate great suffering of others
though at little cost. The solicitor who utilizes language most consistent with the donor’s
construal of the event is more likely to be rewarded with greater donations as compared

to the solicitor who constructs messages in a uniform manner.

12

Research Scope and Approach

Research data will be collected from subjects residing in the United States.
Conceptualization, analysis, and conclusions will be made at the individual level of
analysis and from the author’s emic Western societal perspective, though sensitive to a
broader etic perspective should the research ﬁnding have relevance to worldwide
audiences.

Single-factor explanations have been constructed to explain the linear trend in
donating, which are now known to be just part of the picture. Any single-factor theory
will have to account for both the linear and nonlinear trends (F roming, Allen, &
Underwood, 1983). The factorial survey methodology is strongly recommended by Will
and Cochran (1995) as it offers important insights for future research and theoretical
developments associated with understanding the role of religiosity and religious faith
groups regarding compassion.

An attempt was made to quantify generosity beyond the single measure of most
interest to NPO fund raisers—the dollar amount of the donation. Seven factors tapping
into various relevant attitudes and behaviors were examined using conﬁrmatory factor
analysis to explain the broader phenomenon called generosity; it is acknowledged that
many factors were potentially excluded, some perhaps obscured by researchers’ Western
cultural bias. Further research in this vein will be proposed as worthy of future study.

Philosophy, sociology, and psychology serve as theoretical foundation to study
how humans respond to the pleas of others who suffer from poverty or disaster. The
extent to which a charitable response is morally obligated or a matter of personal

inclination is addressed from a philosophical perspective in chapter 2.

l3

The hypothesized relationships in chapter 3 are rationalized in social and
psychological terms. The general attitudes and motivations of donors are studied and
categorized based on the functions they serve, which are most often value expressive.
Donors evaluate their behaviors on the degree of social distance which is operationalized
in chapter 4: Methods as a measure of difference in perceived similarity between donor
and recipient. That chapter also describes the stable psychological processes that people
possess for evaluating a charitable appeal. The theorized relationship depends in part on
the perceived social distance between the donor and the solicitor (socially near versus
socially distant), and the time between the date of the donation and the date the benefit is
realized (near-future versus distant-future). Tests are conducted in chapter 5 to determine
if people consistently construe situations as abstract or concrete based on the social and
temporal distances. The discussion in chapter 6 focuses on the hypotheses, emerging
from construal level theory, that a charitable appeal for a situation construed as abstract
or concrete will generate more donations when the abstract or concrete diction matches
the abstract or concrete construal. Implication of the study for communication managers

and topics for future research also appear in chapter 6.

14

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Most people agree with the statement, if asked, that yes, “I am a generous
person.” The examples they would offer as evidence would most likely include
volunteering of time to beneﬁt another, and charitable giving that includes ﬁnancial
donations. There are many other ways in which the well-being of one is improved by the
actions of another, such as rescuing and cooperating; however this paper will study
generosity as it relates to private ﬁnancial aid. The problem recognized here is that
generous attitudes don’t predict behavior at every level of analysis. For instance, a
generous donor may, purposefully or unwittingly, reserve their generosity for family
members or signiﬁcant others who could reciprocate the beneﬁt at a later time, as
opposed to strangers who cannot reciprocate. Charity to strangers, while less common,
does occur; therefore our study manipulated independent variables (IV) that situate the
stranger in relation to the donor. The study seeks to identify the cognitive processes
internal to the donor and external message strategies that yield the greatest donations.

Previous studies of charitable giving have shown that behavior is inﬂuenced by a
wide variety of factors, ranging from internal dispositions or temperaments in support of
(a) engagement with, or resistance to, prosocial acts (Eisenberg, 2000); or to (b) external
processes such as operant conditioning, modeling, and role identity. Generosity is
conceptualized as residing ﬁrst in the individual and later manifested as helpful behavior.
This study pays greatest attention to the stable psychological processes that result in the
activation of generous attitudes. The theoretical basis for this approach is the functional
perspective of attitudes rather than the identiﬁcation of speciﬁc motivations linked to

helpful behavior.

15

Care is given to distinguish the act of a donor’s charity from a helpful act which is
morally obligated. People do not regard helpful behavior of a parent to a child to be
generous, nor is it generous to give in order to receive as is often the case in close
communal and intimate relationships; these are examples of a primafacie moral
obligation or clear intent to receive reciprocating beneﬁts. These obligatory acts fall into
a broader class of self-interested outcomes. Though not necessarily morally wrong, the
obligatory act is not a generous act (Hunt, 1975). Donors who give to others to restore
equality, as an exercise of social justice, would likely agree that their act is in fact not
generous, but obligatory; though no communal relationship in the physical sense may
necessarily exist. This view of charity to restore social justice is discussed in terms of
religiosity and the social learning of attitudes, later in this paper. In recognition of
egoistic motivations, there is a contention that generosity is still generosity when an
individual beneﬁts from giving.

Individuals within and across societies differ in the breadth and inclusiveness of
their moral universe (Schwartz, 2007). Much of this variation among individuals reﬂects
the prevailing beliefs and perceptions in the society or social groups that socialized them.
In societies that socialize to a broadly inclusive moral universe, people should more often
understand values such as justice and equality as applying beyond the in-group to all
members of society. Thus, justice and equality should express the motivational goal of
universalism as deﬁned in the theory of basic values. In contrast, in societies that
socialize to a concept of the moral universe as a narrower, more exclusive group of
similar others, people are likely to understand the same value items of justice and

equality as applying largely to the in-group (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990).

16

Deﬁnition of Key Terms in Prosocial Literature

Conceptualization and theorization of helpful behavior is lacking because key
terms and constructs, such as justice, benevolence, charity, and generosity are sometimes
used interchangeably (Collett & Morrissey, 2008). A brief treatment of the key terms is
provided here with additional detail and limitations to appear in the literature review.
Social Justice

Social justice exists when all members of a society have the same basic rights,
security, opportunities, obligations, and beneﬁts (Pzaconsulting, 2008). It seeks to ensure
the maintenance of a fair, equitable, egalitarian, and generally harmonious society.
Discrimination, persecution, prejudice, intolerance, and inequity are the antithesis of the
goals of social justice (Planstats, 2008). Rawls regards justice as fairness to suggest that
the donor be duty bound and morally obligated to provide assistance because the poor
and afﬂicted have earned their right to fair treatments (Machan, 1998). The donor is not
regarded as generous in response to fairness; they have simply done what they must do,
to give someone their due.

Social justice is concerned with equality and moral inclusiveness as the opposite
of what others have called “moral exclusion” (Deutsch, 1990; Opotow, 1990). Moral
exclusion refers to people’s perception that others are outside, rather than included in, the
boundary of rules, moral values, and fairness. Schwartz (1997) estimates the extent of
moral inclusiveness in 66 societies by identifying the factors that produce societal
differences and examining their consequences. Scores indicating high degree of moral
inclusiveness of others were associated with the following items: (a) equality (equal
Opportunity for all); (b) social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak); (c)

broadmindedness (tolerance of different ideas/beliefs); and (d) a world at peace (free of

17

wars and conﬂict). Sagiv (1994) and Schwartz (1997) identiﬁed these items as
conceptually associated more with concern for and action to promote the welfare of
people outside one’s in-group than the other universalism items.

Benevolence
Benevolent behaviors and their consequences are collectively referred to as

prosocial, and are defined as “voluntary actions that are intended to help or beneﬁt
another individual or group of individuals” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 3).
Benevolent behaviors are directed toward the active protection or enhancement of the
welfare of others (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). This study will focus on a speciﬁc caring
act, charity, as distinct from among a range of related behaviors, such as volunteering of
time, and philanthropy by wealthy individuals and corporations. Charity will be shown to
be conceptually related to benevolence and not justice, as charity implies that the donor is
not morally bound to aid; to provide what is rightfully due, as is often the case of parent
to child, is a matter of justice and fairness.
Benevolence and its Contrast to Social Justice

Benevolence is an other-regarding virtue, as contrasted to justice. Justice and
benevolence are not mutually exclusive; they are logically correlated, as they imply each
other and are derived from each other; to understand one requires knowing the other.
Benevolence is the desire and willingness to do good by those whom we pity (Boeree,
n.d.) which takes on many forms and varying responses: compassion, mercy, kindness, or
generosity, usually referring to acts of charity, which in turn is deﬁned as a beneﬁt freely
bestowed by one individual with a surplus on another who is in need. Benevolence is also

described as a feeling of concern for others, which Hume labeled a sentimental-based

18

value; w hereas the demands of justice are recognized by reason, and thus independent of
vagaries of individual emotional capacity (Taylor, 2002).
Sentimerz tality Contrasted to Reason
Samuel Clark’s (Honderich, 2005) rationalist response is that reason acquaints us
with moral duties that are part of the natural order of the universe, independent of divine
will and a my social contract. A requirement of reason is that each person should deal with
every man with the reasonable expectation the other will deal with us in a like manner,
and endeavor by universal benevolence to promote the welfare and happiness of all men.
Aristotle identiﬁed the distinctive function of humans as reason, and noted that to
reason Well is to be accomplished in pursuit of happiness, the attainment of which is a
state of excellence. There are intellectual excellences owed to birth and growth in
teachin g, such as wisdom in philosophy, understanding, and practical wisdom; and there
is a moral excellence that is moral temperance arising from habit, as it does not naturally
occur to humans.

Humans acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity; that which can’t be
initially done is accomplished through learning. Excellences are adapted by nature to
receive them, desiring and acting with reason, and made perfect by training from young
age (moral habituation), and made perfect with repeated virtuous acts. So too, people
become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave
aCtS- Legislators make the citizens good by forming good habits in them. This makes for
a good constitution. It makes no small difference, then, whether people form habits of
one kind or another from their very youth; in fact it makes all the difference.

The whole matter of conduct and what is good is given in outline form and is not

premse, or rule bound, as each case considers what is relative to and appropriate to the

19

occasion - The appropriate objective response is to be temperate, to not be excessive or
deﬁcient, even in matters of courage as too little is cowardly and too much is rash
whereas a proportionate (mean) response both produces, increases, and preserves it.
Altruism, in this regard, is an example of too much justice. Moderation does not apply to
absolute evil (e. g., murder) and absolute good (e. g., wisdom).
Generos i 132
Generosity belongs to a family of benevolent virtues; generosity is a morally

commendable trait, a “quality absorbed and ready to go” in the appropriate setting, which
leads to spontaneous acts (Machan, 1998, p. 2). Generous acts are spontaneous, whereas
charitable acts will be shown to be deliberate. Generous acts ﬂow from character, which
in tum is a collection of traits, an aspect of the person acquired through childhood rearing
and Practiced in a sustained effort so to act in an unself-conscious way in accordance to
one’s goals (see section on social learning of attitudes). Generosity conveys muniﬁcence,
or liberality, in the act of giving or bestowing a beneﬁt. Generosity is an acquired trait as

Opposed to an inherited one, and as such, can be developed over time.

Gene r Osity as a Trait
Generosity is a trait, and if inherited, then all are presumed to possess it even if
only One generous person is discovered; however there is ample evidence of miserliness
among humans. The generosity trait, if acquired, means that one person alone may learn
the Value of generosity, practice it, and gain command of it through some effort, so it
becomes a sublime aspect of their character. In contrast, all other persons may have been
diSinclined toward that task. The more someone perfects the target behavior, the more it

becomes a stable aspect—in the case of the generous person it is the agreeable

20

personal ity trait of the person (Goldberg, 1968), predisposed to act, and resistant to
countervailing inﬂuences. The contention that personality traits are stable and relatively
permanent is opposed by situationists, including Mischel (1968), who argued that
personali ty traits and behaviors are not stable but vary by the situation. Mischel
repeatedl y tested the degree to which personality traits could predict relevant behavior,
which were only shown to be correlated to the degrees of 20% to 30%. Personality and
social psychologists now generally agree that both personal and situational variables are
needed to account for human behavior.
Conﬂic ting Traits Possessed by Donor

Traits, like attitudes, are many in number and sometimes contradictory; attitude
does not necessitate action, nor is a trait displayed on every occasion. Generosity, as a
Virtuous trait, must coexist with other virtues. Fulﬁlling one’s moral obligations to one’s
family takes precedence over being generous to a neighbor or stranger; in other words,
paternity and fraternity come before generosity, and kindness and compassion (pity)
comes after it (Machan, 1998). Generosity is a human trait and virtuous act associated
With Charity, but are there other virtues that inﬂuence attitudes and behaviors toward
others? Virtues which coexist and conﬂict produce moral dilemmas, including: Must
every person who requests aid receive it, and if so, must the aid be equally applied? Is it

moral that a donor derives beneﬁt from their charity, or must the motivation be entirely

selﬂes s?

21

Charity

C liarity, as previously deﬁned here, is a benefit freely bestowed by one individual
with a sax-plus onto another who is in need. Charity has been considered a major virtue
since medieval Christian philosophers added it, caritas, to a list of theological virtues that
included faith and hope. Virtue has been considered since ancient times of the Greeks to
be a hum an disposition, or as Plato described it, an inner state. Aristotle described the
virtuous person as someone who perceives and fairly effortlessly acts upon unique moral
requirements that vary by the situation. Charitable giving was universally shown by
Schwartz (1992) to be motivated by other-directed values of benevolence (in—groups) and
univel‘Salism (e.g., social justice, toward out-groups). The motivation for such giving is
theoriZed to be the desire of the donor to express a highly cherished value, consistent with
fﬁeIldship, loving, forgiving, or helpfulness for others (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990).
Chart. table Attitudes and Acts

An act of charity occurs when some beneﬁt is freely bestowed by one individual
with a surplus on another who is in need. Machan (1998) argues that charity differs from
genero Sity in that charitable acts are the result of discipline and deliberation of risks and
reward 8, whereas generous acts are spontaneous and devoid of self-interest. Machan’s
descriI>tion of generosity shares similarities with altruism as unselﬁsh intentions toward -
others, whereas charity shares similarities with egoism as self-interested motives that
underlie donations.

This study uses the word “generosity” to describe the quality of the intent or merit

With Which the gift is given. This study will use the word “charity,” in its conventional

sense, to measure the size of the beneﬁt the donor is willing to donate to another person.

22

To summarize: both charity and generosity are measured as dependent variables, unique
from one another.

F i nally, recipients ofcharity are referred to in this paper as “clients,” a word that
follows the naming conventions of the NPOs responsible for raising funds on the needy
person’ s behalf.

Ethics of Charity

Philosophers, social scientists, and laypeople alike see morality as concerned with
actions that affect the welfare of others directly or indirectly (Kurtines & Gewirtz, 1984).
SChwal'tz , 2007) deﬁned helpfulness, protecting the environment, insuring justice for the
weak, and preventing harm doing as moral values. The ethics of charity with its roots in
religious and social life since antiquity helps us to understand the inﬂuence of morality,
“We , and duty on the formation of benevolence and social justice which are the values
most often associated with prosocial behavior. A brief and selective account of ethics as
it Pertains to charity from a Western philosophy is presented based on the references from
Honderich (2005), Law (2007), Paineau (2004), and Pojman (2003).

Mo" a] 1‘ 1y and Ethics in Western Philosophy
Morality and ethics are closely related. Ethics is a specialized area and subset of
moral ity. Professional groups draw upon a code of moral obligations for their members.
EthicS are an aspect of morality concerned with the moral obligations of the group.
Ethical thought to formulate codes and principles of moral behavior has been a necessary
feature of human cultures, but more precisely is said to originate with the Sophists of
Greece in the ﬁfth century BC. They thought rhetoric and persuasion invited charges that

wrong could be argued right.

23

P rotagoras defended the idea of moral codes as useful human creations, sets of
customs and conventions that make social life possible, but was committed to ethical
relativism and denial of universal code or absolute moral truth. He thought that traditional
moral standards were mere conventions, had no binding force, and were a rational way to
pursue one’s own interests. Possession of material goods is presumed to show an ability
to know What makes for a good life.

P lato wrote that a good life consists of harmony in the soul: reason, spirit, and
appetites playing their respective roles and providing for ﬂourishing and happiness made
POSSible by the morally good life lived in accordance with the virtues that emphasize
character and reason over moral rules and consequences.

Contemporary virtue ethics trace ancestry to Aristotle, rights-based ethics to
lmma—‘tluel Kant, and utilitarianism to Thomas Hobbes. The Aristotelian conception of
moral ity is not a set of ﬁxed rules, but depends on the situation. Virtue ethics as an
evaluation of right and wrong is captured by what inner motives or states are
fundamentally good and admirable (Plato, Hume). Rights-based ethics are concerned that
all people receive equal and just treatment.

Ar is ’Ol‘le on Moral Virtues

Aristotle wrote “Nicomachean Ethics” claiming that the ultimate end of all human
action is happiness (eudaimonia). The distinctive function of human beings is to attain
happiness in accordance to reason as distinguished from instinct. Truth and problem

SOIVirlg is attained through reason, which is the deﬁning characteristic of human beings.

Moral virtues are dispositions, in that feeling and emotions are guided by reason

50 thalt our behavior is appropriate to the situation. Aristotle cautioned against excess in

all thil1gs and noted that virtue is achieved at the intermediate position, whereas vice is in

24

the exces s or deﬁcient position. For instance, rashness is a vice as too much courage is
displayed given the circumstances; cowardice is a vice as too little of the virtue is on
display given the same situation.

Limiting Moral Obligations

C Qnditions that promote and limit moral obligations will also be noted and
generally explained from a sociological perspective that recognizes the favored status that
society confers upon recipients who are most similar. The ordering of preferences for the
COHVeyance of limited duties is based on a special relationship (Hume, 1888), and to do
OthCI’W ise would be supererogatory as to represent an inclination to provide aid, more so
than an obligation.

Hume spoke of a limited duty of benevolence when he noted that man’s charity is
guided by his afﬁnity for others that follow a natural order, such that, “A man naturally
loves his children better than his nephews, his nephews better than his cousins, his
COUSins better than strangers, where everything else is equal.” Hence, Hume continued,
“arise (sic) our common measures of duty, in preferring the one to the other. Our sense of
duty always follows the common and natural course of our passions (pgs. 483-484).”
Hume describes a communal, symbiotic, dyadic relationship Where social rewards and
beneﬁts seem to ﬂow naturally even as donor-recipient roles are effortlessly reversed, as
necesSary. Hume begins his litany with a father’s unconditional support for his children, a
sentitTlent that is beautiful, even sacred. That favored relationship need not remain
mY'sterious if closer inspections of the elemental, interpersonal relationship provide the
key to unlock a broad array of social welfare issues, such as entrenched poverty, racial

dlscriI‘nination, and economic development. This ﬁlial relationship, upon closer

25

inspection, operates on a variety of levels, love being just one; a fuller understanding of
the dynarnics becomes useful when predicting donor behavior toward the other,
especiall )1 toward the stranger who lives beyond the boundaries of familial love. It will be
argued here that social life within the communal relationship provides an insight that the
outsider can use to construct a mediated appeal for ﬁnancial assistance.

I—I lime describes a continuum from familiar to less familiar, from the inside of the
family to the outside. The concept of distance is familiar reading in the social sciences,
including Borgardus’ (1925) Social Distance Scale, Rubin’s (1970) Love Scale,
Berscheid et al.’s (1989) Relationship Closeness Inventory (RC1), and Mills and Clark’s
(2004) Communal Strength Scale.

British Moralists ’ Philosophy of Charity (1650—1800)

Is morality grounded in self-love or benevolence: are moral judgments products
0f 1' cats on or sentiment? Hobbes is an egoist and political philosopher rather than moral
philOSOpher. Morality must be supported by political authority. All human passions are
manifested for the desire of good for oneself. People are in relentless competition with
Others in the pursuit of their own happiness. It is a war of every man against every man. It
is a I1«Eltural law that it is in everyone’s self interest to escape this war. Justice or injustice,
right Or wrong, has no place within a state of natural law with rules of reason directed at
self Preservation. Hobbes argued that a social contract balances the restriction of liberty
for the sake of peace, provided that others agree to this condition; however, in a state of
nature there are no morals to abide with the contract. Constraints of morality, though in
everYOne’s interests, are binding when backed by political authority in the form of the

SOVeI‘eign responsible for enforcing the contract.

26

 

Hutcheson contended that benevolence is the foundation of moral virtue, “that
action that produces the best happiness for the greatest number.” The principle here is of
utility: Actions are right or wrong to the extent that they tend to increase or decrease the
general 11 appiness. For Hutcheson the morality of the intentions mattered little compared
to the outcome. Critics considered Hutcheson’s theory too simplistic as it was merely a
sum of a1 1 pleasurable values minus the pains. Critics doubted that the quantity and
duration of the values could be quantiﬁed or measured.

Hutcheson also claimed that all moral virtues ﬂow from feelings of benevolence
With no need to trace back to self-love (egoism). Happiness is experienced through
SﬂtiSfaction of our particular passions for external (apart from self) things. Self-love is not
the on 1y passion and does not exclude benevolence as affection for the good of fellow
creatures. Hume wrote about moral judgments and beings as naturally benevolent: they
have a natural liking for the virtues that Shaﬁsbury called a sense of right and wrong.
Hutclfleson later described virtue as a moral sense, to feel things to be naturally right or
wrong rather than to reason it so. Hume regarded feelings and emotions to be consistent
With good judgment if they remain disinterested and based on the good tendencies of
“Ch actions. The capacity to regard moral qualities of good and evil is uniquely human.
Symp athy that Hume called humanity, and a fellow feeling, is a capacity to share others’
feelin gs of happiness and misery. Sympathy may lack the strength to have decisive
influence on our actions; all humans are moved by it. Qualities such as courage and
indusn—y are useful to the possessor; benevolence and justice are useful to others. Moral

Indgrllents stem from sentiments rather than from reason. Reason by itself is no motive to

27

act, however (not motivation enough); sentiment is decisive in forming moral

co n Clusions.
Ur flitarian Philosophy F ollowing the British Moralists
Right action came to be understood in terms of human good or well-being, and
on 1y later in terms of hedonism that is pleasure, desire, satisfaction, or more generally, as
happiness. Right action leads to the greatest balance of human pleasure over pain
\principle of utility). Less monolithic conceptions of instrumentality or consequentiality
reco gnize intrinsic human goods other than pleasure, to consider equality and fairness
and even natural beauty beyond quantitative measures. Fairness in outcomes may not
repre sent the greatest beneﬁt to all, contrary to the position held by act-utilitarians.
Jeremy Bentham advocated a view of universal benevolence which did not
requ i re feeling and right action but was more like justice. Justice marks boundaries
betvv een what must be done and what can be done. Justice is obligated, whereas
benev olence is morally desirable but optional, similar to Hume’s notion of charity as an
act free from obligation when directed to those with whom a special relationship does not
CXiSt- Bentham claimed that a provision of a particular good will provide more utility for
those who already have less than for those who already have more; hence a general
tendency toward providing goods for the less well off, ending when each party is equal in

POSsession of the good.

Stuart Mill allowed that pleasure differs in quantity and quality; higher pleasures

be ing pleasures of the intellect, feelings, and imagination; a good human life is one in

which such pleasures are predominant.

Immanuel Kant held that morality must be understood independently, that moral

Pl§Ihtness in behavior is a matter of acting consistently and rationally, and that

28

 

ind i fference to the welfare of others is a form of conative or practical inconsistency. Too
littl e or too much is morally wrong, just as Aristotle advocated temperance in all things.
Kant endorsed the notion that if one gives out of fellow feeling, then it lacks all moral
worth as it was not performed out of a sense of duty and respect of moral law. This view
is, however, considered harsh even among Kant’s contemporaries. Kant’s morals are
deontological or duty—based with emphasis on intentions and disregard for consequences.
\t’s the thought that counts, and the only thing that counts.

Utilitarianism is an aggregative theory (net of beneﬁts from pain) that does not
recognize separateness of individuals, allowing the interests of one group to trump
interests of another, and allowing for inﬂicting of pain if the outcome provides good for
most - Hegel argues that willing (e.g., contradictions of morals such as false promises) it
to be does not make it so, that moral lives are drawn from ethical life, and from the

ethical institutions of families, civil society, and the states. Ethics are a social
phenomenon. Moral requirements have the form of categorical imperatives that prescribe
what i s to be done regardless of what one may want. Moral laws are promulgated in holy
teXtS such as The Bible’s Ten Commandments. Nietzschesaw no such thing as morality,
only different moralities: master moralities (nobility, courage, honesty) versus slave

morality (duty and self sacriﬁce).

MO 7‘01in of Charity in Modern Society
Private charity did not disappear when public charity appeared on the social scene
in America during the early 19005. Private charity was associated with the deserving poor
Whereas public charity included the undeserving poor. A textual analysis of charitable

ah Deals appeared regularly in The New York Times from 1912—1992 (Loseke, 1997) and

29

it read as a liberal education in wise and discriminating giving. The editors, charity
executives, readers, and clients (the poor) contributed stories that served the purposes of
educating readers, cultivating an attitude of charity, and raising private contributions. The
aria l ysis reveals a consistency in the presentation of human values within charitable
campaigns that were embedded in historical time; details differed depending on the
econ omies, during peace and at war, as discourse favored either morally charged
\rel i gious) or scientiﬁcally neutral language; yet the campaigns reﬂected an unchanging
morality of charity. Clients were consistently depicted as morally worthy, needy of
matelial aid and deserving of help as they were not responsible for suffering their bad
luck - Clients were depicted as striving for achievement and independence, through
determination at work and school. The worthy poor fell just outside the emerging public
welfare system. The propriety of aid was extended to include an undeserving family
mem ber (e. g., taking alcohol or drugs) if that person would reform their ways. These
notio ms reﬂected the bourgeois ﬂawless (character) morality of the dominant class in that
era.
The politics of charity seized on the notion that social progress can not quite
diSpl ace private charity. Charity is produced as morality of the political and economic
order as given. Charity ﬁts the individual into this order. Loseke’s (1997) analysis of the
New York Times supported the poor in stating that rehabilitation is more important than
r elief, that producing normal, self-supporting life and useful citizens is the role of charity.
C:l'flarity was consistently promoted by the editors of the New York Times as “. . .the

t 1 Qrality of transforming cultural outsiders into cultural insiders,” with the promise to

In le better Americans of recent immigrants.

30

The economics of charity required that charitable organizations be efﬁcient and
acc ountable. The textual analysis of the New York Times charity feature column showed
that a high percentage of those helped were able to hold their ground and that donations
wis ely used resulted in taking welfare cases off the public rolls. Charity was depicted as a
prac ticality for the political and economic well—being, and the stability of the social order

(Schmm, 1995). Social control and normalcy were rewards for a friendly and
compassionate way to help those in need.

Charity as morality of human values goes beyond practicality to advocate a
“virtue of the heart” thought to be a concern of middle class Americans. Campaigns were
directed at feeling rather than thinking, to emotion rather than knowledge. During the
Great Depression, private donations were promoted as individual actions consistent with

American beliefs about the sacredness of individuals (Loseke, 1997). Forming clients as

persons produces client happiness and social usefulness as dominant class beliefs where

indiv i dual autonomy and self reliance are unquestioned values at the core of American
CUlture. Charitable giving provided Americans with a sense of community in a world of
more asing individualism and singularity (Bellah et al., 1985); charity unites by promising
that a nostalgic community can be found by sending money.

The twentieth century ethics of GE. Moore and Bertrand Russell rejected a
fact1.1a] basis for moral beliefs. They searched for, but could not locate, facts about
features of human existence or metaphysical fact about the nature of reality that entails
an}! conclusion about what is good. These are value judgments when viewed from the

0Q litext of Logical Positivism of philosopher A.J. Ayer with his demand for empirically

v§liﬁable propositions and analytic truths. Moral theories of R. Grice, Gauthier, and John

31

Rawls are based on rights, and obligations are labeled as Contractarian, with agreement

that pursuit of morality must not violate one’s basic interest. To abandon the rights of

oth ers indicates a lack of moral integrity.

E g0 ism and Altruism

A word closely associated with charity is altruism, which is a concept coined by
Auguste Comte (1852). It suggests that everyone has a moral obligation to serve the
\nte rests of others or the “greater good” of humanity, and to do so require that people
plac e others’ interests above their own. Altruism is referred to as an act of selﬂess giving
and considered a theological virtue among the world’s major religions. Altruism’s rival
cone ept is psychological egoism and is exempliﬁed by seventeenth century British
phi lo sopher Thomas Hobbes, who argued that everything that people do, no matter how
nob l e and beneﬁcial to others, is really directed toward the ultimate goal of self beneﬁt.
The beneﬁts include external rewards such as (a) social status and money; and internal
rew ards such as: (b) pleasure, (c) avoidance of punishment for not helping, and (d)
avoid ance of distressful situations and negative arousal (Batson & Shaw, 1991).
Sober (1991) discounts the notion of an empathically evoked psychological
alt1'\.listic motivation and insists that a prospective donor weighs the relative beneﬁt
against the cost of helping. The donor directs behavior toward a reward for helping or
ﬁncling someone else who will help. The Western acceptance of egoism as the motivating
fa‘Qtor for benevolent behavior is strongly supported, and subsumes altruism as a
$1) Qcialized form of egoism. A less pure form of altruism recognizes a sincere empathetic
cercem for others as well as a satisfying “warm glow” (Andreoni, 1990) or “joy-of-
gi \zing” (Ribar & Wilhelm, 2002) as a psychological reward. Batson and Shaw (1991)

all (i Archer (1991) advanced theories that provide a role for altruism and egoism, as they
32

co :1 cluded that under certain circumstances an individual will sometimes act with the
ultimate goal of increasing the welfare of another. These authors advance an assumption
that universal egoism must be replaced by a more complex view of prosocial motivation
that allows for altruism as well as egoism.
So c in] Learning of Prosocial Attitudes and Behavior
Learning a new skill requires motivation. This section describes the motivations
\hat drive someone to voluntarily give to other people. Prosocial behavior has been
researched from many different perspectives including biological (evolutionary) science,
psychology, sociology, religion, and economies, with explanations ranging from
bio I o gical imperatives, to norms of reciprocity, and onto selﬂess altruism and selﬁsh
ego i S m (Michalski, 2008).

The evolutionary theory presents a highly competitive environment where
organ isms vie for resources needed for reproductive dominance, in explaining that
helpi 13g behavior is reserved for kin. Altruism, in contrast, is maladaptive and
incompatible with reproductive success. Biosoeial theory proposes that altruism is an
interaction between biologically based altruistic dispositions and cultural inputs. Evolved,
SUbj ective, self systems enable humans to transcend biological constraints and develop

SYtrllbathy and sense of identity with a broader range of others. Genes provide a range of
possible behaviors, yet culture shapes the selection within that range. Genetic and socio-
Cultural evolution provide an innate capacity for restraint that modiﬁes dominance
StI‘iving and provides the basis for morality (Batson, 1992).
Consumer behavior researchers have identiﬁed perceived beneﬁts of making a
Q :nation include feelings of self esteem, signaling of wealth (Glazer & Konrad, 1996),

Du Elie recognition, gratitude for their own well-being, and relief from feelings of

33

ind ebtedness and guilt. Some donors are believed to give without regard for any beneﬁt,
wh i 1e others are motivated to some degree by intrinsic beneﬁts.

Helping others is not an innate human behavior; it is not encoded in our genes to
be p assed from generation to generation, nor is it performed in the same way each time
by an individual (Meyer, 2006). Helping others is a behavior acquired by observing how

others perform the act, and coding the information to serve as a guide for action. This
process is a reciprocal interaction among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental
infl uences described by Social Learning Theory, and alternatively by Social Cognitive
Theory (Bandura, 1963). Rushton and Sorrentino (1981) cite evidence that charity or
bene free is a learned behavior that results from socialization. Traits associated with
Chari ty, such as generosity, are acquired as opposed to inherited, and as such can be
deve l oped through practice, or deteriorate through negligence.

Humans are not born generous or hurtful; rather, they learn these behaviors and
expre ss them as the situation warrants. The acquisition of related values, attitudes, and
behaviors is a characteristic of a general trait. Humans learn desired behaviors which are
“0t inherited. If the behavior can be learned, then it can be unlearned, though the task is

initi ally difﬁcult. Practice helps to establish and strengthen associations; failure to
Practice helps associations to disassociate, or lose strength. Someone who learns to help
Will practice that behavior if they wish to strengthen their conviction to prosocial
0L1toomes; likewise, the person who learns to hate will continue to do so if, though
In i sguided, to improve their antisocial character.

A common idiom in the United States is that “charity begins at home;” It

§ scribes a social norm to help family and friends before helping other people. However,

34

the phrase also locates the home as the place where charitable attitudes are learned and
cu l tivated; the home is also the place where charity ends if the same lessons are not
learned. Social Learning Theory is the theoretical framework for studying the process in
wh i ch attitudes are introduced by parents, siblings, and teachers to young children.
Certain social scientists provide evidence that charity or beneﬁce is a learned behavior

that results from socialization (Rushton & Sorrentino, 1981). Responsible adults serve as
models for the child’s emulation of prosocial attitudes, which ideally lead to prosocial
behaviors as the child matures. Other early life lessons include: (a) Behave like your
parents showed you how to behave, (b) do what is best for yourself, (e) do what makes
you happy, ((1) don’t hurt anyone, (e) obey the law, and (f) obey your conscience.

Sharing is typically associated with good consequences (positive feedback) that

rein force the behavior and increase its likelihood of occurrence in the future, a process
that e xpectancy-value learning theorists describe as instrumental conditioning (F ishbein,
1967 ; Rosenberg, 1956); negative consequences of sharing, though rare, have the
OPPO Site effect.

Even the most persistently selﬁsh child will soon learn that cooperation with other
Chil(iren will advance their own interests, and will develop positive attitudes for sharing,
thou gh the motive differs from those of other children who enjoy the friendships that
deV’ elop during the give and take of playtime. The pattern of helpful behavior can change
Over time, ideally in a positive direction, as the child matures into a teenager, then adult,
p I‘Qgressing in their ability to make wise decisions about sharing their time, talent, and
ré Sources. A habit of sharing is cultivated in the child with age-appropriate lessons that

gI‘Qw in complexity and abstractness. Simple directives to share with others later become

35

spe ciﬁc lessons in the values that are the basis for the attitudes, customs, and behaviors of
an entire society.
Va lzxes within Religious Context

Social learning often takes place within a religious setting where charitable values
are Often the topic of instruction. A brief review of charity from a religious perspective

provides insight into the exposure to and learning of prosocial behaviors.

Value, as discussed among religious sociologists, is “the quality of recognized
des i rability founded on goodness.” Helping others, which includes charity, is considered
good because this act possesses the capacity to satisfy needs, where and when desire or
need point to it (Park & Burgess, 1924). Charity is a central feature in religious and social
teaching and is generally regarded as a sacred duty and moral imperative, with many
examples to model one’s behavior. Noteworthy illustrations of charity from across the
globe include (a) the Good Samaritan who unselﬁshly aided the stranger from a rival land
in the Bible (Luke 10:25—3 7); (b) the Judaic observation that aid, money, and assistance,
called Tzedakah, is not an inclination toward charity, but instead an obligation rooted in
righteousness, justice, and fairness due the poor (Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Laws of

contributions to the Poor, Chapter 10:7). Muslims also view aid as a moral imperative
such that all Muslims heed the duty to pay the obligatory yearly tax (Zakat) to pay for the
poor and needy (The Noble Qur'an At-Taubah 9:60).
A social prescriptive on proper relations appears in Confucius’s Analects (Lunyu
l 2 -2, 6.30) as, “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” This
Sel‘itiment appears often in the texts of many different religions in the form of The Golden
Rifle: “Do onto others as you would have them do to you.” This is paraphrased from

“‘1\

Ieat others as you wish to be treated.” The Golden Rule may commonly be understood

36

to suggest that charity and volunteering may not be entirely selﬂess as help given to
others may be returned in your time of need. The Golden Rule suggests that a reciprocal
exchange of beneﬁts is vital in maintaining an ordered social life (Mullis, 2008), so much
so that exchanges can’t be considered altruistic, but instead instrumental.

A shared belief in the ethics of reciprocity among so many cultures, religions,
ethical systems, and philosophies (Religious Tolerance, 2008) allows us to study how
reciprocity is practiced within a speciﬁc country and its dominant cultural perspective.
For instance, giﬁ exchange as a form of reciprocity is ritualized action (or Ii) in China
and East Asia through Confucian ethics, with references to it as a Golden Rule in the
Analects (Lun Yti). Reciprocity is also referred to as the Golden Rule in Christianity
commonly expressed as, “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.” Of
particular concern is that reciprocity is not extended to all humans as often as it is
extended to kin relations or “fellow believers.” The decision to include or exclude
individuals or groups of people so they can enjoy social goods that emerge from a
reciprocal exchange network may not be overt or not.

Buddhist economic ethics address charity primarily through the ideas of karma,
religious giving (dana), and compassion (karuna). These perspectives are less focused on
changing the overall existing distribution of wealth, than on cultivating the proper ethical
attitudes toward wealth and giving. Lay economic ethics taught early in Buddhism is
focused on three areas: (1) accumulating wealth through hard work, diligence, and setting
certain restraints on one’s own consumption; (2) choosing and pursuing the right

occupation (e. g., avoiding occupations such as killing animals, trading weapons); and (3)

37

sharing wealth honestly with family, friends, and the sangha (monks-clerics) (Omatoski,
1996)

There are similarities in the ethics of Buddhism and the dominant Christian faith
of the United States where almost 55% are Protestants (Luo, 2006). Buddhists and
Protestants place a high value on hard work and sacriﬁce; however, there appear to be
differences on matters of compassion, as Puritan values stress that hard work leads to
material prosperity which is a sign of a superior man (Meyer, 1999).

Religiosity

The relationship between religiosity and donations to charity has frequently been
the subject of research and has focused on four different dimensions: practice, belief,
experience, and consequences. Studies have shown a positive relationship between
church attendance and donations (Reitsma, Scheepers, & Grotenhuis, 2006); however,
other studies have shown intrinsic religious motivations to be associated with intentional
prosocial behavior more so than extrinsic motivations (Benson, 1980). Intrinsic
motivation is the tendency to engage in tasks because one ﬁnds them interesting,
challenging, involving, and satisfying. Extrinsic motivation is the tendency to engage in
tasks because of task-unrelated factors such as promise of rewards and punishments,
dictates from superiors, surveillance, and competition with peers (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Tang et al. (2008, p. 871) claim that most people do not help others for extrinsic rewards
as “...they are more concerned for themselves and are less likely to offer help to others if
there are no immediate rewards or ﬁnancial gains.” Tang concluded that loss-adverse
motivation is stronger than the motivation in pursuit of possible gains among extrinsically

motivated individuals.

38

A measure of the respondent’s intrinsic motivation toward religion, rather than
religious behaviors such as church attendance and religious reading, will be assessed in
this study using Hoge’s (1972) lO-item Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation scale

that was based in part on Allport and Ross’s ( 1967) measurement of the same construct.

39

CHAPTER 3: HYPOTHESES AND JUSTIFICATION

The proposed model for this study predicts that language congruent with the
donor’s construal of the event as psychologically near or distant will activate the value-
expressive attitude function that is more often associated with charitable giving than is
the utilitarian attitude function. Messages incongruent with the donor’s construal of the
situation do not provide the donor with a familiar context/experience; the violation of the
charitable schema leads to the activation of the less generous utilitarian attitude function
where risk associated with the unfamiliar situation is scrutinized.

1. Functional matching of arguments should “bias recipient’s evaluations of the
persuasiveness of the arguments that contain ﬁmctionally-irrelevant information”
(p. 583) (Lavine & Synder, 1996).

2. CLT is introduced to argue that value-expressive outcome should also be matched
to the donor’s construal of the event which varies along the dimension of
psychological distance (PD). CLT theorizes that psychologically near events are
construed in concrete words, whereas distant events are construed in abstract
terms.

3. The charitable message that matches the donor’s value-expressive attitude
function, by matching the diction level (abstract or concrete), will be more
effective at generating donations than will a message which lacks congruency of
attitude ﬁmction matched to psychological distance, which is ﬁnally matched to
diction level.

Paradoxically, donors can make more sense of a certain situation when abstract

rather than concrete information is presented; in this case, the message presented “in

40

plain English” will be less effective than a message that is ﬂorid because the concrete
message was inconsistent with the donor’s hi gh-level construal. Conversely, the message
that uses concrete diction, with descriptions available to the ﬁve senses, further bolstered
with facts and ﬁgures including statistics (Friedlander, 2009), will be consistent with a

low-level construal.

Attitudes Toward Charity

A communication campaign to strengthen attitudes toward the advocated position
typically begins with an assessment of the target’s current attitude toward that object. An
attitude is a learned orientation, or disposition, toward an object or situation, that provides
a tendency to respond favorably or unfavorably to the object or situation (Rokeach,
1968). It is not necessary to publicly express attitude as it can be private or anonymous
(Hullet & Boster, 2001).

Attitudes are important to the extent that they inﬂuence the speciﬁc behavior
being investigated. Quantifying the attitude establishes a baseline to measure the degree
and direction of attitude change in response to a persuasive message. Studies on the
relationship between attitudes and behavior show that attitudes don’t always guide action
but may do so under speciﬁc situations.

Qualities of the attitude, behavior, person, and situation interact and inﬂuence the
degree to which attitudes are correlated with behavior, and have been observed above the
.30 level speciﬁed by Wicker (1969) to be statistically signiﬁcant. Donor A, unknown to
Donor B, both decide to donate the same amount of money, though their motivations

differ.

41

 

 

Utilitarian Attitude Function
Donor A is asked to make a donation to a speciﬁc person, for a speciﬁc reason, in
a speciﬁc amount. He considers this to be a highly complex situation because the
request is larger than he is used to making under similar conditions. He requires
time and is given the opportunity to carefully analyze the facts, while being
mindful of his emotions, beliefs, values, and the opinions of important people.
Donor A is learning an attitude toward an unfamiliar object before making a
decision. Donor A does not associate the object with reward and therefore needs
time to think so as to not risk making the wrong decision. It will be shown during
the main experiment (ME) that Donor A’s dominant attitude function is
Utilitarian.

Value—expressive Attitude Function
In contrast, Donor B assesses the same situation with clarity and decisiveness
because he experienced similar situations, though the details of the new scenario
differ somewhat. He considers this to be a simple situation, and therefore doesn’t
need a lot of time to form an opinion. Donor B renders an immediate judgment,
based on existing attitudes, values, and beliefs as guides for his behavior (F azio &
Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1992). Donor B refers to an established attitude in making a
decision, and is ready to answer. It will be shown during the main experiment that

Donor B’s dominant attitude function is Value-expressive.

The recipient and the charitable nonproﬁt fund raiser may be satisﬁed with the
outcome, though their gratiﬁcation is short lived when informed by a researcher that one

or both donors would have raised their contribution had the message been more

42

compatible or sensitive to the donor’s prime motive for giving to charity. This is
compelling information as any one charity in the United States competes against 1.4
million other nonproﬁt organizations. It is apparent that Donor A and Donor B differ in
how much time each needs to arrive at their respective decisions. Donor A is described as
being deliberate in decision making, and is contrasted to Donor B who appears to make
spontaneous decisions.

Deliberate decision-making processes include F ishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory
of reasoned action (TRA). Its proposition is that behavior follows closely from intentions.
TRA explains that people believe their intended behavior will lead to certain outcomes,
and that outcome must be weighed against their conviction that important people or
groups endorse or reject that behavior; attitude toward the behavior is weighed against
social norms. Conformity with, or the resistance to the adoption of in-group norms
toward the “correct” social distance, moderates an individual’s attitude toward others.
The actor’s willingness to conform their attitudes to societal norms is theorized to differ
to the degree to which their self representations resemble the representations of
signiﬁcant others (Triandis, 1989).

Understanding the attitude toward the attitude object is not the same as
understanding why that attitude is important to a speciﬁc person. This distinction is
critical for the purposes of attitude change that McGuire theorized is dependent on
identifying the motivational pattern supporting cognitive representations. Proponents of
the functional perspective believe that persuasive messages are most effective when their
content matches the bases of the attitudes under attack. A persuader cannot effectively

design a message if they don’t know why an attitude is held and what function that

43

 

attitude serves. Selecting wrong motivation as the target will be ineffective, or worse, will

result in negative persuasion.

Functional Perspective of Attitudes

The authors present 24 propositions regarding the relationship among nine factors

including source (NPO’s reputation), motives, and outputs (size of gift and donor

loyalty). The motivations listed in the gift behavior model (Sargeant & Woodiffe, 2007)

provide a clue as to the type of attitude function served by it; not surprisingly, the

descriptions of the ﬁrst four items suggest value-expressive functions more than

utilitarian.

1.

Empathy: This is an emotional arousal in one person on the occasion of another
person’s expression of a felt emotion. Empathy has a strong impact on giving
behavior and is most effective when not so powerful as to personally distress the
donor. For instance, an empathetic response to someone’s misfortune may result
in sadness that does not lead to proactive coping (donation) as much as an
empathetic response such as caring would. Empathy is a trait but can be
heightened through prior experience and emotional attachment to the cause, as is
the case with volunteers.

Sympathy: This is a value-expressive function of an attitude, which allows the
donor to conform to salient values. Heightened sympathy is associated with intent
to donate.

Fear, Pity, and Guilt: These factors operate much as do empathy and sympathy
with higher levels associated with stronger donor behaviors.

Social Justice: Witnessing undue pain and suffering violates one’s belief in a

“just” world. This motivation may also lead to the donor’s own social judgment

44

regarding the victim’s role in causing their own suffering. A donor may be more

inclined to penalize a smoker who contracted lung cancer in favor of an

otherwise-healthy person who is suffering from heart disease.
5. Prestige: Donating to a cause in a highly public manner may be an attempt to
demonstrate or signal wealth to those of the same or higher social status (Glazer

& Konrad, 1996). Donors rarely make anonymous donations to foundations where

they are members or alumni. They will choose the lowest level contribution if

ranges are made public, but will opt for donations far larger than average if given
the opportunity to publish the exact amount of the contribution. Conspicuous
consumption in the form of a ﬁne home or expensive automobile does not always
avail the donor the opportunity to display their wealth; therefore, a ﬂashy
donation may be the only avenue by which to impress others with whom they do
not have regular social contact.

It is hypothesized here that donors who have an opportunity from an attitudinal
perspective to express (privately or publicly) their other-directed values are more
generous than those given an opportunity to express only their most inner-directed
values.

Donors’ attitudes toward charity serve a value-expressive function as well as a
utilitarian function. The signiﬁcance is that the former is associated more often with
benevolence generosity, whereas the latter is associated with risk-aversion frugality.
Value-expressive attitude functions will be primed when the message conforms to the
donor’s construal of the situation, whereas utilitarian attitude functions will emerge when

there is a violation of the donor’s expectancies for the speciﬁc situation. Two key

45

dimensions of psychological distance will be manipulated in this experiment, as will the
semantic abstraction theorized to best ﬁt the donor’s construal of the situation depicted in
the charitable advertisement. Donors are theorized to be more receptive to messages that
emphasize central and superordinate features of the situation when psychological distance
is great, and prefer messages presented in a concrete and less schematic manner that
include incidental and subordinate features identiﬁed as low-level construals (Trope,
Liberman, & Wasalk, 2007).

A speciﬁc prediction is that people form concrete (low-level) or abstract (high-
level) construals of a charitable situation along the dimensions of perceived
psychological distance (Lewin, 1951). Social values, including equality, are easily
associated with abstract issues and abstract target groups; whereas factual data including
statistics are associated with concrete issues and speciﬁc target groups. Donors will make
better predictions or correct attributions of psychologically distant targets, including
strangers, using abstract instead of concrete information (Watt et al., 2007). Watt further
observed that egalitarian motives are expressed in discussions of prejudice at abstract
levels and they may not be reﬂected in attitudes toward more concrete targets. CLT
predicts that people prefer messages constructed from a concrete lexicon when the
situation is psychologically close, as compared to a preference for an abstract lexicon
when the situation is psychologically distant (TrOpe, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007). It is
interesting to note that two people may form different construals of the same situation;
therefore, a charitable NPO must tailor their persuasive appeals to meet the differing

needs of important donor subsets.

46

This study extends CLT to show that message congruency with the donor’s
construal of the situation will activate the more benevolent attitude function that is value-
expressive as compared to the risk-averse and self-enhancing utilitarian attitude function.
Our experiment depicts the situation as a charitable appeal, in that (1) the donor is either
personally close or distant, and (2) the beneﬁt is derived in the near or distant future. The
situation is conveyed within a mediated setting similar to a magazine advertisement
sponsored by a nonproﬁt charitable organization.

Speciﬁcally, we will test whether a donor’s attitudes toward charity serve a value-
expressive function as well as a utilitarian function. The signiﬁcance is that the former is
associated more often with benevolence generosity, whereas the latter is associated with
risk-aversion frugality. Value-expressive attitude functions will be primed when the
message conforms to the donor’s construal of the situation, whereas utilitarian attitude
functions will emerge when there is a violation of the donor’s expectancies for the
speciﬁc situation. Schwartz (1992) cross-cultural study of values veriﬁed the existence of
10 different clusters of similar values, with further grouping into negatively related
clusters. Higher order domains of self-enhancement were inversely related to self-
transcendence, as was openness to changes opposed to conservation; the ﬁrst pair was
also unrelated to the second.

Schwartz further argues that the value-expressive attitude function is related to
self-transcendence, whereas the utilitarian attitude function is related to self-
enhancement; someone who values self-transcendence is less likely to value self-
enhancement. Value-expressive attitudes are more strongly associated with prosocial

behavior and generosity than are utilitarian attitudes; however, it is suspected that

47

nonproﬁt campaigns inadvertently use words and images that trigger utilitarian attitudes
instead of the more generous value-expressive attitudes.

Furthermore, value-expressive functions are theorized to be expressed as
benevolent attitudes toward in-groups, whereas social-adjustive functions are expressed
as universal (social justice) attitudes toward out-groups; these relationships hold
regardless of the cultural orientation of individualism and collectivism (Schwartz, 1992).
A person can, however, hold multiple attitudes toward attitude object; utilitarian, value-
expressive, or social-adjustive functions (a subset of value-expressive functions) may
coexist and become activated depending on the donor’s assessment of the cognitive,
behavioral, and environmental inﬂuences.

There are many research perspectives to help explain what motivates a person to
give to others. This study is guided by the cognitive-structural perspective that behaviors
are motivated by the actor’s underlying value and belief system. This study tapped into
the literature of Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1963) to present donor decisions as
emerging from a pattern of behavior, consistent with the values and beliefs learned within
a social setting, and experienced repeatedly over time. Subjective experiences are
organized into a general cognitive structure which Kelly (1955) referred to as a construct
and which European psychologists called a schemata (Barone, Maddux, & Synder,
1997). These terms are referred to in this study as the donor’s construal of the situation,
as speciﬁed in CLT (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Trope & Liberman, 2003).
CLT adopts the understanding that schemata are based on an individual’s general
expectations for an event, which Schank and Abelson (1977) called scripts. This research

is premised on the expectation that messages conforming to a donor’s expectations of an

48

event are more persuasive and lead to activation of prosocial attitudes, more so than
messages not matching the donor’s scripted expectations for that charitable event.

Understanding the attitude toward the attitude object is not the same as
understanding why that attitude is important to a speciﬁc person. This distinction is
critical for the purposes of attitude change which McGuire theorized is dependent on
identifying the motivational pattern supporting cognitive representations. McGuire’s
(1985) so-called functional theory attempts to ﬁrst answer “why” a particular attitude is
held, and only then constructs an attitude change appeal.

Proponents of the functional perspective on attitudes believe that persuasive
messages are most effective when their content matches the functions of the attitudes
targeted in the message (Gregory, Munch, & Peterson, 2002; Hullett & Boster, 2001). A
persuader must know why an attitude is held so as to effectively design a message to
change the attitude. The reasons or function for holding the same attitude (e. g., positive
toward charity) vary among people. The value-expressive function is served when an
attitude is formed because it is useful in maintaining a person’s value(s). Their study
provides further evidence that values will be related to attitudes in the social—identity
condition but NOT in the utilitarian condition. The overall results support the moderating
role of attitude function in the value—attitude relationship. Similar to Maio and Olson
(1994, 1995), value—attitude correlations were signiﬁcant in the social-identity condition
that is conceptually similar to Maio and Olson’s value-expressive condition, but not in
the utilitarian attitude condition.

The basis for the functional approach is that two people may regard the same

situation favorably but for very different reasons or motives. As motivation differs, so

49

does the persuasive technique best suited to change the individual’s intention toward the
advocated position. Proponents of the functional perspective believe that persuasive
messages are most effective when their content matches the bases of the attitudes under
attack. A persuader cannot effectively design a message if they don’t know why an
attitude is held and what function that attitude serves. Selecting the wrong motivation as
the target will be ineffective, or worse—can result in negative persuasion.

The best known theory about possible functions of the attitude is Katz’s (1960).
Katz explained that attitudes have dimensions which are distinct from values. People
have affective and cognitive evaluations or beliefs about the qualities of object. The
attitudes are organized into a hierarchal structure, called a value system. At the top of the
value system are attitudes comprised of numerous and unique beliefs, which are central to
the person’s self-concept. Attempts to change attitude may be directed at affect (e.g.,
liking a candidate) or cognitions (e.g., accepting new policy ideas).

Katz posited that motivations serve four major attitude functions, which are:

1. Utilitarian (adaptive function), which helps individuals maximize rewards and
minimize punishments.

2. Ego-defensive (externalization function), which helps individuals defend the self-
image from others and protect the self from acknowledging basic truths, internal
anxieties, and harsh external realities.

3. Value- expressive (self-realizing function), which provides satisfaction through
the expression of attitudes that reﬂect central values and the need for self-
development and self-expression. It is not necessary for the attitude to be

expressed or recognized by the subject to operate as value-expressive. Attitudes

50

that serve a social-adjustive function do so by helping people develop their place

in the social world and by promoting relationships with important others. (Smith,

Brunet, & White 1956).This function is a speciﬁc fonn of value-expression,

though it is explicitly deﬁned as directed toward others and is rooted in

conformity.

4. Knowledge function, which helps an individual to organize and understand
information and events, organizing the stimuli into cognitive categories to
simplify and make sense of a chaotic world.

Attitude function has also been used to clarify the relation between values and
attitudes. The two most common approaches used in advertising to inﬂuence consumers
are the value-expressive and utilitarian appeals, respectively (Johar & Sirgy, 1991). The
authors recommend a creative strategy that features an idealized image of the generalized
user of the product to tap into attitudes supporting value-expressive outcomes. In
contrast, the creative strategy which taps the need to make rational consumer choices will
highlight the features and beneﬁts of the product. The instrumental function provides
information about the attitude object, and how that object can serve the individual’s self-
interest, whereas value-expressive functions express one’s identity, and social-adjustive

functions express group identity needs.

Charity and the Value-Expressive Function

The value-expressive attitude function, more so than any of the other functions
cited by Katz, is most relevant to the discussion of persuasion within a charitable setting.
Maio and Olson (1995) tested value-expressive against utilitarian attitude functions in

predicting donor intentions toward cancer research. The topic, they wrote, is relevant to

51

 

values because donating is an act that can afﬁrm values of altruism and helpfulness, or
conversely, a utilitarian concern that a cure may one day beneﬁt the donor if stricken.
Their study showed intention to donate was more often associated with value-expressive
as compared to the utilitarian attitude function (e. g., concern over the affordability of the
donation). Maio and Olson (1995) eliminated ego-defensive and knowledge functions as
irrelevant to the topic of charity. The desire to express attitudes that reﬂect central values
and the need for self-development emerges from the research literature as the function
served by favorable attitudes toward charities. Motivations to donate are weighted more
toward prosocial values of social justice and benevolence and both are classiﬁed as self-
transcendent (Schwartz, 2007). Schwartz identiﬁes universalism (e.g., social justice,
equality) and benevolence (e. g., helpfulness, loyalty) as values most associated with
giving behaviors.

Values provide a standard of conduct and are potentially powerful explanations of
human behavior. Values are an evaluation of abstract ideas in terms of their importance
in pursuing goals, and because they are abstract, values have the ability to inﬂuence many
different attitudes (Maio & Olson, 1995). Adler (1956) recognizes that the value concept
in sociology falls into ﬁve basic types: (a) Values are considered absolutes, existing in
the mind of God as external ideas, as independently valid; (b) values exist in the object,
material or non-material; (c) values are located in man, originating in his biological needs
or in his mind; ((1) values exist collectively among groups, societies, culture, state, and
class; and (e) values are equated with action.

Values serve as an enduring belief that a speciﬁc mode of conduct or end-state of

existence is personally or socially preferable to its opposite (Rokeach, 1973).

52

Instrumental values are referred to as the means to the end that is the attainment of
terminal values, which in the case of charity are universally regarded as preference for “a
world at peace’” “a world of beauty’” and “equality” (Rokeach, 1973). Schwartz and
Bilsky (1990) showed that structural relations among the 18 instrumental values and 18
terminal value types were similar (universal). The study was conducted across seven
different societies, with values loaded onto the dimensions of achievement, enjoyment,
maturity, prosocial, restricted conformity, security, and self-direction. Donating is an act
that can afﬁrm values of altruism (Maio & Olson, 1995) and value-expressive attitude
conditions were signiﬁcantly more conducive to donor intentions than were utilitarian
conditions (e.g., concern over the affordability of the donation).

The simultaneous pursuit of values in the following sets of domains is
contradictory: (a) prosocial versus achievement—emphasizing concern for others
interferes with pursuing personal success, (b) enjoyment versus prosocial—emphasizing
own pleasure and comfort contradicts devoting oneself to others’ welfare (Schwartz &
Bilsky, 1990). A donor need not have strong prosocial motivations; however, their
contribution is likely to be smaller than someone who does.
The desire to express attitudes that reﬂect central values and the need for self-
development emerges from the research literature as the function served by favorable
attitudes toward charities. Motivations to donate are weighted more toward prosocial
values of social justice and benevolence and both are classiﬁed as self—transcendent
(Schwartz, 2007).
Attitude Function Inventory

Herek (1986) described two broad categories of attitude functions: the expressive

function that underlies symbolic attitudes, as compared to the evaluative function, that

53

 

underlies instrumental attitudes. Expressive attitudes derive their affective content from
personal needs that are met by the attitude’s expression— needs broadly related to
afﬁrmation of identity that are largely symbolic. In contrast, evaluative attitudes (e. g.,
utilitarian, schematic, proximal) function to the extent that symbolic and instrumental
variables explain signiﬁcant portions of their variance.

Herek’s (1987) Attitude Function Inventory (AF 1) is a set of statements
describing the reasons why an individual holds her or his attitudes in a particular domain,
with each statement keyed to a particular attitude function. Respondents indicate the
extent to which each statement describes their own attitudes. The AF 1 scale was adapted
in this paper to identify the value that donors hold toward charitable giving. The scale is
used during the pretest and main experiment and is reproduced in the appendix.

The terms functional consensus and functional divergence are used to differentiate
between an attitude domain that elicits, respectively, one function or multiple functions
within a particular population (Herek & Capitanio, 1998). The authors cite attitudes
toward the Christian Bible as probably serving a value-expressive function for most
citizens of the United States. Though one may hold positive or negative attitudes toward
the Bible and its contents, people most likely base their attitudes on value considerations
rather than utilitarian ones. Value-expressive attitude functions are expected to dominate
prosocial considerations more than the utilitarian ﬁmction.

Attitude function has been shown to play a moderating role between attitudes and
values. Values have a signiﬁcant relationship to attitudes when the purpose of the attitude
is to express a value; however, values become less important when the attitude is directed

toward a self-gratifying outcome (Maio & Olson, 1995). Charity is a topic that can elicit

54

W'ﬂw

value-expressive or utilitarian attitudes that are hypothesized to result in signiﬁcantly
more generous behaviors in the value-expressive condition. The experimental stimuli
material is written so that each treatment primes an attitude consistent with either one of
the two functions. Researchers have employed various techniques to elicit the targeted
attitude function, and to make salient the reasons for holding that function (e.g., self
interest or values). Young et al. (1991) showed the value-expressive attitude function
associated with the topic of government policy (i.e., symbolic; Kinder & Sears, 1985;
Young et al., 1991) to become more utilitarian when respondents were exposed to
recorded messages that advocated a self-interested perspective regarding social policy.

The hypothesized relationship between values and donor behavior based on the
literature review of functional perspective of attitudes is that charity is motivated by
other-directed intentions, which in turn indicates a desire to express values more so than
to receive rewards.

H1: Donors of larger sums of money are more frequently motivated by their

value-expressive attitude function as compared to their utilitarian attitude

ﬁrnction.

H2: Donation behavior such as preference for anonymity, sincere giving, and low

need for requited gift (gift in exchange for donation) are more oﬁen motivated by

the value-expressive attitude function as compared to the utilitarian attitude

function.

Norm of self in terest.

The previous sections addressed the internal processes that lead to the formation

of charitable attitudes. This section addresses the normative inﬂuences that may have a

55

bearing on the prospective donor’s willingness to give to someone who is not a member
of their social group. Someone may possess favorable attitudes toward charity, yet be
highly selective in terms of who is to receive those beneﬁts; more often favoring in-
groups over out-groups with larger donations.

The norm of self-interest is proposed to exist most strongly in Western,
individualistic cultures, and is powerful enough to lead people to act and speak as if they
care more about their self interest than they really do (Miller, 1999); however, it is
expected that donor-stranger exchanges require a higher degree of justiﬁcation as
compared to donor-family exchanges. Giving to a stranger, instead of to a friend or
neighbor in similar need, is a violation of the norm and triggers penalties such as
ostracism.

The act of giving is often cast as an irrational behavior out of character with the
reputation of the consumer as homo economicus, who is the calculating, utility
maximizing actor portrayed in business text books (Clotfelter, 2002). This actor has
internalized the belief that it is socially acceptable, and in fact, necessary to require
justiﬁcation for their acts of charity because to do otherwise would be to risk exposure as
a “bleeding heart” or “do-gooder” even when their private thoughts oppose that stance
(Wuthnow, 1991). The prospective donor is more likely to give them the justiﬁcation that
some material beneﬁt, however nominal, was received.

Individuals in Western cultures are conditioned to believe that these attitudes have
attained normative status. This syndrome is described as the “The Norm of Self Interest”
by numerous scholars (Miller, 1999; Ratner & Miller, 2001; Holmes, Miller, & Lerner

2002; Simpson, Irwin, & Lawrence 2006). The normative expectation is readily observed

56

 

in Western-Individualistic cultures (emphasis on self-beneﬁts) and in Eastem-Collectivist
cultures (emphasis on in-group members to the exclusion of out-groups).

The norm requires that donors have a vested interest and a material incentive
great enough to justify their contribution, without repayment, to a stranger. Ratner &
Miller (2001) reported that donors are less comfortable acting on their attitudes toward
social causes in which they do not have a vested interest, though they may feel empathy
for the victims. A person who wishes to give to a stranger may be motivated by a sense of
empathy; however, those holding to the norm of self-interest will discount the act as
motivated by self-esteem or guilt reduction, both of which are non-material gains and
thus a violation of the logic that governs this rational choice model.

Holmes, Miller, and Lerner (2002) recommend allowing the donor to make an
anonymous gift as that option increases the contribution among those who did not have a
vested interest in the social cause. Simpson, Irwin, and Lawrence (2006) join the above-
mentioned authors in a caution against slavish application of the norm in predicting donor
motivations; they agree that the norm of self interest is a ﬁction that masks privately held
altruistic attitudes and acts of compassion. This ﬁction is dispelled when the donor is
offered a token gift as it represents the tangible beneﬁt, the quid pro quo, of a socially
acceptable economic transaction. It is argued here that the ﬁction can be dispelled when
messages conform to the donors’ expectations regarding their construal of the situation,
as theorized by construal level theory (see next section).

The hypothesis that a product exchanged for a charitable contribution would
increase contributions was supported during an experiment with 44 male and 44 female

undergraduates (Holmes, Miller, & Lerner, 1999). Donations increased as the urgency of

57

the situation was experimentally increased, but only when a nominal gift was offered.
The gift of a wax candle was represented as worth more, less, or the same as the amount
of the requested donation. The value of the candle proved to be inherently useless as
pricing did not affect the donor’s contribution in the low urgency condition. Miller (1999)
concluded that the candle did not represent an incentive as much as it represented
justiﬁcation; the quid pro quo alluded to earlier, in the form of a tangible beneﬁt. Miller
(1999), in the same article, concluded that peoples’ willingness to express compassion for
a victim will increase if it can take the form of an economic transaction as opposed to an
unconditionally altruistic act. The signiﬁcance of this observation for this study is that a
donor may view the recipient’s willingness to conform to the donor’s values as an
incentive to give. This provides incentive to the NPO to construct messages that match
the donor’s values, and to do so in a way that conforms to the donor’s construal of the
situation (i.e., psychological distance).
Reciprocity

Cultural orientations toward Communal or Exchange relationships both require
that stranger relations be governed by explicit conditions of reciprocity (Clark & Mills,
1993). Communal societies tend to reserve their charity for in-group members while
individualistic societies treat nearly all their relations with a need for an equitable
exchange. Strong communal relationships are rare except in the case of family members,
romantic partners, and close ﬁiends where non-comparability of beneﬁts given and
received in a relationship serves as an indicator of the existence of a communal
relationship (Clark, 1981). The strength of the relationship is based on the costs the
person is willing to incur to meet the other’s needs. The largest beneﬁts come at the

highest cost and are reserved for the most important relationships. Weak communal

58

 

relations with most people do not provide the motivation for costly giving. Aiding a
stranger is an example of a very weak communal relationship. Beneﬁts in a communal
relationship are often reciprocated; however, their form and timing are not dictated to the
same high degree as in an exchange relationship where receipt of a beneﬁt incurs an
obligation to return comparable beneﬁts.

The donors must justify their donation to a stranger against their self interest and
normative inﬂuences for personal wealth maximization and in-group favoritism. An
encounter with a stranger is often fraught with anxiety as the participants are unable to
say how the other person is likely to behave, are unable to give a reasoned explanation
for another’s behavior, and simply don’t know much about the other person or their
culture (Berger & Calabrase, 1975). A request from a stranger is more likely to provoke
careful consideration of the situation, the distant relationship with the recipient, and the
imagined urgency, with scant time for an assessment of the costs and beneﬁts, all
weighted so as not to make the wrong decision. The motivation to give to the stranger is
qualitatively different from the motivation to give to someone close; the ﬁrst is more
likely motivated by benevolent values, whereas the second may be based on notions of
equality and social justice, but more likely, on the desire to not make a mistake or be
taken advantage of, as evidenced by the relatively minuscule aid given to international
charities.

Psychological Distance

The literature on psychological distance consistently shows that factors reducing

feelings of distance will promote sympathy and helpful behavior (Lowenstein & Small,

2007). Dimensions of psychological distance are: (a) spatial—how distal in space the

59

 

target is from the perceiver; (b) temporal—how much time (past or future) separates the
perceiver’s present time and the target event; (c) social—how distinct the social target is
from the perceiver’s self (e. g., self vs. others, friend vs. stranger); and (d)
hypotheticality—how likely the target event is to happen, or how close it is to reality, as
construed by the perceiver. Our study requires that distance between donor and recipient
be manipulated along the social and temporal dimensions.

People may possess a number of different attitudes toward charity, selecting the
one that is most appropriate depending on the perceived (temporal) urgency of the
situation and the personal relationship or closeness of recipient to the prospective donor.
Social Identity

The literature on social distance consistently shows that factors that reduce
feelings of distances will promote sympathy and helpful behavior (Lowenstein & Small,
2007). Social distance, as opposed to spatial (geographic) distance, describes the personal
closeness between members of diverse social groups, such as different ethnic groups
(Borgardus, 1925). Groups of people represent social units that exist within two major
realms: those which are functional and organized toward industry and those described as
structural and organized toward fraternity and social togetherness (Lindeman, 1930).
Ferdinand Tonnies (1887) recognized the two social units to be communities based upon
place/commerce (Gesellschaft), or upon kinship (Gemeinschaft), or as an intangible
community of the “mind.” The central theme in the deﬁnition of community is that
shared values and ideas represent a social web as distinct from any one-to-one bond
(Sergiovanni, 1994). Shared values and common goals are the basis for group solidarity,
social cohesion, and group viability, all of which increase the value of membership in this

collectivity (Parsons, 1951 ).
60

 

Social identity theory was developed by Taj fel and Turner (1979) to better
understand the sociological and psychological bases to predict when and why individuals
identify with, and behave as members in, a social group; the theory is often applied in the
study of intergroup discrimination. Sherif and Sherif (1979) deﬁned intergroup relations
as whenever individuals belonging to one in-group collectively or individually interact
with another group or its members in terms of their group identiﬁcation. An out-group is
a social unit that a person is not psychologically a part of or with which he does not
identify himself. Intergroup realities are formed upon comparative relations and social
histories (Hogg, 1992).

Social identity theory is concerned with how much the individual incorporates the
group into the self-concept, needs the group, and considers the group important.
Commitment to that identity by others is the basis for an emerging collectivity (Stryker &
Burke, 2000). The collectivity as a social structure is marked by a boundary through
which new members located at the periphery (social boundary) must pass. The difference
between the values expressed by the applicant and those of the target group can be
considered an approximation of the social distance between the two.

Individuals evaluate membership in a social group on the value and emotional
signiﬁcance attached to the group membership along the following criteria: (a)
categorization (labeling on some criteria), (b) identiﬁcation (e.g., similarity of values), (c)
comparison (in-group bias), and (d) psychological distinctiveness (ability to express a
unique identity distinct from and positively compared with other groups) (Tajfel, 1981 ).
The framework for conceptualizing social identity developed by Jackson and Smith

(1999), which promised greater conceptual clarity is: (a) perception of the intergroup

61

COT.

‘ 0 \
mitt

Int

100

1151‘

MC

16“

ﬂ I‘I_.

 

context (rivalry contrast with out—group), (b) in-group attraction (desire for acceptance
into group), (c) interdependency beliefs (common fate), and (d) depersonalization
(subjugation of self to a group identity). Jackson’s study measured social distance by
comparing helpful behaviors expected from: (a) residents who live in-state as compared
to out-state, and (b) students at Purdue University, 1N as compared to students from other
universities. Jackson expected and conﬁrmed that reciprocity, obligation, and expectation
of aid are expected from and by in-group members.
Key Constructs Lack Operational Deﬁnitions

A review of the social-psychological literature shows that interest in measuring
social distance dates to 1928 when Borgardus prepared a series of statements intended to
reveal the perceived distance between the subject and another person. Borgardus’ scale
was ordinal and later modiﬁed by researchers during the mid-19505, into an equal-
interval scale upon which parametric techniques, such as factorial analysis, are used to
study the underlying structure of the social distance construct. The results of such a study
in the United States, by Triandis and Triandis (1962), indicated that 77% of the variance
in social distance scores is accounted for by race, about 17% by occupation, 5% by
religion, and 1% by nationality. Measuring social distance is complex because the views
of the in-group may be hard to ascertain, and a long host of factors may exert main and
interactive effects (e.g., age, gender, political views, philosophic views, ﬁiend and
neighbor relations, and physical disabilities) (Triandis & Triandis, 1962). It was further
shown by these authors that social distance varied by social class; upper-class perceptions
of social distance were based upon perceived difference in religion, whereas lower-class

individuals emphasized race more than did the others.

62

(no

More recently, the researcher team of Bakke, Cao, O’Loughlin, and Ward (2007)
experienced difﬁculty in developing survey questions to capture how members of
different ethnic groups feel about members of other speciﬁc ethnic groups. They studied
social distance in Bosnia and the North Caucasus Region of Russia as a means of
reducing ethnic tension and restoring peace after war. Their study, using
multidimensional scaling, did not ﬁnd evidence for clear attitudinal cleavages among
members of different ethnic groups in Bosnia or North Caucasus, but did reveal
signiﬁcant social distance between Russians and ethnic minority groups. Their
conclusion is that members of different ethnic groups do not necessarily view the world
all that differently when it comes to religion and ethnicity.

A cross-cultural study of Americans and Chinese showed that emotional intensity
felt toward the self, father (or brother), best friend, and stranger in each scenario reﬂects
greater psychological distance as one moves away from the self and as one compares
targets farther apart in the implied relationships (Wong & Bagozzi, 2005). Wong’s cross-
cultural study of psychological distance showed the Chinese to experience closer
relations among in-group members and greater distinctions from out-group members,
than did the Americans in the sample. Wong explained the ﬁnding in terms of the cultural
dimensions of collectivism and individualism.

Power differential in a social setting between subjects is another form of social
distances, specifying that elevated social power increases the psychological distance from
others. The signiﬁcance of this to this study is that power priming leads to abstract
representations and broader representations (e.g., more inclusive of others in self) (Trope,

Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007).

63

 

 

 

The authors of CLT and PD theories outlined in the literature review did not
operationalize their constructs; therefore new scales and measurements are needed to
recreate conditions speciﬁed in CLT. The goal is to test the hypotheses, which are
plausibly derived from this theory. Social distance appears in the literature as a
presumption that does not need to be quantiﬁed. Conceptual deﬁnition for social distance
appears to be formed on a nearly universal consensus that similarity begets personal
closeness beginning with family and extending outward, lastly to strangers. The
signiﬁcance of personal closeness in the context of charity is that aid is given ﬁrst to
family, then friends, and lastly strangers. The ordering of this preference is expressed by
Dr. Samuel Johnson of London, England, as noted by his biographer, James Boswell
(1889): “A man should ﬁrst relieve those who are nearly connected with him, by
whatever tie; and then if he has anything to spare, may extend his bounty to a wider circle
(p. 389).”

Scales exist in medical literature to gauge familiarity with someone who has
mental illness, but those scales are not appropriate for the measurement of social
distance. The study does not contend with the distinctions known to polarize people: race,
ethnicity, gender, politics, philosophy, and occupation. The study of neighbors and
strangers living within the same community requires a nuanced approach because in this
setting, it is more difficult to cleave people apart, than in a situation where race politics
are more salient. The best known scale to measure social distance is the Borgardus (1926)
scale which measured social distance between people on racial and ethnic terms.

This study incorporates another method to estimate social distance, which is to

quantify the degree to which donors perceive another person to share values, goals and

64

 

 

interests. Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992) argue that closeness in relationships affects the
resource-allocation strategy because the outcomes are perceived to be interdependent, as
suggested by communal versus exchange relationships (Clark et al., 1987). Perceived
similarity enhances empathetic and vicarious reactions when an individual perceives
another as human (Bandura, 1992). Dissimilarity is one form of social distance,
suggesting that the less similar someone is to oneself, the more socially distant they
typically seem (Liviantan, Trope, & Liberman, 2006).

The survey items developed for the manipulation check of social distance are
expected to show that respondents will anticipate that in-groups depicted in the stimuli
material will share their values more so than will out-groups. However, personal
closeness based on shared values proved to be difﬁcult to establish in this study. Findings
suggest that values and interests shared by ﬁ'iends do not correlate signiﬁcantly with
personal closeness as measured by the Inclusiveness of Other into Self Scale (Aron,
Aron, & Smollan, 1992) during the manipulation checks and main experiment. Situating
someone as a member of the neighborhood may lead to a casual observation that that
person belongs to the in-group; yet geographic proximity does not always confer personal
closeness. Close habituation may have led to social alienation and diffusion of personal
responsibility to explain why neighbors ignored the repeated pleas of Kitty Genovese
who died in the lobby of a New York City apartment building in 1964.

Social distance in this study proved to be an elusive task, but it was accomplished
through manipulation checks by the time of the main experiment. Careful attention to the

choice of words and examples and $600 in art design fees helped to establish contrasting

65

levels for social distance and the other two independent variables, as required for a
factorial experiment.

Researchers should be wary when associating the relationship of shared values to
personal closeness. The key to establishing intimate relations remains elusive, and may
require the efforts of sociologists to update their conceptualizations of community.
Temporal Distance

CLT proposes that temporal distance changes people’s response to future events
by changing the way people mentally represent those events, speciﬁcally that values of
outcomes are discounted or diminished as temporal distance from those outcomes is
increased. Individuals often place a higher premium on near-term rewards, even when the
distant-future event promises a larger reward. The value of events is always discounted
over a time delay as described in economic terms, such as the time value of money where
a dollar is worth more today than it will be tomorrow due to the effect of inﬂation and
lost opportunity of an immediate investment. However, the anticipation of a favorable
outcome, which can only be attained through concerted, effort builds value for a distant
future event. A donation for the human development of skills is an example of the time-
enhanced outcome, whereas a donation to alleviate pain and suffering of others is a
beneﬁt realized in the short term. A time-enhanced outcome is an example of a future
event associated with a high-level construal, which has been shown to be represented in
abstract terms; whereas the immediate realization of a beneﬁt is associated with a low-
level construal, and representation in concrete terms.

The greater the temporal distance, the more likely events are to be represented in
terms of a few abstract features that convey the perceived essence of the events (high-

level construals) rather than in terms of more concrete and incidental details of the events

66

 

 

(low-level construals). The reasons for pursing a goal or end-state are more often
construed in superordinate and abstract terms (e. g., donation intended to foster
independence); whereas the means of pursuit is conveyed in subordinate terms (e.g.,
donation in the form of ﬁnancial aid, or abeyance of a prior loan) (Trope & Liberman,
2003). The informational and evaluative implications of high-level construals, compared
with those of low-level construals, should therefore have more impact on responses to
distant-future events than near-future events.

The hypothesis is that hi gh-level construal concepts are associated more with
distant-future concepts than with near-future concepts; furthermore, low-level construal
concepts are associated more with near-future concepts than with distant-future concepts.
The results of both studies supported this hypothesis. These results are consistent with
past CLT research ﬁndings that an abstract, hi gh-level construal is linked to distant-future
cues, whereas concrete, low-level construal is linked to near-future cues.

Another important difference among the distances is their relation to valence.
Whereas social distance reduces positivity (e. g., in-groups are perceived as more positive
than out-groups), temporal distance typically enhances positivity (people are more
positive about the more distant future). Further, Lynch and Zauberman (2006) point out
that there is less within-person variation (and thus, correspondingly, less opportunity for
intrapersonal preference reversals) for the dimensions of social and spatial distance than
for the dimensions of temporal distance and uncertainty.

Construal Level Theory
Construal level theory provides us with the insight that people are more willing to

process messages that use abstract language when distances are far, whereas they prefer

67

 

 

‘ ,
in:

CO'

[ill

' G?

It.

concrete language when distances are near. CLT suggests that an outcome will be more
favorable when an appeal for a distant stranger is based on abstract values in the distant
future, such as aid that leads over time to advancement and independence, as compared to
the more common grim depiction of poverty and starvation, dispassionately matched with
cold mortality statistics. Our contention is that most charitable appeals do not recognize
the psychological distance dimensions and opt for a “one-size-ﬁts-all” perspective more
common among selling organizations (product focused) as compared to marketing
organizations (customer-need focused). This study contends that ﬂaws in the message
design of current charitable fund-raising campaigns may inadvertently act as an
impediment rather than stimulator of donations. Furthermore, it argues here that charities
could forego the common practice of a gift-for-donation, if they would design messages
that more readily tap into the donor’s motivation schema. This paper focuses on
identifying communication strategies that foster positive adaptations in that the donor is
made to see the stranger as more attractive; that is, less strange.

CLT is closely related to the theories of psychological distance (Bar-Anan,
Liberman, & Trope, 2006; Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008; Liberman, Trope, &
Wakslak, 2007; Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007). CLT and PD appear to be derived from
a representational theory of the mind which is a broader theoretical perspective also from
the cognitive sciences. The basis for these related theories is that mental representations
take on the form of semantics needed to form and share thoughts, beliefs, desires,
perceptions, and images about an object (Pitt, 2008). These representations are used to
express an evaluation of the properties of the object as consistent, truthful, appropriate,

and accurate. CLT’s mental representations are grouped into low-level and a high-level

68

properties as described in Table 1. CLT is premised on the condition that mental

representations are constructed in semantics terms which are abstract or concrete.

 

 

Table 1
Distinguishing High-Level and Low-Level C onstruals
High-level construals Low-level construals
Abstract Concrete
Simple Complex
Decontextualized Contextualized
Primary, core Secondary, surface
Superordinate Subordinate
Goal relevant Goal irrelevant

 

CLT provides the theoretical basis for the hypothesis that donors prefer messages
that use abstract language, such as values (e.g., benevolence) and feeling, and desirable
goals to present abstract objects and situations. Concrete language is theorized to best
address the feasibility of practical matters of immediate concern (Trope & Liberman,
2003)

Charitable appeals for outsiders and their future needs are more difﬁcult to
cognitively process as the donor has less experience (context) in which to make sense of
the situation. Conversely, appeals for insiders and their immediate needs are far more
common experiences that provide the context necessary for the donor to construe (make
sense of) the situation; therefore the message should use concrete language to present
simple situations.

H3: Donations to socially near recipients are higher when the beneﬁt occurs in the

near ﬁrture, as compared to the distant future, when the message uses concrete

language instead of abstract language.

69

 

llli‘ﬂ.’

(LI

A scenario of an outsider’s distant need in terms of concrete language is likely to
trigger utilitarian attitudes instead of value-expressive attitudes that are, theoretically,
more effective. A formal statement of that relationship is:

H4: Donations to a socially distant recipient are greatest when the beneﬁt occurs

in the distant future, as compared to the near future, when the message uses

abstract language instead of concrete language.

Construal level theory speciﬁes that one of the factors that affect construal level
(high/low) is the psychological distance between the perceiver and target. The greater the
psychological distance, the more likely perceivers are to form high-level (abstract
representations) rather than low-level (concrete representations) construals of objects and
events.

Summary of CLT

Circumstances conducive to a donor’s generous response are hypothesized by
construal level theory (CLT) in explaining how people form general expectations of an
event, which Schank and Abelson (1977) called scripts. The construals are scripted in
concrete language or abstract language depending on the donor’s perceived personal
relationship with the solicitor-client as near or distant, and with their perception of the
beneﬁt as impacting the solicitor in the near future or distant future. CLT predicts that
messages that make use of concrete language will lead to activation of helpful attitudes
and behaviors when the recipient is socially near and the aid provides immediate relief.
CLT predicts that messages that make use of abstract language will lead to activation of
helpful attitudes and behaviors when the recipient is socially distant and the aid provides
eventual relief. The persuasiveness of the charitable message takes on heightened

importance when communicating with someone who would agree with the statements, “1

70

would have donated; however, I didn’t like the way they asked me,” and/or, “I donated
because I liked the way they asked me.” This study searches out language and styles that
are amenable to the charitable nature of the prospective donor, given the most common
situations.

CL T and Moral Judgments

People use simple intuitive rules to make moral judgments. Sacred and protected
abstract values operate under the no trade-off principle whereas concrete situations are
less rigid in implementing their sacred values. Moral principles are general and
decontextualized as high-level construals. Judgments of proximal events are less likely to
reﬂect moral principles. Pressing concern (proximal) may moderate a harsh judgment for
a violation of a moral principle (distal).

It is more likely that morally charged actions are expressed in terms of abstract
moral values rather than in terms of more concrete incidental terms when the actions are
temporally distant (e. g., the striving appeal in this experiment), rather than near (e.g.,
survival appeal). Moral actions are judged more positively from a greater temporal
distance. Moral judgments depend on when action takes place and by whom it is judged.
Moral judgments, because of their general and schematic nature, are more inﬂuential in
judgments of more distant events. Proximal considerations muddle the application of
moral principles (Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008).

The social and temporal dimensions of psychological distance will be
manipulated within an experimental setting in an attempt to replicate a social interaction
in which prosocial attitudes, robust when directed to intimates, begin to deteriorate

toward indifference, aversion, and abhorrence when directed to strangers. A research

71

 

question is posed here in hopes of reversing the donor bias against the distant solicitor:
Can the stranger be made less strange in the eyes of the donor?
Dual Coding Theory

The fundamental attributes of words are examined by studying word
representation and retrieval. Paivio theorized that two interconnected representational
systems exist in the domains of (a) verbal-linguistics (logogen system), and (b) imaginal-
nonverbal (imagen system). Paivio’s dual coding model hypothesis is that concrete words
offer greater sensory information. This notion is consistent with the direction offered by
Strunk and White in their writing reference guide, “The Elements of Style” where they
advise the use of deﬁnite, speciﬁc, and concrete language instead of abstract nouns
because concrete words call up pictures that use the senses.

Altarriba and Bauer (2004) rated 48 concrete and 48 abstract words on a 7 point
scale to qualities ranging from (a) context availability as highly abstract, difﬁcult to
imagine, and difﬁcult to think of a context; to 03) highly concrete, easy to imagine, and
easy to think of a context. Concrete words were shown in a test to be remembered better
than abstract words, due to concreteness, high imagery, and context availability. Concrete
words have high concreteness ratings (M = 6.3) as well as high imagery (M = 6.6) and
context availability (M = 5.6) ratings. Abstract words have low concreteness (M = 3.3),
imagery (M = 2.4), and context availability (M = 4.6) ratings. Emotional words were
shown to activate different properties which were recalled more readily than were
concrete or abstract words. Emotional words are less imaginable, less concrete, and less

likely to activate context compared to concrete words.

72

 

Accessibility of an Attitude

Not all social behavior is deliberate and reasoned; this observation led F azio and
colleagues (Fazio, 1986; Fazio, Powell, & Herr, 1983) to suggest that attitudes can guide
a person’s behavior even when the person does not actively reﬂect and deliberate about
the attitude (Roskos-Ewoldsen & .Fazio, 1992). Semin (2002) reintroduces Benjamin
Whorf’s (1957) notion of unconscious habitual thought facilitated by the grouping of
linguistics (grammatical and vocabulary) that are based upon the cultural conditioning of
the inherited language (e.g., concrete or abstract description for a single concept which
varies by culture). Hoffman, Lau, and Johnson (1986) refer to the groupings as lexical
categories. The claimed existence of lexical categories is related to CLT’s main
contention that events are construed in either abstract or concrete language. The lexical
process is conceptually similar to cognitive schema as both concern an individual’s
categorizing and ordering of life experiences in order to make better sense of their
environment. The creation of the stimuli material and the choice of words used
throughout the messages were based on observations of lexical categories as they relate
to construal level theory.

MODE Model

Events are organized into the MODE (Motivation and Opportunity and
Determinants) which is an attitude-to-behavior model that integrates spontaneous and
deliberate cognitive processes into a single framework. The key propositions are that two
conditions must exist for in-depth cognitive processing: (a) motivation to avoid a costly
mistake or assure a signiﬁcant outcome, and (b) an opportunity to expend the necessary
amount of time to process this information. A situation that lacks motivation and

opportunity will follow the attitude-to-behavior process (Fazio, 1986). An observation
73

not made in the literature is that important but novel situations should be deliberately
processed, and that experience produces ﬁner attitudes; the signiﬁcance is that every
situation doesn’t have to be processed as if it were new again. Another way of stating this
is: A person must deliberate and reason to form an attitude, but once learned and
rehearsed that attitude is stored in memory, ready for retrieval, to make decision making
so effortless as to appear to be spontaneous. Spontaneous processing replaces deliberate
processes when the situation is familiar; and this notion is consistent with the metaphor of
the cognitive miser who is economy-minded, investing cognitive effort in a task only
when given sufﬁcient motivation and cognitive resources (F iske & Taylor, 1991).

Spontaneity in decision making will be of low quality as indicated by the use of
heuristics or ‘mental shortcuts.’ Use of heuristics often occurs when the attitude object is
of low personal importance or of overwhelming complexity, as when the lay person is
asked to make a decision based on highly technical scientiﬁc data. Spontaneity based on
access to carefully vetted attitudes must not be confused with spontaneity based on
aversive emotions elicited by an unpleasant situation. An example of spontaneous
aversion is the donor who quickly agrees to give a small amount of money when solicited
by a threatening stranger or pitiful beggar. A critical limitation of the attitude—to-behavior
model is the processing of novel situations or abstract concepts, as a contextual setting is
necessary to ground the situation in familiar terms. The quality of the heuristically
processed decision is degraded because attention is drawn to immediately notable
features, perhaps of subordinate importance, all of which may lead to a decision

inconsistent with the established attitude.

74

Control Variables
Cultural Orientation of Values Toward Self or Group Outcomes

Hofstede (1980) identiﬁed the constructs of individualism and collectivism as
opposite poles of a value dimension that differentiates world cultures. Societal norms are
theorized to vary by the degree to which most members (a) deﬁne the self as directed
toward personal or collective aspects (Triandis, 1989), or as independent or
interdependent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991); (b) prioritize either personal or in-group
goals (Triandis, 1990; Yamaguchi, 1994); (c) emphasize either exchange or communal
relationships (Mills & Clark, 1982); or (d) emphasize rationality rather than relatedness
(Kim et al., 1994).

Studies have associated individualism (l) with values of competition, enjoyment,
pleasure, an exciting life, a varied life, self-reliance, social recognition, freedom, equality,
imagination, and broadmindedness (Grimm, Church, Katiobak, & Reyes, 1999). Grimm
et al. found that collectivism (C) was associated with values of cooperation, equality,
honesty, self-sacriﬁce, politeness, cleanliness, and family. Schwartz (1990) recognized
the utility of this cultural distinction yet cautioned that the I-C “dichotomy promotes the
mistaken assumption that individualist and collectivist values [both] form coherent
syndromes that are opposed to one another” (p. 151).

Individual Level of Analysis: Self-Construal

A self-construal is deﬁned as the grouping of cognitions concerning the
relationship of the self to others, and the self as distant from others (Singelis & Sharkey,
1995). Individuals who possess an independent self-construal are more likely to live in
cultures oriented toward individualist outcomes; whereas people with an interdependent

self-construal are more likely to live in cultures oriented toward collectivist outcomes

75

 

(Triandis, 1995), though features of both can be found within an individual and
throughout any given society. The self-construal construct has a vertical dimension that
emphasizes social hierarchy, and a horizontal dimension emphasizing social equality,

predicting the degree to which an individual is attuned to the needs of others (Triandis &

 

Gelfand, 1998). This study considers the pairing of the collectivist cultural dimension and
interdependent self-construal, and the pairing of the individualist cultural dimension and
independent self-construal as two conceptually equivalent constructs, respectively.
Individuals with a collectivist/ interdependent self-construal may not necessarily exhibit
prosocial behaviors toward an out-group member if that act is considered counter-
normative by members of their dominant reference group.

A research subject’s self-construal level will be measured in the pretest and again
in the main experiment. The two dimensions of the self-construal construct were
originally deﬁned as a dichotomous variable but are now considered by most scholars as
an orthogonal construct; theorizing about self-construal allows for the bicultural or multi-
cultural person who may possess both types of self-views (Kim, 2005). Triandis and
Gelfand’s 16-item measurement of horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism
and collectivism will be collected in the pretest, as a potential alternative to Kim and
Leung’s (1997) 30-item measurement of self construal that will also be collected.

A statistically signiﬁcant positive relationship between self-construal scores and
social distance is hypothesized as showing that people with an interdependent self-
construal are more likely to regard a target as socially close; whereas another respondent

with an independent self-construal may regard the same target as socially distant.

76

 

Personal/Situational Involvement

A person’s receptivity to messages is predicted in part by the level of personal
involvement with that attitude object. People make choices to attend to messages based
on their needs and desires for personal relevance, need for cognition, and personal
responsibility (Andrews, Durvasula, & Akhter, 1990). The assumption is that processing
is goal driven, which requires the researcher and advertiser to ascertain the outcomes that
the actor wants to accomplish by listening to a message that either attacks or reinforces
an existing belief. The sender’s response must be to identify the message variables that
are likely to be relevant and predictive of the desired effects. This type of involvement
depends on the recipient’s motivations to process a message that conveys personal
consequences (outcome-based issues), personal values (value relevant), or social
interaction (impression management). People prefer messages that are congruent with
their most salient attitudes, and they will seek information that reinforces the validity of
their convictions. Processing of a message that is value-affirmative serves the primary
purpose of reinforcing one’s belief system (Slater, 1997).

Social scientists have described involvement in a variety of ways, ranging from
the number and intensity of thoughts related to direct personal experience (connections)
and message content (Krugman, 1965), to links or “bridges” between information
presented and central values (Sherif & Hovland, 1961).

Attitude change is much more dramatic in the high-involvement condition, arising
from careful consideration of conﬂicting ideas and formed by conscious opinion, then
culminating with ﬁrmly held, enduring attitudes that are readily accessible and lead to
overt behaviors toward important outcomes. Houston and Rothschild (1977) predicted

resistance to attitude change among those who are highly involved. Their reasoning is

77

A.

that involvement is associated with complexity, arising from rich and varied experiences
between the individual and the attitude object. Individuals are motivated to protect and
maintain their attitude toward the object and thus narrow the range of acceptable
positions, or conversely widen their “latitudes” of non-commitment, or rejection, in
response to a message. The protective mechanism produces a social judgment that
exaggerates the rejected positions held by others as being either closer to (assimilation
effect) or further from (contrasting effect) the position that anchors the person’s position
(O’Keefe, 1990). High involvement with an issue enhances message processing;
speciﬁcally, increased involvement enhances persuasion for the strong message, but
reduces persuasion for the weak one (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979).

Involvement is an important moderating condition in advertising research, and has
been studied under four major groupings of involvement conceptualizations: (1)
attention/processing strategies, (2) personal/situational involvement, (3) audience/process
involvement, and (4) enduring/product involvement (Andrews, Durvasula, & Akhter,
1990). Personal/situational involvement represents a collection of involvement
deﬁnitions based on the idea that issues, situations, or messages can have signiﬁcant
consequences for, or be personally relevant to, one’s own life (Apsler & Sears, 1968;
Sherif & Hovland, 1961), so much so that concerns for immediate situational rewards are
“dwarfed by outcomes connected with the topic itself” (Cialdini, Levy, Herman,
Kozlowski, & Petty, 1976, p. 664). Issue involvement in our study pertains to the donor’s
attitude toward charity, whereas situational involvement pertains to their attitudes given

their construal of the situation along the dimensions of psychological distance.

78

la

The respondent’s level of involvement with issues has been shown in most
models of persuasion to be a key moderating variable (Rifon & Trimble, 2002).
Involvement may prove to be a rival to construal level theory in explaining charitable
behavior, if extreme involvement levels are shown to be associated with a predisposition
to donate (high), or not donate (low), regardless of the respondent’s construal of the
situation. The Personal Involvement Inventory (P11) is a context-free, 20 item scale
developed by Zaichkowky (1994) to measure the motivational state of involvement with
products and/or issues (Rifon & Trimble, 2002), and therefore is an appropriate tool to

measure involvement toward the issue of charity in this study.

Research Questions

This research is directed at understanding the structure of prosocial attitudes and
how they change depending on the donor’s appraisal of the mediated situation (donor-
stranger interaction depicted in stimuli material), and normative inﬂuences.

RQl: Is the value-expressive attitude function more generous than the utilitarian

attitude function?

RQ2: If the value-expressive attitude function is more generous, then is it possible

to construct a message to activate it?

RQ3: Is a message more persuasive when, according to CLT, concrete terms are

used to describe a socially near and temporally urgent situation?

RQ4: Is a message more persuasive when, according to CLT, abstract terms are

used to describe a socially distant and temporally less urgent situation?

RQS: Is a value-expressive message more persuasive to a donor than a utilitarian

message that also offers a gift-in-exchange-for-donation?

79

Summary

Donors construe events in abstract terms when the situation is psychologically
distant, and thus will also be more generous in their response when the message is
conveyed in matched-abstract terms. Similarly, it will be shown that donors construe
events in concrete terms when the situation is psychologically near, and will be more
generous when the message is conveyed in matched-concrete terms. Empirical evidence
will reveal that higher donations are associated with messages that match the donor’s
construal of the situation based on psychological distance, which is further associated
with the value—expressive attitude function, more so than any other attitude function.

The broadest implication is that a value-expressive attitude function is susceptible
to the inﬂuence of a properly constructed and matched message; whereas an improperly
constructed and mismatched message will fail to activate the generous value-expressive
attitude, or worse, activate the less generous and risk-adverse utilitarian attitude function.
A scenario that precludes an optimal solution is the situation in which the two
psychological distances under study are variously construed as low and high; in other
words, one dimension is perceived more often in abstract terms, and the other in concrete
terms. An illustration of such is an abstractly represented distant-future beneﬁt (e. g.,
educational endowment) directed toward a concretely represented, socially near recipient

(e.g., an in-group member or class).

80

CHAPTER 4: METHODS
Research Design

Donor preferences are presented in this study as attitudes, and their expression as
behavior. This research seeks to better understand how donors organize their cognitions
into preferences toward charitable appeals. Our research utilizes a factorial 2 x 2 x 2
randomized block design to manipulate three dimensions (IV) that commonly appear in
charitable appeals: (a) the donor’s perceived social relationship to the recipient
(nearzdistant); (b) the temporal urgency of the appeal (near future2distant future); and (c)
the message design features (concretezabstract). The ﬁrst two dimensions belong to a set
of four collectively referred to as psychological distances (Lewin, 1951; Bar-Anan,
Liberman, & Trope, 2006; Eyal, Liberman, & Trope, 2008; Liberman, Trope, &
Wakslak, 2007; Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007).

A test will determine if donors form concrete or abstract representations
depending on whether the situation is psychologically close or distant; the former
condition is referred to as a low-level construal, whereas the latter condition is referred to
a high-level construal. This relationship is predicted by the relevant theories of
psychological distance and construal level theory, respectively. The current study
recognizes the aforementioned relationship as predictive of donor behavior. Donors will
be shown to be more generous in response to the level of message abstraction that
matches their expectations or construal of the situation.

This research’s major contribution is the new prediction that congruency of the
message to the donor’s construal level will activate the value-expressive attitude function

associated with other-directed outcomes more effectively than any of the other three

81

attitude functions identiﬁed by Katz (1960). lncongruence of message-to-construal is
theorized to introduce uncertainty because the event represents a new experience for
which a relevant charitable context is not available. The donor is forced to withdraw from
the interaction or construct new cognitions based not on the pursuit of values, but rather
on the pursuit of self-directed or risk-adverse outcomes associated most often with the
utilitarian attitude function.

Generosity, as a dependent variable, is greater in either the psychologically near
or distant conditions, provided the message lexicon is congruent with that condition. This
study will test a claim that CLT would plausibly claim, which is that generosity weakens
when representations of social and temporal distance are mixed. The reasoning is that a
message design for the near dimension favors only concreteness, whereas the distant
dimension favors only abstraction.

Generosity, as an underlying principle, is a difﬁcult, elusive concept to measure
and no scales were discovered in the literature review. A composite measure of attitudes
and behaviors is tested here despite the inherent difﬁculty of measuring this construct.
Seven aspects of generosity, with at least three items per factor, were subjected to a
conﬁrmatory factor analysis and proof of convergent and divergent validity. Donors
differed in their regard of welfare as a personally relevant social issue. Donor
involvement served as a control variable, as high level may lead to less generous
outcomes because incongruence between message design and donor’s construal of the
event was detected through careful reading of the message. Conversely, low involvement
levels may lead to more generous outcomes because incongruence between the message

design and construal of the event was not detected.

82

 

This is an experimental study and cross—sectional survey to better understand
charitable attitudes toward. common situations in which prospective donors are asked to
contribute to charity. The survey is to be administered prior to the experiment, measuring
key demographics, orientation toward self and others, personal involvement with charity,
religiosity, and attitudes toward charity. The research seeks to establish ecological
validity by replicating the materials, methods, and setting for the real-life situation of a
donor considering a solicitation which appears in a print advertisement. Subjects are to be
assigned to respond to a speciﬁc experimental treatment. The survey among 409 adults
was conducted using the Internet as a data collection tool because of its widespread
accessibility, cost efﬁciency (replacing mailed paper surveys), and respondent’s ease of
use.

As a factorial experiment, the design may be distended as a 2 (Social distance:
near vs. distant) X 2 (Temporal distance: near future vs. distant future) X 2 (Construal
level: low-level vs. high-level). Social distance, temporal distance, and construal level are
between-subject variables manipulated in the experiment. The dependent variable is
generosity for which scales were developed. Open-ended and Likert scales were devised
to tap into attitudinal and behavioral aspects of the generosity construct. The scales were
validated using exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analysis. Subjects evaluated
magazine solicitations for donations in which the lexicon differs on the basis of abstract
versus concrete words. People are theorized to prefer messages which contain an abstract
lexicon when their construal of the situation (social distance and temporal distance) is

psychologically distant (high-level construal), whereas preference is for a concrete

lexicon when their construal of the situation is psychologically near (low-level construal).

83

 

An online questionnaire asks subjects to indicate their willingness to donate to a
particular appeal. In data analysis, three-way ANOVA was used to determine the main
effects of lexicon with the construal, and their interaction.

Random Assignment to Test Cells

The employee database had 2,076 names. The list was organized into three groups
for assignment to the manipulation check, or pretest, or main experiment. The groups
were further broken down into eight equally sized subsets as there are eight treatments in
the 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. The manipulation check and pretest had 66 respondents in
each of the eight treatments. The main experiment had 124 respondents in each of the
eight treatments. E-mail addresses were entered into separate rows in Excel, followed by
the assignment of a ﬁve-digit random number between 0 and 100,000 (=randbetween (0,
100000)). The names were assigned to the three groups and eight treatments in the order
of highest random number to lowest.

The ﬁrst manipulation check consumed 524 respondents. The revised
manipulation check and pretest surveys consumed another 66 each, which left 1,288
employees for the main experiment. It was essential to preserve a sufﬁciently large
sample for the main experiment. The goal of 240 completed surveys (30 for each of eight
treatments in the 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design) required a response rate of 18%.

Dependent Variables
First Measure of Charity: Amount of Donation

The amount designated for charity will be recorded as the ﬁrst measure of charity.
Each respondent is presented with a chance to win the same amount of money out of
which they would allocate an amount of their choice to charity, with retention of the

balance up to an award of $1,000. For example, a gift of $333 to the charity will mean

84

 

 

retention of $667. A single respondent will be randomly selected and checks will be sent
to the charity and the winner, based on their allocation decision. Respondents must
submit their e-mail addresses to enter the drawing so that redemption instructions can be
sent to them. E-mail addresses were entered into separate rows in Excel, followed by the
assignment of a random number between 0 and 100,000 as previously explained. The

name assigned to the lowest number was designated as the winner.

Second Measure of Charity: Value of Gift-in-Exchange-for-D0nation

This measurement gauges not what is given by the donor, but what is not accepted
by the donor. Charitable campaigns often include a small gift as an incentive to donate.
The donor who accepts the gift is receiving a beneﬁt, albeit a nominal one; he or she may
be securing an item of tangible value as a form of reciprocity required of a non-
communal/exchange relationship common among strangers, and as described by Clark
and Mills (1993). The person who rejects the gift—in-exchange-for-donation may be
viewed as more generous than the donor who accepts the gift. The questions and
instructions appear in Appendix. A common response choice (7-pt. Likert scale from
strongly agree to strongly disagree) provides opportunity to test construct validity of the

generosity scales via exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analyses.

First Measurement of Generosity: Merit of Giving

This scale measures the merit or sincerity with which the aid is given. There are
different kinds of Tzedakah considered more meritorious than others (Maimonides,
Mishnah Torah, Laws of Contributions to the Poor, Chapter 10:7) based on the Talmudic
tradition of charity as an expression of righteousness, justice, and fairness. Merit is a

common theme in religious texts appearing, for instance, in the Bible—God was more

85

pleased with the poor woman who gave the last of her meager earnings than he was with
the rich man who loudly proclaimed his charity: “1 tell you the truth, this poor widow has
put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she,

out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43—44).

Second Measure of Generositv: Need for Recognition as Donor
The desire to remain anonymous is hypothesized to be related to the merit of the
act and as a motive that is other-directed rather than self-directed. The questions and

instructions appear in the appendix.

Attitude Function Inventory (AF 1 )

The advertisements are written so as to activate attitudes consistent with the
value-expressive or utilitarian function; this test seeks veriﬁcation that the ad was
successful in eliciting the target attitude function. The function that best matches the
respondent’s attitude immediately upon reading the advertisement is identiﬁed by use of
Herek’s (1987) AF 1 scale. The scale is used to identify one of four attitude functions
identiﬁed earlier by Katz (1960), namely value-expressive which subsumes social-
adjustive, utilitarian, ego-defense, and knowledge. The respondents are asked to respond
to each of ten questions by selecting the point from a 9-point Likert-type scale, with end
points ranging from “not at all true of me” to “very true of me,” to best describe their
attitude toward the client/character(s) depicted in the charitable advertisement which
appeared earlier in the survey. The questions and instructions appear in the appendix.
Scores are summed, and then averaged for each of the two attitude functions; the
utilitarian score is subtracted from the value-expressive score. The values are recoded

into two categories suitable for a t test of two independent samples.

86

 

The hypothesized relationship between values and donor behavior based on the
literature review of functional perspective of attitudes is that charity is motivated by
other-directed intentions, which in turn indicates a desire to express values more so than
to receive rewards.

Independent Variables

Social Distance

Social distance in the near-distant condition is established with word reference to
familiar people who live within the donor’s community; whereas far-distant condition
refers to unfamiliar others living within the donor’s community. Social distance was not
to be confused with spatial distance which is based on geography, but not included in this
study. This study refers to the near-distant group as in-group, and the far-distant group as
out-group.
Temporal Distance

Temporal distance in the near-distant (proximal) condition is established with
word reference to the threat of poverty to health, as urgent as to require an immediate
response; whereas the far-distant (distal) condition is established with reference to the
eventual threat of poverty to welfare, though still requiring an immediate response. A
proximal event is depicted as loss of food and housing with dire consequences for school-
age children; whereas a distal event is illustrated by the concern for the long-term
aspirations for a child’s education.

C onstrual Level

The advertising copywriter was directed to create situations that comport with the
conventions of high-level construal, and low-level construals along the dimensions

previously outlined in Table 1

87

L“- -

Control Variables
Personal/Situational [in-«'olvenzent
The Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory (P11) is used to measure
attitude toward charities which beneﬁt clients who variously live within or outside the
respondent’s community. A full description of involvement as it relates to charity as a
social issue is included in the literature review. Five of the scales were selected for use so

to tap into the respondent’s involvement with charity issues; and to reduce the number of
items so not to fatigue the participants.

Self-Construal

Measurement will be made via Triandis and Gelfand’s (1988) assessment of
individualism and collectivism. Self construal and donor responses will be studied for
correlations strong enough to suggest that self-construal is a stronger predictor of donor
behavior than the congruency of the message with the respondent’s expectations. A full
description of involvement as it relates to charity is included in the literature review.

Intrinsic Motivation Toward Religion
A measure of the respondent’s intrinsic motivation toward religion, rather than

religious behaviors such as church attendance and religious reading, was assessed in this
study using Hoge’s (1972) lO-item Validated Intrinsic Religious Motivation scale which
measures the motivations behind faith and religion rather than the frequency of religious
behavior. A positive relationship between intrinsic religiosity and prosocial attitudes and
behaviors is hypothesized, as benevolent behavior is more common among people who
are intrinsically motivated than those who are extrinsically motivated (Egbert, Mickley,
& Coeling, 2004). The IRMS is also attractive because it is general enough to be applied

to various religious groups (Bassett, 1999). Three of the items are negatively worded,

88

 

 

requiring reverse-scoring. The respondents are asked to share their attitudes about
religion by selecting one item from a 5-point Likert-type scale, with end points ranging
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” in response to the questions about their faith
life.
Subjects/Sample

The population of interest is people living in the United States who are
independent in making ﬁnancial decisions. Subsets of the population include working
adults, homemakers, and retirees. College students who are employed less than ﬁrll-time
were excluded as it is presumed that most are ﬁnancially dependent on parents and thus
lacking in discretion and experience with the contribution of funds to charity, though they
may be highly involved with volunteerism.

Sampling Frame

The sampling frame is the employees of large international automobile distributor
with ofﬁces in the United States. This ﬁrm was expected to be sufﬁciently large enough
to reﬂect the distribution of age, income, education, and presence of children in
household levels among other common demographics across households in the United
States. The general demographics of the sample as compared to the proﬁle of the general
US. population are reported in the results section.

Procedures

The procedures described here are approved by the governing Institutional
Review Board as adhering to ethical principles. Human Resource Directors at the
targeted ﬁrms were contacted by telephone to seek electronic access to their employees
as subjects in this research study. The directors were asked to distribute an e-mail

message to their employees which introduced the study of charitable attitudes, but did not
89

mandate their participation. The employees were advised of an e-mail from the human.
resources department that directed them to a Web site where they would read about the
project, their rights as a volunteer subject, and log in instructions should they agree to
participate (Appendix 1). No ﬁnancial incentive was offered for participation; however,
one randomly selected respondent and their designated charitable organization would
receive up to $1,000 based on the respondent’s allocation of funds in response to a survey
question. This provision increased the ecological validity for a prospective donation, as
the respondent was using real money instead of tokens. Participants were offered a copy
of the general results. Respondents were excluded from the main experiment. The data
was collected in February 2009.

Pretest

A pretest was conducted to a limited sample of 38 individuals to detect potential
comprehension or response problems in the survey; none were reported. The participants
in the pretest were excluded from the main experiment. The pretest was used to establish
the construct validity of the independent variables: social distance, temporal distance, and
construal level.

The returned responses were tabulated automatically using the Web Surveyor
computer software program on the resident computer server equipment in the Department
of Advertising, Public Relations and Retailing’s ofﬁces at Michigan State University, and
the information was downloaded to the researcher’s computer for analysis. Responses

were encrypted and stored in a secure location.

90

 

Online Survey Instrument

The survey instrument (Appendix 2) had several sections: (1) measures of
demographics; (2) measures of generosity as gauged by donor attitudes and behavior
responses to the stimuli material; and (3) measures of control variables including (a) issue
involvement toward charity and (b) measures of attitudes toward self and other (self-
construal).

Manipulation Check

Social Distance

A review of the literature reveals that researchers take a common sense view of
social distance that does not require extensive manipulation. Nan (2007) wrote that a
manipulation .check of social distance may be desirable, but it may be less important
since conforming to her instructions that some focus on oneself, their best friend, or an
average undergraduate student when making judgments should not be difﬁcult for the
participants. Lambert’s (1996) 5-point Likert scale measurement of social distance was
comprised of just two questions to the respondent, a pharmacist: whether they knew well,
and felt close to, a physician. F rohlich’s (2001) dictator experiment on the costs of
anonymity is based on Hoffman’s deﬁnition of social distance as “the degree of
reciprocity that subjects believe exists within a social interaction (p. 654).” F rohlich
claims to have manipulated social distance by merely placing the research subjects in the
same room, though it could be argued that proxemics (measurable distances in between
pe0ple as they interact), or spatial distance, was manipulated instead.

New scales were developed to tap into the perceived similarity of values, goals,
and attraction between the prospective donor and the recipient of the aid as a

manipulation check for social distance. Also, a single-item pictorial measure called the

91

 

Inclusiveness of Other into Self (10S) scale was developed by Aron, Aron, and Smollan
(1992). This scale is used to assess pe0ple’s sense of interpersonal interconnectedness;
respondents select the picture that best describes their relationship from a set of Venn-
like diagrams, each representing different degrees of overlap of two circles ranging from
close to distant (see Figure l). The ﬁgures were designed so that (a) the total area of each
ﬁgure is constant (thus as the overlap of the circles increases, so does the diameter), and

(b) the degree of overlap progresses linearly, creating a seven-step, interval-level scale.

”#508038.

Other Self Other Self Other 83" Other
Self Other Self Other Self Other

Figure 1. 108 Circles.

Social distance in the manipulation check and main experiment is ascertained ﬁrst
by asking a respondent to read a brief scenario in which a character is alternatively
described as a close acquaintance or stranger. This procedure is intended to heighten the
probability that the research subject will understand the nature of the personal
relationship as familiar or strange. The respondent then selects the Venn circle which best

represents their relationship with the character.

92

 

 

F11"...

Modiﬁcation to the survey instructions were made to identify the family in the
stimuli materials as living in either the local neighborhood or wider community.

1. In-group: You are in a grocery store and you see a friend who you meet at
a school, community, or religious function. You have been to their home,
and they have been to yours. You call out their name, say hello, and chat
for a short time, then say goodbye.

2. Out-group: You are in the checkout line in your local grocery store,
standing behind a couple who you’ve never seen before. They are talking
about events that take place in another community that is within the
broader city limits. You are not sure why they are shopping so far from
their own community, but think nothing more of it. They politely pay for
their groceries and leave, as you move forward in line.

Temporal Distance

This dimension is manipulated in the preparation of the stimuli material. Proximal
events are depicted as a serious health risk to the client; whereas distal events are
illustrated by the sponsor NPO advocating for the client’s long-term aspirations for their
children’s education.

A pretest provides an opportunity to check for the successful manipulation of TD.
Respondents are instructed to view a series of single photographs. The respondent is to
indicate the degree to which they agree that the photograph illustrates a threat to the
subject which is (1) urgent, (2) critical, and (3) serious. The choices appear in a 5-point

Likert-type scale, with end points ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

93

 

The image that evokes the least distance, and greatest temporal distance, respectively,

will be used in the main experiment.

Diction Associated to C onstrual Level

The advertising c0pywriter needs to learn how to write advertisements that use
high-level and low-level construals appropriately. The major distinction between concrete
and abstract words is the ability to use the human senses. Concrete words describe
persons, places, and things which may be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt.
Abstractions include adjectives, concepts, ideas, and sometimes nouns. Abstract nouns
may include ideas and feelings but are not available to the human senses. This class of
words includes: love, hate, kindness, compassion, fear, anger, imagination, courage,
intelligence, loneliness, happiness, sadness, bravery, cowardice, embarrassment, joy,
beauty, ugliness, conﬁdence, luck, misfortune, mischief, bitterness, justice, injustice,
grief, boredom, and cheerfulness.

Revised Stimuli Material

Survey items were also added to the main experiment following the display of the
stimuli material so as to ascertain the respondent’s agreement with the intended social
distance, temporal distance, and construal level. Passages that produced results consistent
with social distance during the second manipulation check were reintroduced to the last
set of stimuli materials used in the main experiment. Modiﬁcations to the ﬁnal set of
stimuli materials were designed to heighten the perception of social distance between the
donor and recipient. Other changes to the copy were to produce the perception of slightly

more temporal distance (urgency), While retaining the distinction between abstract and

concrete language.

94

Data Preparation
Data Preparation involves checking or logging in the data, checking the data for
accuracy, entering the data into the computer, transforming the data, and developing and
documenting a database structure that integrates the various measures. Data will be
collected through websurveyor.com:
0 Sample Web site of a manipulation check:
http://research.adv.msu.edu/ss/wsb.dll/dedeaux/Charitable_Check_1 l.htm
0 Sample Web site for the pretest and main experiment:
http://research.adv.msu.edu/ss/wsb.dll/dedeaux/dissertation_main_experimentl .ht
m
Data will be analyzed with the standard statistical processing program SPSS. The
data will be encrypted and retained in a data archive for at least 5—7 years. The codebook
describes and documents the questions asked and items collected in this survey,
including: variable name; variable description; variable format (number, data, text);
instrument/method of collection; date collected; respondent or group; variable location
(in database); item reversal; and notes. A respondent’s missing data will be replaced with

a value based on a discernible pattern to their responses to prior and related questions.

95

 

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
Manipulation Check I (MC 1)

The ﬁrst manipulation check of the stimuli material shown in Figures 4—11was
performed on March 30, 2009. The respondents (n=124) indicated their agreement that
stimuli material presented the situation as it was intended for two of the three variables.
The temporal nature of the beneﬁt to the recipient was understood as either near-future or
distant-future events. The diction used in the message was recognized to be abstract or
concrete as was theorized. However, the social relationship described in the in-group
condition was not regarded as closer than that described in the out-group condition; a
ﬁnding that required the revision of the stimuli material as shown in Figures 12—19. The
following section describes the steps taken in preparing the survey scales used to measure

these relationships in the manipulation checks.

Scale Construction
Concrete vs. Abstract Language
The main applications of factor analytic techniques are: (a) to reduce the number
of variables, and (b) to detect structure in the relationships between variables. The
Eigenvalue of the varimax rotated solution reveals the ﬁrst factor to represent nearly 50%

of the total variance, with factor 2 extracting just 15%.

96

 

Table 2
Factor AncLleis of Language C oncreteness

Total Variance Explained

 

Compone Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
nt Loadings Loadings

Tota % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulativ

I Varianc e % l Varianc e % l Varianc e %
e e e

l 4.95 49.571 49.571 4.95 49.571 49.571 4.79 47.934 47.934
2 1.28 12.863 62.434 1.28 12.863 62.434 1.45 14.499 62.434
3 .988 9.884 72.318
4 .808 8.082 80.399
5 .609 6.094 86.493
6 .436 4.359 90.852

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Showing 6 of 10 factors so to ﬁt table on page

A Cronbach’s alpha statistic of .804 indicates the presence of a single

unidimensional latent construct. This statistic is a measure of scale reliability in that

subjects are consistently providing the same answers to survey items. The principal

components were rotated to reveal three items (bold text below) to load highly upon each

other. The items were combined so as to form a single factor.

The higher scores indicated an agreement that messages using concrete language

provided the context to make it easier to image the situation than the ads written in

abstract language.

An independent-samples t test comparing the mean scores of the low-construal
(concrete diction) and hi gh-level (abstract diction) groups found a signiﬁcant
difference between the means of the two groups (t(122) = 2.29, p < .024). The
mean of the low-level construal group was signiﬁcantly higher (m=4.77, sd =

1.47) than the mean of the high-level group (m=4.l6, sd = 1.44).

97

 

Temporal Distance

Respondents recognized the scenarios regarding temporal distance to be either
urgent or less urgent, as indicated by statistically different mean scores approaching .10
level of signiﬁcance (p=.101). Signiﬁcant mean differences were attained when abstract
diction was used to describe the varying temporal conditions; however, respondents
failed to recognize the attempt to depict a greater sense of urgency by the use of concrete
language.

Table 3
Data Reduction of Language Concreteness

Rotated Component Matrix

 

Component
C ronbach's Alpha if
I 2 Item Deleted Comment
CONABITRANS .804 -. 140 .760 Keep item
CONABZTRANS .778 -.098 .763
CLARITY 1 TRANS .771 -.040 .763
CLARITYZTRANS .553 -.009 .791
CLARITY3TRANS .642 -.147 .780
IMAGE l REVTRANSI -.455 .727 .858 Drop item
IMAGEZTRANS .l 12 .915 .832 Drop item
IMAGE3TRANS .687 -.155 .779
IMAGE4REVTRANS1 .880 -.050 .750 Keep item
CON AB3TRANS .873 -.O68 .751 Keep item
Cronbach’s alpha _304

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with

Kaiser Normalization. A. Rotation converged in 3 iterations
CONABITRANS: The needs of the family are described with concrete words

and examples.
[MAGE4REVTRANSI: It was difﬁcult to create a mental picture of the

situation described in the message.
CONAB3TRANS: The overall situation is described with concrete words and

examples.

98

 

The three items noted above were combined into a single factor which did not
include survey items regarding imagery, though the factor was used by Altarriba and
Bauer (2004) in measuring concreteness. The independent-samples test compared the
mean scores reported by the subjects who were exposed to a concrete message, against
the mean scores reported by the subjects who were exposed to an abstract message. The t
test would indicate if the differences are statistically signiﬁcant at the 5% level.

Table 4
Factor Analysis of Temporal Distance

 

Total Variance Explained

 

Compone Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
nt Loadings Loadings

Tota % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulativ

l Varianc e % l Varianc e % 1 Varianc e %
e e e

l 6.30 57.284 57.284 6.30 57.284 57.284 4.92 44.779 44.779
2 1.10 9.989 67.273 1.09 9.989 67.273 2.47 22.494 67.273
3 .981 8.916 76.189
4 .626 5.690 81.879
5 .568 5.166 87.044
6 .367 3.337 90.381
7 .302 2.750 93.131
8 .262 2.379 95.509
9 .220 ”1.999 97.508
10 .191 1.738 99.247
1 1 .083 .753 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

A Combach’s alpha statistic of .890 indicates the presence of a single
unidimensional latent construct. The principal components were rotated to extract one
factor because the second component extracted just over one Eigenvalue. The rotation
reveled six items (bold text below) to load highly upon each other, as shown in Table 5.

The items were combined so to form a single factor.

99

 

Table 5
Data Reduction of Temporal Distance

Component Matrix
Component
1

TDAlTRAN S .808
TDAZTRANS .810
TDA3TRAN S .886
TBDlREVTRANSl .556
TDBZTRANS .793
TDClTRAN S .845
TDCZTRAN S .864
TDC3TRAN S .872
TDD 1 TRANS .743
TDD2TRANS .656
TDD3REVTRANSI -.256

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

1 component extracted.

TDAITRANS: The threat to their health and/or welfare is urgent.
TDAZTRANS: The threat to their health and/or welfare is serious.
TDA3TRANS: The threat to their health and/or welfare is critical.
TDCl TRANS: Their need for ﬁnancial assistance is urgent.
TDCZTRANS: Their need for ﬁnancial assistance is immediate.
TDC3TRANS: Their need for ﬁnancial assistance is critical.

 

Independent-Samples t Test
An independent-samples t test comparing the mean scores of the temporally near-
future group and temporally distant-future control groups found a difference
nearing signiﬁcance between the means of the two groups (t(122) = 1.654, p =
.101). The mean of the temporally near-future experimental group was not
signiﬁcantly higher (m=5.41, sd = 1.12) than the mean of the temporally distant-

future group (m=5.07, sd = 1.08).

100

'1".

Social Distance

The respondents did not regard the family, described as a neighbor in the ad, to be
personally closer than the family described as a stranger living within their community.
There was no mean difference for scores (see Table 6) indicating Inclusiveness of Other
in Self (IOS) between the socially near and socially distant characters described in the ad.
Subjects did not feel personally closer to a parent described as a neighbor than they did to
the same character when described as a stranger. Subjects who shared values with the
parent in the ad did indicate greater personal closeness when evaluating the IOS scores
(r=.523); however, the correlation becomes insigniﬁcant when the subjects are compared
by exposure to the in-group or out-group message. A histogram of the IOS scores (see
Figure 2) supports the ﬁnding that subjects don’t feel personally closer to neighbors (m =

3.24, sd=l.46) than they do to strangers (m = 3.29, sd=l.51).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30‘
20"
z
0
9.
10‘
U9
5 §
3 2
E304 a
u. 3
C
'U
20- a
a
10- ,
.9? ,
- a)! it!" . par
U 1 1 r
4 6 8
CIRCLESTRANS

Figure 2. IOS score by exposure to socially near or distant stimuli material (1 far—7 near).

101

Table 6
Donor Relationship to Recipient (I far-7 near)

 

Mean SD N
IOS l 2.70 1.777 221
IOS 2 3.57 1.893 221
108 3 3.43 1.852 221
IOS 4 3.95 1.643 221
IOS 5 1.67 1.294 221
IOS 6 2.93 1.840 221
IOS 7 5.29 1.772 221
IOS 8 5.31 1.747 221

 

Table 7
Factor Analysis of Social Distance

 

Total Variance Explained

 

Compone Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
nt Loadings Loadings

Tota % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulativ Tota % of Cumulativ

l Varianc e % 1 Varianc e 0/0 l Varianc e %
e e e

1 5.66 47.197 47.197 5.66 47.197 47.197 3.41 28.457 28.457
2 1.74 14.525 61.722 1.74 14.525 61.722 2.81 23.422 51.879
3 1.06 8.858 70.580 1.06 8.858 70.580 2.24 18.701 70.580
4 .638 5.316 75.896
5 .569 4.746 80.641
6 .507 4.223 84.864
7 .415 3.457 88.322
8 .397 3.306 91.628
9 .336 2.802 94.430
10 .291 2.425 96.855
11 .225 1.875 98.729
12 .152 1.271 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

A Cronbach’s alpha of .895 indicates the presence of a single unidimensional
latent construct. This measure of scale reliability indicates a high degree of internal

consistency, but perhaps too high, as the information may be redundant. The principal

102

 

C0

components were rotated to reveal seven items to load across three factors, as shown

below in bold text. The items were combined to form a single factor.

Table 8
Data Reduction of Social Distance

 

Rotated Component Matrix

 

Component
1 2 3 C ronbach’s Comments
Alpha if Item
Deleted

SDB3TRANS .804 .01 l .019 .889
SDB4TRANS .804 .132 .165 .883
SDC4TRANS .769 .225 .105 .881
SDB2TRANS .715 .178 .298 .888
SDBlTRANS .684 .184 .435 .882
SDClTRANS .519 .506 .224 .884
SDCZTRAN S -.044 .888 .188 .893
SDC3TRANS .283 .877 .060 .886
SDA3TRANS .317 .682 .373 .882
SDA4TRANS .188 .170 .838 .893
SDAltrans .198 .187 .811 .885
SDAZTRANS .158 .579 .582 .886
Cronbach’s alpha .895

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
SDB3TRANS: They belong to my social group.

SDB4TRANS: I am comfortable introducing them to members of
my social group.

SDC4TRANS: I would like to meet their friends.

SDCZTRANS: We share the same concerns.

SDC3TRANS: We share the same feelings on many subjects.
SDA4TRANS: I am comfortable spending time with them.
SDAlTRANS: I’d like them to become my friend.

 

Independent-Samples t Test
An independent-samples t test was calculated comparing the mean scores of

subjects exposed to the socially near messages to the mean score of subjects

exposed to the socially distant message. No signiﬁcant difference was found

103

 

 

(t(122) = 1.05, p > .10) The mean score of perceived similarity toward the
neighbor family (m=4.63, sd = .822) was not signiﬁcantly different from the mean

of perceived similarity toward the stranger family (m=4,49, sd = .784).

Corrective Actions

The advertising copy in the stimuli material was edited to remove references to
the sharing of values between the donor and out-group, with the intent of creating more
dissimilarity between the donor and the out-group members described and depicted in the
advertisement. The advertising copy in the low-construal X socially distant condition
(treatment #5) was revised to increase the sense of urgency; success will be determined
by attaining a statistically signiﬁcant mean difference in the intended direction.

Copy in all treatments was reviewed for consistent use of abstract and concrete
language according to the tenets of psychological distance. The photograph remained the
same as it did in the original manipulation check. The survey instrument was revisited
and revised as necessary for clarity; factor analysis and scale reliability measurements
were used to help focus on key factors and items.

Second Manipulation Check (MC2)

New stimuli materials, shown in Figures 12—19, were prepared and submitted to a
second manipulation check on April 8, 2009. The manipulation check of the three
independent variables was repeated. Treatment groups #1 and #8 receive stimuli
materials in which the three IVs are consistently near or distant, and as such represent the
strongest versions of CLT. Twenty-four responses were recorded for treatment #1, and 16
for treatment #8. The decision to restrict MC 2 to 124 employees was based in part on the

need to conserve sample size for the main experiment.

104

Social Distance
The correction to the stimuli materials was successful in creating the perception of
social distance during MC2.
Independent-Samples t Test
An independent-samples t test comparing the mean scores of perceived similarity
toward the socially near family and the mean score of perceived similarity toward
the socially distant family, found a signiﬁcant difference between the means of
the two groups (t(36) = 2.061, p < .05). The mean score of similarity with the
socially near family was signiﬁcantly higher (m=4.65, sd = .867) than the mean
score of 'similarity with the socially distant family (m=4.05, sd = .925).
Temporal Distance and Construal Level
The contrast between the near-future and distant-future conditions for temporal
distance was lost in this new manipulation (MC2), as was the recognition between
concrete and abstract language. The instability in the ﬁnding may have to do with the low
sample size of 38.
Independent—Samples t Test of Temporal Distance
An independent-samples t test was calculated comparing the mean contributions
of subjects who were identiﬁed as being exposed to an ad which described a
temporally near-future scenario to the mean score of subjects who were exposed
to the temporally distant-future scenario. No signiﬁcant difference was found in
the contributions made by the groups (t(3 8) = .80, p > .10). The mean
contribution of the temporally near-future (m=5.47, sd = .98) was not signiﬁcantly
different from the mean of the temporally distant-future group (m=5.14, sd =

1.60).
105

 

 

Independent-Samples t Test of Language Concreteness
An independent-samples t test was calculated comparing the mean contributions
of subjects identiﬁed as being exposed to an ad which used concrete diction, and
those exposed to abstract diction. No signiﬁcant difference was found between the
contributions made by the groups (t(3 8) = 1.07, p > .10). The mean contribution
in response to the concrete message (m=5.03, sd = 1.36) was not signiﬁcantly
different from the contribution in response to the abstract message (m=4.50, sd =
1.69).
Corrective Action
The advertising copy used in the successful manipulation of temporal distance
and language concreteness in MCl was the basis for the ﬁnal version of the advertising
copy to be used in the main experiment. The layout of the new ads reverted to the style
used in MC 1. A subheading was added to indicate the subject in the ad was a neighbor or
stranger in need of aid. Three survey items used in the manipulation check were added to
the survey in the main experiment to test the respondents’ recognition of the ad along the
three independent variables.
Main Experiment
Demographics
The demographic proﬁle of the sample, when compared to the general population
in the United States, is more often male, aged 25—54, white/Caucasian, with higher
education, and children in the household. A Pearson correlation coefﬁcient was
calculated for the relationship between individual descriptive and charitable contribution.

The weak positive correlation was found (r(122)=.210, p<.01), indicating a signiﬁcant

106

but low linear relationship between the two variables. More affluent donors tend to

donate more of their anticipated prize earnings from the random drawing.

 

Table 9

Descriptive of the Sample Population Compared to U. S. Populations

Gender Sample US Census
Female 36.0% 51.0%
Male 64.0% 49.0%
Age

18—24 1.3% 9.9%
25—34 29.9% 13.4%
35—44 29.9% 14.6%
45—54 26.2% 14.5%
55—64 10.9% 10.6%
65 or older 1.8% 12.5%
Race

Asian 1.4% 4.3%
Black/Aﬁ‘ican American 3.2% 12.4%
Other, not listed here 3.2% 5.5%
Spanish/Hispanic/ Latino 4.1% 14.7%
White/Caucasian 88.2% 61.7%
Highest level of education

Less than high school degree 0.0% 17.7%
High school degree or GED 4.5% 30.0%
Attended college but did not graduate 24.0% 19.6%
Graduate with Bachelor’s degree 37.6% 17.1%
Some post graduate course work 7.7% n/a
Post graduate degree 26.2 9.9%
Children in HH

Yes 59.0% 36.0%
No 41.0% 64.0%

107

Table 10
Contribution by HHI

 

Your household’s annual income falls into the range of:

 

Contribution 8 Mean Std. N
Deviation
$25,000—$34,999: 650.00 494.975 2
$35,000—S49,999 413.64 295.035 11
$50,000—$74,999 492.86 371.643 42
$75,000—S99,999 550.00 395.388 62
$100,000—$ 149,999 399.34 361.924 68
$150,000 and over 482.86 408.493 35
Total 473.78 380.465 221

 

Donations by Attitude Function

An independent-samples t test was calculated comparing the mean contributions

of donors who were identiﬁed as possessing a higher degree of value-expressive

attitudes as compared to utilitarian attitudes (calculation described in the Methods
section). No signiﬁcant difference in contributions was made by either group

(t(197) =-1.61, p= .110) The mean contribution of those with value-expressive

attitude function scores in excess of their utilitarian attitude function scores

(m=503.30, sd = 382.89) was not signiﬁcantly different from those with utilitarian

attitude function scores in excess of value-expressive attitude scores (m=408.61,

sd =384.73). The ﬁrst hypothesis was not supported.

It was theorized that donors with value-expressive attitudes scores in excess of
their utilitarian scores would be more likely to seek anonymity, decline a gift in exchange
for donation, and give with the greatest merit (level 7). Pearson correlation statistics were
calculated for data shown in Tables 13—17, and the strength of value-expressive attitudes;
however, no signiﬁcant correlations where detected. The second hypothesis was not

supported:
1 08

 

Table 11
Donor Recognition Requested

 

 

 

 

 

Yes No

Treatment 1 7 20
Treatment 2 3 24
Treatment 3 8 22
Treatment 4 7 27
Treatment 5 3 24
Treatment 6 6 20
Treatment 7 7 18
Treatment 8 3 25
Total 41 180
Table 12
Amount of Expected Gift

Mean SD N
Treatment 1 .00 .000 27
Treatment 2 .37 1.334 27
Treatment 3 .00 .000 30
Treatment 4 50.03 201.280 30
Treatment 5 .00 .000 27
Treatment 6 .96 4.903 26
Treatment 7 .80 4.000 25
Treatment 8 5.39 20.805 28
Total 7.00 75.56 220
Table 13
Merit of Gift (1 Less - l - 7 More)

Mean SD N
Merit 1 148.33 291.619 15
Merit 2 657.14 472.077 7
Merit 3 300.00 346.410 6
Merit 4 349.39 390.358 33
Merit 5 419.29 368.227 35
Merit 6 470.54 354.584 56
Merit 7 630.80 342.894 69
Merit 8 473.78 380.465 221

 

Charitable donations were hypothesized to be greatest when concrete diction was
used to promote charity for in-group members with an immediate need. Another way of
thinking about this relationship is to recognize the interaction of social distance and

temporal distance with construal level. ln-groups should receive the greatest donation in

109

 

treatment #1 where congruency among the independent variables is greatest (near PD),
and least in treatment #4 where the distances are least congruent. The opposite
relationship is hypothesized for out-groups, who receive the greatest charity in treatment
#8, and least in treatment #5. These relationships are labeled in the table which appears
below.

The average amount of charity by treatment appears in Table 14. The amounts in
the cells represent the main effects, and the amounts in the margin represent the
interactive effects. A formal statement of the relationships appears in the Results section.
These mean amounts of charity are the basis for the test of the main hypothesis; the
results will be analyzed as to the theories of CLT, as measured by an independent-

samples t test and an ANOVA test.

 

Table 14

Contributions by Treatment

Treatment Mean Std. N

Deviation

1 677.78 377.322 27
2 401.85 367.811 27
3 690.00 391.813 30
4 498.39 359.742 31
5 358.33 373.973 27
6 372.12 322.671 26
7 377.20 349.339 25
8 379.46 351.126 28
Total 473.78 380.465 221

 

110

Table 15

Actual Donation by Treatment

~.. aura «drawn-l

 

 

Message Construal

Level

Low/Concrete
m=$453 ns

 

Message Construal

Level

High/Abstract
m=$493 ns

 

Temporal distance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(p<.03)
Near: m=$533
Distant: m=$416
N 81553. Near £15522;
Urgentappeal appeal Urgent appeal appeal
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4
Near
"”3568 m=$677 m=$401 m=$690 m=$498
Social
Distance
(p<.001)
Distant Ad #5 Ad #6 Ad #7 Ad #8
m=$3 72
m=$358 m=$372 m=$377 m=$379

 

 

Note. Near SD x Near TD #1-3: $684 vs. Near SD x Distant TD #2-4: $453 (p<.001);
Distant SD x Near TD #5-7: $367 vs. Distant SD x Distant TD #6-8: $375 (p>.10).

A 2 (social distance) x 2 (temporal distance) x 2 (language concreteness) between
subjects factorial ANOVA was calculated comparing the donations for subjects who read
one message that featured one of two levels for each of the three conditions (See Table
16). A signiﬁcant main effect for social distance was found (F(1, 213)=15.919, p<.001.

Donors to in-groups gave more (m=567.83, sd=3 88.67) than donors to out-groups

ANOVA

(m=371.75, sd=345.09). The third hypothesis was supported.

11]

A signiﬁcant main effect for temporal distance was found (F(l, 213)=5.321,
p<.03 as shown in Figure 3. Donors to urgent appeals gave more (m=533.07, sd=402.02)
than did donors to less urgent appeals (m=416.07, sci—1350.48). A significant interaction
effect for social distance x temporal distance was found (F( l , 213)=6.105, p<.02. Donors
gave more to recipients who were socially near with immediate temporal needs (m=684,
sd=381.62) than did donors to recipients who were socially near with less urgent
temporal needs (m=453.45, sd=363.57). The interaction was insigniﬁcant in the out-
group condition. Donations to recipients who were socially distant and with immediate
temporal needs (m=367.40, sd = 358.91) were not signiﬁcantly different from the
donation to the socially distant x less urgent group (m=375.93, sd = 334.56).

The main effect for whether abstract or concrete diction is used in a message was
not signiﬁcant (F(], 213)=.476, p>.10. Donations to abstract messages (m=493.03, sd =
381.58) were not signiﬁcantly different from the donation to concrete messages
(m=453.27, sd = 379.98).

Finally, the three-way interaction was also not signiﬁcant (F (l, 213)=.625, p>. 10.

The fourth hypothesis was not supported.

112

 

Table 16

ANO VA of Contribution as the Dependent Variable

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

 

Source Type 111 Sum Df Mean Square F Sig.

of Squares
Social_Distance 2096445678 1 2096445678 15.919 .000
Temporal_Distance 700792.899 1 700792.899 5.321 .022
Construal 62630.035 1 62630.035 .476 .491
Social_Distance * 803960.234 l 803960.234 6.105 .014
Temporal_Distance
Social_Distance * 23422.732 1 23422.732 .178 .674
Construal
Temporal_Distance * 18217.752 1 18217.752 .138 .710
Construal
Social_Distance * 31571.757 1 31571.757 .240 .625
Temporal_Distance *
Construal
Error 2.805E7 213 131691.892
Total 8.145E7 221
Corrected Total 3.185E7 220

a. R Squared = .1 l9 (Adﬁrsted R Squared = .090)

113

r
‘_;"_.—-l_ .

 

Estimated Marginal Means of Contribution S

 

 

 

 

700 Temporal_Distance
— Urgent
— Less urgent
0
5 600‘
O
2
Ta
.5
a 500‘
i
3 400-
300‘
1 1
Ingroup Ottgroup
Social_Distance

Figure 3. Interaction of SD x TD on mean contribution levels

Contributions Correlated to Interdependent Self-Construal
An independent-samples t test comparing the mean scores of the interdependent
self-construal group and the independent self-construal groups found a signiﬁcant
difference between the means of the two groups (t(211) = 1.984, p < .05). The
mean of the interdependent self-construal group was signiﬁcantly higher
(m=488.89, sd = 377.92) than the mean of the independent self-construal groups
(m=339.66, sd = 366.5).
Signiﬁcant but low correlations below F20 were observed between larger
contributions and: (a) higher household incomes (p<.01), (b) extrinsic religious

orientation (p<.05), and (c) personal involvement with in-group charitable issues (p<.01).

114

 

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
Findings

The stimuli material successfully represented the psychological distances (social
and temporal) as measured during the manipulation check. The language used in the
stimuli material was clearly recognized to be abstract or concrete as was the goal of the
writing. The stage was set to attempt to replicate the main hypothesis to emerge from
construal level theory (CLT): a message for an in-group member, which uses concrete
language, will generate higher contributions than will a message using abstract language.
Conversely, out-group messages crafted in abstract language should generate more
donations for out-groups than will concrete messages.

An analysis of the contribution data using ANOVA showed the two psychological
distances produced very strong main effects: social distance, p <.01; temporal distance,
p <.02. The results conﬁrm that psychological distance is a viable framework to study the
degree to which perceived social distance, and the timing of the request, impacts donor
behavior.

The goal of this study was to develop guidelines that advertising agencies would
follow to design messages which address the psychological distances which were shown
in this test to be highly relevant. CLT provided a promising theory to suggest that abstract
and concrete should be applied in speciﬁc situations as deﬁned by the theory of
psychological distance. The experiment failed to produce evidence that use of abstract or
concrete language produces signiﬁcant differences in contribution levels. Abstract

messages produced slightly higher donations for out-group members compared to in-

115

 

 

groups; donations appeared in the expected descending order (from #8 to #5) but the
mean difference was not signiﬁcant.

The ﬁnding that best illustrates the failure of the construal level explanation is
Treatment #3, where contrary to the hypotheses an abstract message produced a higher
contribution than did the concrete appeal though the opposite was expected for an urgent
appeal to beneﬁt an in-group member; this ﬁnding was in the wrong direction but the
differences were insigniﬁcant.

The data collected in this study was used to re-evaluate important claims that emerged
from the literature review, and were presented earlier here as research questions.
Schwartz (1997) posited the value-expressive attitude function to be more generous than
the utilitarian attitude function, which this study was on the verge of supporting at a
statistically meaningful level. Proof that a message can activate one attitude function over
another requires further testing, such as a pre- and post-test measurement of attitude
functions. The study did not support that a message can be constructed so as to be more
persuasive when, according to CLT, concrete terms are used to describe a socially near
and temporally urgent situation, and abstract terms are used to describe a socially distant
and temporally less urgent situation. Finally, the study did not ﬁnd evidence that a donor
who is motivated by desire to express their values is less likely to ask for a gift-in-
exchange-for-donation than is the donor with utilitarian intentions; as it was, few donors
requested a giﬁ and the average amount requested (m=7.0, sd =75.56) was approximately

1% of the average donation.

116

 

Rival Explanation

There are many possible explanations for why people are motivated to donate
their money to others. This is a study of just one of those explanations, CLT, which is a
relatively new theory (Trope & Liberman, 2000). An effort is made here to advance a
strong version of theory that mental representations exist, in absolutely abstract or
concrete terms, depending on the perception of social distance. The greatest problem
encountered in this study had to do with the low-level construal and/or the appropriate
use of concrete language.

Respondents recognized ads to be either concrete or abstract; however, that
distinction alone may not be sufﬁcient to produce the desired effect in terms of donor
behavior, or detect the presence of concrete mental representations. It may be that ads
written in concrete language, literally understood to be factual, concise, and noun heavy,
may in fact be too plain, and too dull.

In defense of concrete words within a persuasive context is Paivio’s (1986)
experiment with dual coding theory in which attitudes are made more accessible by
concrete words, rather than emotional or abstract words. Concrete words were shown by
Altarriba and Bauer (2004) to provide the context needed to quickly conjure an
accompanying image from memory. The list of concrete words includes common nouns
such as garden, basket, and clown, among many others. It is easy to imagine pictures for
these words; however, they are not very useful in promoting prosocial causes. Concrete
words may be too speciﬁc in their advocacy and as such don’t leave the reader with much
discretion as to how they are to interpret the message. Concrete words, as narrowly

deﬁned in grammar manuals, may lead to a dispassionate response in the reader.

117

 

Maintaining that concrete words are at least as useful as abstract or emotional
words in a persuasive context requires a fresh look at this class of word. Concrete words
may be persuasive if the description leads to a clear rendering of the situation but stops
short of mandating a response. The message that leaves room for a reader to imagine the
best solution consistent with their values could be constructed with concrete words if the
reader is allowed to provide the abstract or emotional words. A message that is open
ended may work better than the message that is presumptive. An example of a charitable
ad with an open end is a call for a free-will donation instead of one that asks for a speciﬁc
amount.

Discussion

Information exists in order to create abstract and concrete messages, respectively.
Manipulation checks provided the evidence that respondents distinguished between the
two in a manner consistent with the researcher’s intent. However, there is not enough
information to know with certainty that people will produced a mental representation of a
situation that will favor an abstract or concrete message over the other.

The main conclusion from this experiment is that people in the sample did not
create abstract mental representations of psychologically distant events, or concrete
mental representations of psychologically near events, and thus did not validate the
existence of low- or high-level construals.

A manager at UNICEF expressed frustration that Americans don’t like to
contribute to people in Africa. The speciﬁcs of this claim can be argued as Americans
donate more money than people of any other country; however, Americans donate a

lower percentage of their income compared to nearly every other country. The best

118

method for increasing donations is not one nation browbeating the other into becoming
more generous; instead it begins an inquiry by asking why generous people contribute to
some charities but not others. Some charitable causes will appeal to an individual donor
more than will other appeals, but it is the intent of this research project to identify the
motivation for giving to any types of appeals (e. g., social services, medical services,
emergency services). The motivation to donate is really a desire to express our most
important values, which can differ by person, but the desire is the same regardless of the
amount of the donation and who receives it. Charitable giving can be selﬁshly motivated
(showing off wealth for social recognition) or entirely altruistic (alleviating suffering);
regardless of either, the mere act of giving provides the means to express privately, or
publicly, what we value. Most often the values associated with charity are other-directed.
It was argued here that generosity is a trait that we acquire, then retain over time.
It was shown that generosity is appropriate in some situations but not in others: for
instance, donating money to church is considered appropriate behavior, however, giving
(“donating”) a bottle of wine to a minor is not. People usually give more generously
when they are approached in a manner they come to expect from repeated experiences as
a donor and as a recipient. It is often overheard that, “I'd have given money to him, but I
did not like the way that I was asked.” This communication research project asked basic
questions in search of practical solutions: What is the best way to ask for money to
conform to the expectations of a donor? The literature suggests that people, when
approached pr0perly, with the right language given the situation, will respond
spontaneously, as if by an unconscious habitual thought to give spontaneously. When

approached in the wrong manner, with inappropriate words, the donor will revert to a

119

 

conscious, utilitarian attitude in which risks and rewards for complying with the request
become salient. It was theorized that people experience social situations, like a request
for charity, in a manner (process) that is different for a stranger than it is for a neighbor.
The theory that helps explain this is psychological distance. It suggests that the path for
cognitive processing of a situation, like a charitable one, differs when: (a) the social
distance between you as the donor is near (friend) or far (stranger); and (b) the timeliness
of the request is urgent (e. g., starvation appeal) or not (e. g., education endowment). The
prediction is that a situation socially near and temporally (time) urgent is construed in the
mind of the donor in concrete language (e. g., statistics, nouns); whereas a situation that is
socially distant, such as an appeal for a stranger, and/or a long-term cause, is construed in
abstract language (e. g., feelings, sentiments, values). The assumption is that language
used in the message should match the donor’s construal of the situation. The test of the
validity of this relationship is that an ad message that uses concrete language will
generate more donations for situations that are psychologically near rather than far; and
conversely, if a message that uses abstract language, it will generate more donations for
situations that are psychologically distant rather than near.

The data analysis provided evidence that proper choice of words in a mediated
message (advertisement) will optimize giving when the donor is either familiar or
unfamiliar with the recipient. This is an important ﬁnding as it is possible to provide well
for those who are less like us: people who are strangers, perhaps living in other cities, or
even countries.

The immediate implication for managers in the communications industry is they

should continue to use a combination of abstract and concrete language, with emotional

120

 

 

words thrown in for good measure, until it can be shown that people have speciﬁc mental
representations for speciﬁc situations, and that a speciﬁc rhetorical style will be most
persuasive, all other things being equal. Advertisers will continue to create messages to
sell products and generate donations, though they may not know which words were the
most inﬂuential in making the sale.

Limitations

The study among a large population living in a democratic and multi-racial
country fails to account for the strong opinions that subgroups may harbor toward each
other. Studies of rival groups living in cities in which racial or national tensions are
intense are likely to reveal perceptions of wide social distance between parties. This study
focused on inﬂuence of perceived similarity on social distance, and attempted to
manipulate stimuli materials without addressing the more known major factors of social
distance: race, religion, occupation, and nationality. The stimuli material did depict the
in-group victim as having lost their job without specifying the occupation or industry
from which the victim was separated; however, occupation accounted for just 17% of the
variance in perceptions of social distance as measured in the Triandis and Triandis (1960)
study.

Ad messages were designed for an audience living in the United States, which is
an individualistic culture. This may have alienated respondents from collectivist cultures.
The factorial design would have grown from eight treatments to 16 treatments, which is
unwieldy.

Moral behavior was shown to change in response to induced moods (Kirchsteiger,

Rigotti, & Rustichini, 2006). The study showed that one’s morals depend on one’s

121

moods. The effect was large and surprising to the researchers. This observation may be
disturbing to this study in itself. In addition, some assumptions underlying the theoretical
research on reciprocity must now be reconsidered. Moral preferences are not stable with
respect to a simple perturbation of the environment; they change with a player’s mood.

The measure of generosity may be negatively inﬂuenced by a respondent who has
a negative evaluation of the ad because they are irritated by the design of ad, or the
intrusiveness and frequency of charitable ads in general. This study did not measure
negative attitude toward the ad (AAD). Respondents may respond negatively to the
ﬁctitious NPO which appears in the ad as the sponsor agency. The respondent may have a
general disregard for nonproﬁt organizations due to the well-publicized stories regarding
ﬁnancial mismanagement among charitable organizations.

Future Research

Better measurement tools are needed to map the mental representations related to
psychological distance, with the goal of identifying the mental state that is consistently
associated with social situations construed as either near or distant. Should research fail
to arrive at a stable deﬁnition of independent mental state as abstract or concrete, then
focus should shift from CLT and onto another typology for mapping mental
representations of commonly occurring social situations, such as an appeal for a donation
from a stranger.

Future communication research proposals should consider language expectancies
that differ by culture. Research may focus on the use of language tailored toward the
cultural dimensions of a particular society; for instance, social-adjustive messages are

theorized to be favored in collectivist societies in contrast to value-expressive messages

122

 

 

favored in individualist societies. An interesting but ancillary ﬁnding in the main
experiment was that abstract language produced slightly higher mean contributions
(m=$493, sd=381) than did concrete language (m=$453, sd=379). This ﬁnding is
surprising given the English language preference that diction should always be concrete
and unambiguous, instead of abstract. The proclivity to speak plainly may be a culturally
derived preference associated with Anglo-Saxon cultures such as England, America,
Australia, and Canada; however, the use of concrete diction is less appropriate when the
subject concerns humanity, and an appeal for compassion, empathy, and social justice,
which are abstractions. It may be found that word use that is abstract instead of concrete,
and prose that is ﬂorid as opposed to sparse, may be favored among those who speak the
Romance languages (e. g., French, Italian, Spanish). Critical message components such as
compatible cultural values between donor and recipient may be rendered clearer when the
message makes proper use of abstract or concrete language that matches the culturally
preferred language style.

The stimuli material used in this ad were written to be either abstract or concrete;
yet results showed that successful manipulation did not produce signiﬁcant mean
differences in the mean amount of the contributions. This ﬁnding suggests that a third
class of stimuli materials are tested in the near future; that is, one which is equally
abstract and concrete (a hybrid). Tests should introduce emotional words as the third
semantic device which Altarriba and Bauer (2004) used to justify their claim that
concepts represented by emotional words are more imaginable than are abstract words,
and more similar to concrete words. Emotion Research may provide a useful perspective

that is experiencing a revival among cognitive scientists.

123

In-group bias can be measured to determine the premium people are willing to
donate to in-groups even when the message does not match the donor’s mental
representation. For instance, there is an excessive cost to society when donors give to
subsets of the in—group whose behavior is clearly in violation of social norms, rather than
give to out-groups who need aid to further their assimilation into the host society. Further
research may conceptualize the “coverage” or “width” of the prosocial umbrella to
estimate how far it extends from the in-group toward the out-group, and under what terms
and conditions; in this way the social distance dimension may be manipulated so that
recipients are perceived as belonging to the donor’s in-group. The results of this research
showed that in-groups are favored with signiﬁcantly higher donations than those given to
out-groups under the same conditions (urgency was controlled). Donations to out-group
members may increase to the degree that social distance is closed; appeals to the
brotherhood of man or common character may reduce social distance.

The predicament of the in-group member faced with social sanctions for their
prosocial attitudes toward out-groups should be studied; in this case, the promotion of
tolerance and charity toward out-groups based on a test of congruency of message design
elements with the relevant psychological distances. This scenario may provide evidence
that generosity is a character trait that can be developed, as opposed to an intractable trait,
especially where progress toward greater charity is counter to the cruel intentions of
bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice.

Research should explore whether incongruence among the various psychological
distances and message abstraction is a form of cognitive complexity, while testing if the

utilitarian attitude function is a default state when a message poses too much complexity,

124

 

 

especially when compared to a similar appeal that is congruent among its design
elements.

Research should test if a pictorial representation is a form of concrete
communication whereas words are abstract forms. Amit (2006) suggested that because
psychologically near events tend to be represented concretely, and psychologically
distant events tend to be represented abstractly, psychological distance should impede the
processing of concrete event representations and facilitate the processing of abstract
event representations. In particular, because a word is an abstract representation that
carries the essence of the referent object whereas a picture is a concrete representation
that carries the properties of the referent object in full detail, processing of pictures
should be facilitated when they are psychologically near, and processing of words should
be facilitated when they are psychologically distant. The study may yield insights as to
the effectiveness of (a) words and/or (b) graphics given an event construed at a low- or
high-level to generate donations.

The data set is beginning to show signs that social distance is a concept which has
evolved or perhaps de-evolved, since the time of Tonnies (1887) and Borgardus (1925). A
sociological aspect worth considering in future communication research should focus on
the expectations that people have of their community. It may be that communicators need
to emphasize the self-interested beneﬁts of an industrially oriented community, which
Tonnies labeled geselllschaft, over the familial and bonded relationships embedded into a
tight gemeinschaft community.

This paper identiﬁed various donor motivations, but does not stake a claim that

one motivation, among so many, accounts for the greatest generosity. This study seeks a

125

parsimonious explanation of generous behaviors, and suspects that the psychological
functions served by the attitudes capture many of the motivations leading to charitable
behavior. The function most often served by charitable attitudes allows for the expression
of values consistent with an individual’s private identity; however, that function is not
expressed often enough if one considers that charitable contribution rates range between
just 3% and 4.5% of household income levels in the United States. Rather than focus the
research on rehabilitation of the American donors’ presumed miserliness, this study
instead shifts the burden upon the solicitor to craft messages that tap into what eighteenth
century British philosopher Joseph Butler (1 736) called an instinctive human capacity for
benevolence.

Studies noted throughout this paper are consistent in showing that people evaluate
messages according to their values. The experiment conducted here was built on the
notion that messages that match the donor’s culturally speciﬁc attitudes, as well as their
motivation for holding those attitudes, are more persuasive than messages that are
incongruent with those attitudes. This study extends current theories by observing that
situational factors and message design features (e. g., semantics, imagery) will prime the
emergence of a speciﬁc attitude, among several, toward an attitude object. Message
design that reﬂects the donor’s construal of the situation as psychologically close or

distant is predicted to produce greater donor intentions and contributions.

126

 

APPENDICES

127

 

I‘VI":
Ls

 

APPENDIX A

Solicitation Materials

E-mail to — employees on March, 18 and April 2, 2009

Good morning,

Your voluntary participation in an online survey by Michigan State University is
requested. The research is being conducted by Clay Dedeaux, whom some of you may
remember as a representative at one of our former advertising agencies. Clay is ﬁnishing his
dissertation for a PhD in Media and Information Studies at MSU, and expects to graduate upon
completion of this study in May. The objective of Clay's study is to identify the message design
elements and language that evoke the most charitable intentions and behaviors among
prospective donors. (These elements are theorized to differ by the nature of the perceived
personal relationship of the donor to the recipient, and by the urgency of the
appeal.) Your responses will be vital to his research which promises to advance our
understanding of humanitarian aid.

The survey should only take a few minutes of your time. Please help his research by
responding to the survey at your earliest convenience. To access the survey, please follow the
link below:
http://research.adv.msu.ed u/ss/wsb.dll/dedeaux/Charitable_Check_1 1 .htm
(Note: if clicking the link does not work, please copy and paste directly into your browser.)

Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation.

Name Omitted

Title Omitted
Sales and Marketing

This message, which contains information from a corporate legal department, may be conﬁdential and privileged. If you have
received this communication in error (you are not the addressee or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use,
copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please

advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message.
tutti-i*tttttittittifktitittt

 

128

Follow up e-mail to - employees from researcher

March 20 and April 6, 2009
Hello,
I want to thank those of you who completed the on-line survey, and ask that others please

take a moment to complete it.

I need just a few more responses for the analysis which takes place later today.
*To access the survey, please follow the link below:
http://research.adv.msu.edu/ss/wsb.dll/dedeaux/Charitable_Check_88.htm

*(Note: if clicking the link does not work, please copy and paste directly into your
browser.)

Respectfully,

Clay Dedeaux

Michigan State University

129

 

 

APPENDIX B
Survey Instrument for Manipulation Check

Charitable Attitudes Consent Agreement
(Same form used for Manipulation Check 1 & II, Pretest, and Main Experiment)

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Researchers hope to learn about the reasons you consider the most important when
deciding among various charitable appeals. You have been identiﬁed as an employee of
— and asked to participate in a voluntary study. You have been
selected as a participant in this study because you are an adult who is likely to have
experience considering the donation of your own money to assist others. You will not
directly beneﬁt from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this
study may result in better health and human services for needy people. Researchers
received permission to send this e-mail to you from your human resource department
who encourage your voluntary participation.

YOUR RIGHTS

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say
no. You may change your mind at any time during the study and withdraw at that time.
You may choose not to answer speciﬁc questions or to stop participating at any time. You
will be told of any signiﬁcant ﬁndings that develop during the course of the study that
may inﬂuence your willingness to continue to participate in the research. You will not
receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study.

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this ”study. The data for this
project will be kept conﬁdential on a secure website at Michigan State University,
accessible only to the research team and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The data
will not be shared with your employer, and your conﬁdentiality will be protected to the
maximum extent of the law. The results of this study may be published or presented at
professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain
anonymous. Your intemet IP addresses will be deleted.

RANDOM PRIZE (section not included in manipulation check)

You are not asked to spend your money; however a survey question will ask you to
imagine how you would distribute up to $1,000 to a charity. Your name may be randomly
selected among survey responders to win the amount that you decide to KEEP for
yourself. Also, the amount that you designate for the charity will be donated to charity of
your choice IF your name is selected in the random drawing. We provide the funds so
that your decision is as realistic as possible.

130

 

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientiﬁc issues, how to do
any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact Clay Dedeaux, PhD. Candidate,
Michigan State University, 542 Communication Arts & Sciences Building, East Lansing,
MI 48823, dedeauxc@msu.edu, 616-735-1550). If you have questions or concerns about
your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer
input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection
Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at
202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

INSTRUCTIONS

You are asked to carefully read the instructions before answering the questions. Please
use the TAB key to advance to the next question. Please answer all questions before
moving onto the next section. A copy of the ﬁnal research study will be made available to
you at your request.

You voluntarily agree to participate in this research study by pressing the "next page" box
at the bottom of this page. Your participation in this study will take about 10-15 minutes.

Addition or deletion of item in revised manipulation check (MC2) is noted
1) YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE FAMILY IN THE AD
Please carefully read this advertisement, then you will be asked to some questions
about your attitude toward the advertisement.
<Insert one ad #1 to #8>
Indicate your agreement with the following statements regarding your relationship
to the family depicted and described in the advertisement.
Strongly agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree.
Research note: responses coded 1-7 from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly
agree.
0 They belong to my social group.
0 I am comfortable introducing them to members of my social group.
0 I would like to meet their friends.
0 Their friends are a lot like my friends.
0 We share the same values.
0 We share the same goals.
. We share the same concerns. ITEM DROPPED m 2ND CHECK
0 We share the same feelings about many subjects.

131

2)

3)

4)

 

YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE FAMILY IN THE AD continued 2
Strongly agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, neither agree or disagree, Somewhat
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree

0 I feel personally close to them.

0 I am comfortable spending time with them.

0 I’d like them to become my friend.

0 We think alike on important topics.

YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE FAMILY IN THE AD continued 3
Strongly agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, neither agree or disagree, Somewhat
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
0 The threat to their health and/or welfare is urgent.
o The threat to their health and/or welfare is serious.
0 The threat to their health and/or welfare is critical.
0 The situation puts the child at LOW risk of falling behind in their studies at
school. ITEM DROPPED IN 2ND MANIPULATION CHECK
o The situation puts the child at HIGH risk of falling behind in their studies
at school. ITEM DROPPED

o The situation puts the child at high risk of falling behind at school as compared to
classmates. ITEM ADDED TO 2ND MANIPULATION CHECK

o The parent is legitimately concerned their child will fall behind at school if the
family's ﬁnancial situation does not improve soon. ITEM ADDED

o The situation puts the child at high risk of falling behind others later in life for
good paying jobs. ITEM ADDED
o The parent is legitimately concerned their child risks falling behind others later in

life for good paying jobs if the family's current ﬁnancial situation does not
improve soon. ITEM ADDED

YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE FAMILY IN THE AD continued 4
Strongly agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, neither agree or disagree, Somewhat
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
0 Their need for ﬁnancial assistance is urgent.
0 Their need for ﬁnancial assistance is immediate.
0 Their need for ﬁnancial assistance is critical.
0 Financial aid will beneﬁt the family immediately. DROPPED IN 2ND
- Financial aid will beneﬁt the family in the short-term. DROPPED IN 2ND
0 Financial aid will beneﬁt them in the future. DROPPED IN 2ND
0 My donation is intended to beneﬁt the family immediately. ADDED IN 2ND
0 My donation is intended to beneﬁt the family in the future. ADDED 2ND

132

 

5)

6)

7)

YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE FAMILY IN THE AD continued 5
Strongly agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, neither agree or disagree, Somewhat
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree

0 The needs of the family are described with concrete words and examples.

0 The beneﬁt to the needy family is described with concrete words and

examples.

0 I understand how the money will be used to help the family.

0 I understand how the family feels about their situation.

0 I understand the values which the family considers to be important.

YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE AD

Strongly agree, Agree, Somewhat agree, neither agree or disagree, Somewhat
disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree
0 It was easy to imagine the situation depicted in the message.
0 It was difﬁcult to create a mental picture of the situation described in the
message.
0 It was easy to imagine how the solution would beneﬁt the family.
0 It was difﬁcult to create a mental picture of the situation described in the
message.
0 The overall situation is described with concrete words and examples.

YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT SHOWN IN THE
ADVERTISEMENT

There is a single question near the bottom of this page for you to answer.

You are shown a series of circle sets that differ to the degree they overlap with
one another. Imagine the circles in a set to represent you and someone else, in this
case the parent shown in the advertisement. Furthermore, the circles overlap to the
extent you feel personally close to the parent.

You are asked in this question about your personal feeling toward the parent
depicted and described in the advertisement. If you perceive a distant relationship
with the parent then you may choose a circle set nearer to #1 where the two
circles are farthest apart from each other. If you perceive a close relationship with
the parent in the ad then you would choose a circle set nearer to #7 where the two
circles are nearest apart. The other circle sets depict varying degrees of personal
closeness between you and the parent.

Please click on a circle set, from 1 to 7 that best describe your personal feelings
toward the parent in the advertisement. °

 

133

 

e
. _' c \
._..- ,- .-.x.——-.‘.._ .

 

8) Please enter your name and e-mail address if you want a copy of the ﬁnal report.
Note that your name and address will be separated from your previous answers to
maintain the conﬁdentiality of your responses.

Please enter e-mail address here:

9) The survey is complete. Please click the SUBMIT button below to record your

answers. A short statement regarding the purpose of the study appears next.

 

Follow-up Statement
Thank you for your participation in the study. The objective of the study is to identify the

message design elements and language that evoke the most charitable intentions and
behaviors among prospective donors which are theorized to differ by nature of the
perceived personal relationship of the donor to the recipient, and by the urgency of the
appeal. Your responses will help advance our understanding of how people make
decision regarding humanitarian aid.

If you have any more questions or would like to talk further about the study, please
contact researcher Clay Dedeaux at dedeauxc@msu.edu.

134

APPENDIX C

Survey of Attitudes Toward Charity: Main Experiment

Please tell us about yourself by answering a series of questions about you; the questions
are similar to questions asked in the US census. Please answer all questions and then use
the TAB key or Scroll bar to advance to next question.

1)

2)

3)

4)

Your gender is:
0 Female
0 Male

Your age falls into the range of:

0 1 8—24
0 25—34
0 35—44
0 45—54
0 55—64

0 65 or older

Your household's annual income falls into the range of:
0 Under $15,000

0 $15,000—$24,999

0 $25,000—$34,999

0 $35,000—$49,999

0 $50,000—$74,999

0 $75,000—$99,999

0 $100,000—$149,999

0 $150,000 and over

Do children live in your home?

0 Yes
0 No

135

 

5) Your race is best described as:
0 Asian
0 Black/African American
0 Native American
0 Paciﬁc Islander
0 Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
o White/Caucasian
0 Other, not listed above

6) The highest level of education that you have attained is:
0 Less than high school degree
0 High school degree or equivalent
0 Attended college but did not graduate
0 Graduate with Bachelor's degree
0 Some post graduate course work
0 Post graduate degree

7) Which country are you a citizen of?

0 USA

0 Germany
0 Canada

0 China

0 England
0 Japan

0 Korea

0 Other (please specify)

8) Which country do you live in?

0 USA

0 Germany
0 Canada

0 China

0 England
0 Japan

0 Korea

0 Other (please specify)

136

 

9)

10)

11)

12)

I3)

 

CONTRIBUTION

How much money would you contribute to this cause if you had $1,000 in extra
money? You can contribute the entire $1,000 or a portion of it, or none at all,
keeping the remaining amount for yourself.

Before answering this question you must pay close attention to this important
notice: Your name may be randomly selected among all - survey responders
to win the amount you decide to KEEP for yourself; furthermore, the dollar
amount you designate for the charity will be donated to a charity organization of
your choice. We provide the funds to make your ﬁnancial decision as realistic as
possible.

Note the charity and website used in this ad are ﬁctitious, and used only for
research purposes.

Now carefully read the advertisement shown below then enter your decision in the
box that appears beneath this advertisement.

Simply enter the number (without dollar sign) that you want to contribute to
CHARITY. __$N_.

CHARITY DESIGNATION

You designated that $N, should be donated to charity should you be selected in
the random drawing. We will send the money to a

designated charity. Altemately, you may designate another charity which is
registered with the IRS as a nonproﬁt 501(c) organization. You may enter the
name of another charity here, should you wish.

PRIZE REDEMPTION INSTRUCTONS

Enter your e-mail if you want to receive the amount which you designated for
yourself. An e-mail will be sent to you with instructions on redeeming the money
should your name be selected in the random drawing. You agree to waive the
anonymity of your name for the purpose of sending redemption instructions (your
other responses will remain anonymous).

DONOR RECOGNITION

Imagine you are given the option of allowing your name to be publicly recognized
as donor of $100 or preferring your donation to remain private? Please note that a
donor list does not exist as this imagined situation is posed for research purposes
only.

Yes, I want my name entered into a public register as a donor.

No, I prefer my donation to be anonymous.

GIFT lN-EXCHAN GE FOR DONATION

If you were given the opportunity, would you like someone at the charity
organization to acknowledge your contribution by sending you a gift? If so, then

137

 

14)

please enter the value of the gift that you expect into the box which appears below
this advertisement. Your gift request cannot exceed the value of your
contribution. You may enter 0 (zero) if you do not want the charity to send you a
gift. Please note that an actual gift will not be sent as this is a research question
only.

Please enter ﬁgure here without the dollar sign:___G$

YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT SHOWN IN THE
ADVERTISEMENT

There is a single question near the bottom of the ad for you to answer.

You are shown a series of circle sets that differ to the degree they overlap with
one another. Imagine the circles in a set to represent you and someone else, in this
case the parent shown in the advertisement. Furthermore, the circles overlap to the
extent you feel personally close to the parent.

You are asked in this question about your personal feeling toward the parent
depicted and described in the ad. If you perceive a distant relationship with the
parent then you may choose a circle set nearer to #1 where the two circles are
farthest apart from each other. If you perceive a close relationship with the parent
in the ad then you would choose a circle set nearer to #7 where the two circles are
nearest apart. The other circle sets depict varying degrees of personal closeness
between you and the parent.

Q 14 continued.

Please click on a circle set, from 1 to 7that best describe your personal feelings
toward the parent in the advertised message.

0 Circles #1

o Circles #2

o Circles #3

0 Circles #4

o Circles #5

o Circles #6

o Circles #7

15) ATTITUDE TOWARD RECIPIENTS OF CHARITY

Please select the phrase which best reﬂects your feeling about the donation you
gave toward the family depicted in the ad that you just read. Answer questions #4-
7 as if situation regarding the familiarity of your relationship with the recipient
were true.

138

 

i)

Strongly Agree, Mostly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree or disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Mostly Disagree, Strongly Disagree

0 I gave begrudgingly (with reservations).
o I gave less than I should, but give it cheerfully.
o I gave but only because I was asked.
0 I gave but would have done so anyway, before being asked.
0 I gave believing the recipient will be told that I am a donor.
0 I gave even though the recipient does not know my identity, but I will be
told their identity.
0 I gave though neither party knows the other's identity.
0 I gave to enable the recipient to become self-reliant.
l6) BASIS FOR ATTITUDES

This is the same advertisement that you read earlier. Please answer each of the
following six questions regarding your attitudes toward the family who are
depicted and described in the ad. Please give us your ﬁrst impression.
Strongly Agree, Mostly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree or disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Mostly Disagree, Strongly Disagree

0 My opinions about people who ask for charity mainly are based on
whether I have positive or negative feeling toward them.

0 My opinions about people who ask for charity mainly are based on how 1
will feel if I decide to contribute or not.

0 My opinions about people who ask for charity mainly is based on my
judgment of how likely it is that my contribution will be helpful, effective, or
beneﬁcial.

0 My opinions about people who ask for charity mainly are based on how
well I understand their experience and understand the consequences of their
situation.

0 My opinions about people who asked for are mainly based on my concern
that we safeguard the welfare of all people in our society.

0 My opinions about people who asked for, or need, charity are mainly are
based on my moral beliefs about how things should be.

ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHERS
17) Next, tell us about your attitudes or feeling about yourself, and your relationship
to others.
Strongly Agree, Mostly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree or disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Mostly Disagree, Strongly Disagree
0 I'd rather depend on myself than others.

139

 

‘Euﬂf l..-‘
'r

 

o I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.

0 I often do "my own thing."

0 My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.
0 It is important that I do my job better than others.

0 Winning is everything.

0 Competition is the law of nature.

0 When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.

ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHERS continued

18)

Next, tell us about your attitudes or feeling about yourself and your relationship to
others.

Strongly Agree, Mostly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree or disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Mostly Disagree, Strongly Disagree

0 I would feel proud if a coworker gets a prize,

0 The well-being of my coworkers is important to me.

0 To me, pleasure is spending time with others.

0 I feel good when 1 cooperate with others.

0 Parents and children must stay together as much as possible.

0 It is my duty to take care of my family, even if I have to sacriﬁce what 1
want.

0 Family members should stick together, no matter what sacriﬁces are
required.

0 It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my group.

ATTITUDES TOWARD CHARITY

19)

Please click on the circle closest to the word or phrase that best describes your
feelings about charity. If you feel your choice is closely related to the one or the
other end of the scale then you should click-select close to that end. Do not worry
or puzzle over individual items as we are interested in your ﬁrst impressions.

Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty within your community is:

0 Very Important

0 Important

0 Neither

o Unimportant

0 Not at all important

140

'. 1.1I‘-_...-.”.J

 

 

 

Charitable causes which aid a person living in poverty outside your community is:

0 Very Important

0 Important

0 Neither

0 Unimportant

- Not at all important

20) Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty within your community is:
0 Very Boring

0 Boring

- Neither

0 Interesting

0 Very Interesting

Charitable causes which aid 3 person living in poverty outside your community is:
0 Very Boring

- Boring
- Neither
0 Interesting

0 Very Interesting

21) Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty within your community is:
0 Highly Relevant

0 Somewhat Relevant
0 Neither
- Somewhat Irrelevant

0 Highly Irrelevant

Charitable causes which aid a person living in poverty outside your community is:
0 Highly Relevant

0 Somewhat Relevant
0 Neither
0 Somewhat Irrelevant

0 Highly Irrelevant

22) Charitable causes which aid peOple living in poverty within your community is:
0 Very Exciting
0 Somewhat Exciting
0 Neither

141

 

0 Somewhat Unexciting
0 Not at all exciting

Charitable causes which aid a person living in poverty outside your community is:
0 Very Exciting

0 Somewhat Exciting

0 Neither

0 Somewhat Unexciting
0 Not at all exciting

23) Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty within your community is:

0 Means nothing at all to me
0 Somewhat Meaningless

0 Neither

0 Somewhat Meaningful

0 Means a lot to me

Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty outside your community is:

0 Means nothing at all to me
0 Somewhat Meaningless

0 Neither

0 Somewhat Meaningful

0 Means a lot to me

24) Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty within your community is:
0 Very Appealing

0 Somewhat Appealing
0 Neither
0 Somewhat Unappealing

0 Very Unappealing

Charitable causes which aid people living in poverty outside your community is:
0 Very Appealing

0 Somewhat Appealing
0 Neither
0 Somewhat Unappealing

0 Very Unappealing

142

 

 

 

RELIGION

25) This is the ﬁnal set of questions. Please share your attitudes about religion by
selecting the point on a 7-point scale in response to the following questions.

Strongly Agree, Mostly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither agree or disagree,
Somewhat Disagree, Mostly Disagree, Strongly Disagree

My faith involves all my life.

One should seek God's guidance when making important decision.

In my life I experience the presence of the Divine.

My faith sometimes restricts my actions.

Nothing is as important as serving God as best I know how.

I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life.

My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life.
It doesn't matter so much what I believe as long as I lead a moral life.
Although I am a religious person, I refuse to let religious considerations

inﬂuence my everyday affairs.

Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important

things in life.

Please enter your e-mail address if you want a copy of the ﬁnal report. Note that your
name and address will be separated ﬁom your previous answers to maintain the

conﬁdentiality of your responses:

 

Thank you for your participation in the study. The objective of the study is to identify the
message design elements and language that evoke the most charitable intentions and
behaviors among prospective donors which are theorized to differ by nature of the
perceived personal relationship of the donor to the recipient, and by the urgency of the
appeal. Your responses will help advance our understanding of how people make
decision regarding humanitarian aid.

If you have any more questions or would like to talk further about the study, please
contact researcher Clay Dedeaux at dedeauxc@msu.edu.

143

 

 

APPENDIX D

Stimuli Material

 

 

 

Poverty: all:

It used to be a problem WWW
that happened someplace else.

 

 

 

My name is Lisa Smith and 1 am director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living in
YOUR community. The loss of automobile industry
jobs, outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and the
banking crisis has forced many people, including your
friends, neighbors and acquaintances, to lose theirjobs.
You know these good people however they won’t ask for money to
pay for food and shelter.

 

You also know these people work hard to provide a good home and
quality education for their children; however they now face eviction
from their home and struggle to put more than one hot meal on
the dinner table. These responsible parents urgently seek new job
and skills; motivated knowing their child’s suffering extends into
school time, too hungry to pay attention to the teacher.

Our immediate needs include rent
assistance for 20 families, hot
meals for 100, transportation for
75, and medical services for 80.
These families need your donation
of money today.

Families Helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.
http:/ldonate.sosfemily.org

 

copyright 0 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 1.

 

Give

 

food and shelter.

 

 

 

an

m

 

 

 

 

so that she can live to her full potential. hmieslehis Paulie:

My name is Lisa Smith and I am director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living in
YOUR community. The loss of automobile industry
jobs, outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and the
banking crisis has forced many people, including your
friends and neighbors, to lose their jobs. You know
these good people however they won't ask for money to pay for

You also know these people work hard to provide a good home and
quality school for their children. Though they lack money today
these parents are even more concerned their children risk falling
behind at school which will negatively affect their skills and reduce
their chances later in life for good jobs and admission to college.

Our immediate needs include rent
assistance for 20 families, hot
meals for 100, transportation for
75, and medical services for 80.
These families need your donation
of money today.

Families Helping Families teaches

that hard work leads to success.
http:/Idonate.sosfamily.org

copyright 0 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

Figure 5. Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 2.

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poverty: at:

it used to be a problem mutilate-lilies
that happened someplace else.

My name is Lisa Smith and lam director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living
in YOUR community. Many people, including your
friends, neighbors and acquaintances don't have the
job skills needed for the few remaining jobs during
this economic crisis. You know these good people
however they are reluctant to admit they need to ask for money
to pay for food and shelter.

 

You also know these people work hard to provide a good home
and quality education for their children; however they are forced
to delay their dreams for success. They face the threat of eviction
from their home, and struggle to put hot food on the dinner
table. They are anxious and distressed, yet motivated, to find
work knowing their child's suffering extends into school time,
too hungry to pay attention to instructions.

We are especially concerned about
meeting the needs offamilies who
just lostjobs but don’t qualify for
public assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Families Helping Families shares
your value for independence as
the key to success.
http:/lcharity.sosfamily.org

 

 

copyright 0 2009 (Jay Dedeaux

 

 

Figure 6. Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 3.

146

 

 

Give iii:

so that she can live to her full potential. famllles Ilolnlng famllles

 

 

 

 

My name is Lisa Smith and lam director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living in
YOUR community. The poor economy has forced many
of your neighbors, friends, and close acquaintances to
lose their jobs. You know these good people however
they are too proud and reluctant to admit they lost a
job and need money to pay for food and shelter.

 

These families share your values of hard work, independence and
justice. They want the same things that you do: A comfortable
home and high quality school for their children. Though they lack
necessities today these parents are motivated to find work because
a lack of money for food may cause their children to fall short
of their potential, reducing their chances later in life for higher
learning and fulfilling jobs.

We are especially concerned about
meeting the needs of families who
just lost jobs but don't qualify for
public assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Families Helping Families shares
your value for independence as
the key to success.

 

copyrigrt '0 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Stimuli Material, MCI, Treatment 4.

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poverty: iii:

It used to be a problem famlllos llelnlno famllles
that happened someplace else.

 

My name is Lisa Smith and I am director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living in
YOUR community. You won’t recognize these families
as they are not your neighbors, yet their problems are
not so strange. The loss of automobile industry jobs,
outsourcing ofjobs to foreign countries and the banking
crisis has forced many people to lose theirjobs, and now they must
ask for money to pay for food and shelter.

 

These men and women work hard, just as you do, to provide a safe
home and good school for their children. Their unemployment
check, even at the highest amount, is not enough to pay for
household necessities. The parents experience pain knowing that
lack of money for food and warmth hurts their child enough during
school time that they can’t pay attention to the teacher.

Our immediate needs include rent
assistance for 20 families, hot
meals for 100, transportation for
75, and medical services for 80.
These families need your donation
of money today.

Families Helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.
http:/ldonate.sosfamily.org

 

copyright (C‘ 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 5.

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poverty: % iii:

It used to be a problem famnles ﬂolnlnu nmllles
that happened someplace else.

 

My name is Lisa Smith and I am director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living in
YOUR community. You won’t recognize these families
as they are not your neighbors, yet their problems are
not so strange. Many people who lostjobs don’t have
the skills needed for the few remaining jobs during
this economic crisis and now must ask for money to pay for food
and shelter.

 

These families work hard to provide a good home and quality
education for theirchildren; howeverthey now face eviction from
their home and struggle to put more than one hot meal on the
dinner table. Parents are anxious and distressed yet motivated
to find work knowing their child’s suffering extends into school
time, too hungry to pay attention to instructions.

We are especially concerned about
meeting the needs offamilies who
just lostjobs but don’t qualify for
public assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Families Helping Families shares
your value for independence as
the key to success.

/ http:l/charity.sosfamily.org

  

copyright LC! 2009 Clay Dedeaur

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 6.

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Give at:

so that she can live to her full potential. Families Ilollllng famllles

 

My name is Lisa Smith and I am director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living in
YOUR community. You won't recognize these families
as they are not your neighbors, yet their problems are
not so strange. The loss of automobile industry jobs,
outsourcing ofjobs to foreign countries and the banking
crisis has forced many people to lose theirjobs, and now they must
ask for money to pay for food and shelter.

 

These men and women work hard, just as you do, to provide a safe
home andgood schoolfortheirchildren.Theirunemployment check,
even at the highest amount, is not enough to pay for household
necessities. These parents experience pain in knowing that lack of
money for food may cause their children to fall behind other kids at
school, reducing their chances, later in life, for admission to college,
and goodjobs.

Our immediate needs include rent
assistance for 20 families, hot
meals for 100, transportation for
75, and medical services for 80.
These families need your donation
of money today.

    

Families Helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.
httpzlldonate.sosfamily.org

copyright (CV 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

 

 

Figure 10. Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 7.

150

 

 

Give air:

so that she can live to her full potential. families llelllln! famllles

 

 

 

 

My name is Lisa Smith and lam director of a nonprofit
organization dedicated to servingfamiliesliving in YOUR
community. You won’t recognize these families as they
are not your neighbors, yet their problems are not so
strange. Many people who lost jobs don’t have the skills
needed for the few remaining jobs during this economic
crisis and now must ask for money to pay for food and shelter.

 

These families share your values of hard work, independence and
justice. They want the same things that you do: A comfortable
home and high quality school for their children. Though they lack
necessities today these parents are motivated to find work because
a lack of money for food may cause their children to fall short of
their potential, reducing theirchanceslaterin life for higherlearning
and fulfillingjobs.
. ' ’ I -' " We are especially concerned about
meeting the needs of families who
just lost jobs but don’t qualify for
public assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

 

Families Helping Families shares
your value for independence as
the key to success.
http://charity.sosfami|y.org

 

copyright \9 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

 

 

Figure 11. Stimuli Material, MC 1, Treatment 8.

151

Your donation pays for the food
that keeps a student alert
and ready for school.

 

 

“Parents are emotionally
distressed to know their
children are often too
hungry to pay attention
to the teacher. ”

 

 

 

 

 

WOMC’U’W

 

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community.
The loss of jobs across so many important industries
has immediately and drastically forced many people,
including your friends, neighbors and acquaintances,
into a ﬁnancial and family crisis like none they've ever
experienced.

Suddenly unemployed men and women who are
used to working hard to provide a good home and
quality education for their children, while helping their
neighbors, are threatened with home eviction and an
inability to provide hot and nutritious meals for their
kids. Parents are emotionally distressed to know their
children are often too hungry to pay attention to the
teacher.

You know these people from your neighborhood
and realize they are too proud to ask for the money
needed to pay for food and shelter, so we are asking
for them. They need ﬁnancial aid during their job
search. Our immediate needs include rent assistance
for 20 families, hot meals for 100, transportation for
75, and medical services for 80. These families need
your donation of money today.

Families helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.

Le... :14 L
‘ nrg
J

 

Figure 12. Stimuli Material, MC 2, Treatment 1.

152

 

A hungry school—age child is

unfalrly handlcapped for life.
YOur donation feeds a student so they have an opportunity
to live up to their lifelong abilities.

 

 

“School children in our
community may fail
now and end up under!
employed in minimum
wage jobs, stmggling to
make ends meet. "

 

 

 

 

 

woman CD; on.“

 

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community.
The loss of jobs across so many important
industries has immediately and drastically forced
many people, including your friends. neighbors and
acquaintances, into a financial and family crisis like
none they've ever experienced.

Suddenly unemployed men and women who are
used to working hard to provide a good home and
quality education for their children, while helping
their neighbor, are threatened with home eviction.
and an inability to provide hot and nutritious meals
for their kids. Parents are emotionally distressed
to know their children are often too hungry to pay
attention to the teacher. School children in our
community may fail now and end up underemployed
in minimum wage jobs, struggling to make ends
meet.

You know these people from your neighborhood
and realize they are too proud to ask for the money
needed to pay for food and shelter, so we are asking
for them. They need financial aid during their job
search. Our immediate needs include rent assistance
for 20 families, hot meals for 100, transportation for
75, and medical services for 80. These families need
your donation of money today.

Families helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.
htth." ‘ ‘ ", “'9

 

 

Figure 13. Stimuli Material, MC 2, Treatment 2.

153

 

 

She needs your charity to keep her

school age kids feed and focused.

 

 

"Parents are concerned to
know their children are
often too hungry to pay
attention to the teacher.”

 

 

 

 

 

WOmCl-yMIm

 

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community.
The loss of jobs across so many important industries has
suddenly and dramatically changed the lives of people,
including your friends, neighbors and acquaintances,
who are experiencing a ﬁnancial and family emergency
like never before.

Your neighbors share the community's value for hard
work with a goal of ﬁnancial independence, while ﬁnding
time to assist others, but now are threatened with home
eviction and a struggle to provide food for their kids.
Parents are concerned to know their children are often
too hungy to pay attention to the teacher.

You know these people from the neighborhood and
realize they are reluctant to admit they need to ask for
money to pay for food and shelter, so we are asking
for them. These parents need our support while they
seek new skills and jobs. We are especially concerned
about meeting the needs of families who just lost jobs
but don’t qualify for public assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Families helping Families share
your values as the keys to success

I.“ e I
am
"‘T'" i a

 

Figure 14. Stimuli Material, MC2. Treatment 3.

154

 

 

 

Your charity feeds a child
so they can concentrate on their lessons
and not their hunger.

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a nonprofit organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community.
The loss of jobs across so many important industries
has suddenly and dramatically changed the lives
of people, including your friends, neighbors and
acquaintances, who are experiencing a ﬁnancial
and family emergency like never before.

 

“SChOOI children in 0‘” Your neighbors share the community’s value for hard
community may fail now work with a goal of financial independence, while
and end up under, finding time to assist others, but now are threatened

with home eviction and a struggle to provide food
_ _ for their kids. Parents are concerned to know their
W088 10135. struggling to children are often too hungry to pay attention to the
make ends meet.” teacher. School children in our community may fail
now and end up underemployed in minimum wage
jobs, struggling to make ends meet.

employed in minimum

You know these people from the neighborhood
and realize they are reluctant to admit they need
to ask for money to pay for food and shelter, so
we are asking for them. These parents need our
support while they seek new skills and jobs. We
are especially concerned about meeting the needs
of families who just lost jobs but don't qualify for
public assistance. These families deserve your
charity today.

ﬂ Families helping Families share

your values as the keys to success
hmiies nil! lilies ht:;..'.” ‘ ‘ ", nrg

cwcmcu, (bouts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15. Stimuli Material, MC 2, Treatment 4.

155

Your donation pays for the food

that keeps a student alert
and ready for school.

 

 

“Parents are emotionally
distressed to know their
children are often too
hungry to pay attention
to the teacher. ”

 

 

 

 

 

woman Clay Dada-m

 

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community.
Donors often help their family and neighbors when hit
by job loss, but please remember to be generous to
the hundreds of hardworking who lost jobs just after
moving to our city. Some of these people have customs
and language different from ours, yet their problems are
very real and simple to understand: they urgently need
money to pay for food and shelter.

These families work hard to provide a good home.
healthy meals, and quality education for their children,
but now are threatened with home eviction as parents
struggle to cook hot and nutritious food more than once
a week. Parents are emotionally distressed to know
their children are often too hungry to pay attention to
the teacher.

You don't know these people, which mean they can’t
directly ask you for money needed to pay for food
and shelter during this economic recession, so we are
asking for them. These parents need ﬁnancial aid while
they seek new skills and jobs. Our immediate needs
include rent assistance for 20 families, hot meals for
100, transportation for 75, and medical services for 80.
These families need your donation of money today.

Families helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.

Lu ".1 .

"‘l' 1mg

 

Figure 16. Stimuli Material, MC 2, Treatment 5.

156

 

 

Your donation pays for the food
that keeps a student alert
and ready for school.

 

 

“School children in our
community may fail now
and end up under—
employed in minimum
wage jobs, struggling to
make ends meet.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

faiths IGII'I! Fillies

WONG) City Man:

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community.
Donors often help their family and neighbors when hit
by job loss, but please remember to be generous to the
hundreds of hardworking who lost jobs just after moving
to our city. Some of these people have customs and
language different from ours, yet their problems are very
real and simple to understand: they need money to pay
for food and shelter.

These families work hard to provide a good home,
healthy meals, and quality education for their children,
but now are threatened with home eviction as parents
struggle to cook hot and nutritious food more than once
a week. Parents are emotionally distressed to know
their children are often too hungry to pay attention to
the teacher. School children in our community may fail
now and end up underemployed in minimum wage jobs,
struggling to make ends meet.

You don’t know those people, which mean they can’t
directly ask you for money needed to pay for food
and shelter during this economic recession, so we are
asking for them. These parents need ﬁnancial aid while
they seek new grills and jobs. Our immediate nwds
include rent assistance for 20 families, hot meals for
100. transportation for 75, and medical servicss for 80.
These families need your donation of money today.

Families helping Families teaches
that hard work leads to success.

11.] 'I
am
.uu-r-c. .1 a

 

Figure 17. Stimuli Material, MC 2. Treatment 6.

157

 

 

She needs your charity to keep her

school age kids feed and focused.

 

 

“Parents are emotionally
distressed to know their
children are often too
hungry to pay attention
to the teacher.”

 

 

 

 

 

hlll'l'ls Icll'll Fillies

wcmmm

 

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization

dedicated to serving families living in our community.
Donors often help their family and neighbors when
times get tough, but please remember to be generous
to the hundreds of hardworking who lost jobs just after
moving to our city. Some of these people have customs
and language dissimilar to ours, yet their problems are
not so strange: they urgently need money to pay for
basic living expenses.

These families work hard to provide a good home
and quality education for their children, but their
unemployment check is not enough to pay for household
necessities. They now face eviction from their home, and
struggle to put a hot meal on the dinner table. Parents
are emotionally distressed to know their children are
often too hungry to pay attention to the teacher.

You don't know these people, which mean they can’t
directly ask you for money needed to pay for food
and shelter during this economic emergency, so we
are asking for them. These parents need our support
while they seek new skills and jobs. We are especially
concemed about meeting the needs of families who just
lost jobs but don’t qualify for public assistance. These
families deserve your charity today.

Families helping Families share
your values as the keys to success

Lu ll_I

r' J “'9

 

Figure 18. Stimuli Material, MC2, Treatment 7.

158

 

 

 

Your charity feeds a child so they

can concentrate on their lessons
and not their hunger.

 

 

“The children of our city
risk falling behind now,
and later in life when
competing for entry into
a good college and
satisfying job.”

 

 

 

 

 

W020! Oily Dot-m

 

 

I am Lisa Smith, director of a local nonprofit
organization dedicated to serving families living
in our community. Donors often help their family
and neighbors when times get tough, but please
remember to be generous to the hundreds of
hardworking who lost jobs just after moving to our
city. Some of them have customs and language
dissimilar to ours, yet their problems are not so
strange: they need money to pay for basic living
expenses.

These families work hard to provide a good home
and quality education for their children, but their
unemployment check is not enough to pay for
household necessities. They now face eviction from
their home and struggle to put more food on the
table. Parents are emotionally distressed to know
their children are often too hungry to pay attention
to the teacher. The children of our city risk falling
behind now, and later in life when competing for
entry into a good college and satisfying job.

You don’t know these people, which mean they can’t
directly ask you for money needed to pay for food
and shelter during this economic emergency, so we
are asking for them. Parents need our support while
they seek new skills and jobs. We are especially
concerned about meeting the needs of families who
just lost jobs but don't qualify for public assistance.
These families deserve your charity today.

Families helping Families share
your values as the keys to success

I.“ 11.] A m
. . ‘r-v- ' 3

 

Figure 19. Stimuli Material, MC 2, Treatment 8.

159

 

 

 

m

Poverty: .............

it used to never happen here.

 

Your Neighbor Needs Help.

My name is Lisa Smith, director of a nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community. The loss of
automobile industryjobs, outsourcing ofjobs to foreign countries
and the banking crisis has forced many people, including your
friends, neighbors and acquaintances, to lose theirjobs.

 

Parents used to working hard to provide a good home and quality

"Yoorfr'icnds and education for their children are threatened with home eviction,
;elihb°’jc’e, and unable to cook more than one hot and nutritious meal a

n tenet cna . . . . -

winedfo, ”W week for their kids. Your frrends and neighbors are frightened

children who leave and worried for their children who leave home too hungry to pay
home too hung” attention at school.
to pay attention
at school. ”
Your neighbors are too proud to ask for money needed to pay for
food and shelter, so we are asking for them. They need ﬁnancial
aid during theirjob search. Our immediate needs include rent
assistance for 20 families, hot
meals for 100, transportation
for 75, and medical services for
80. These families need your
donation of money today.

Neighbors helping Neighbors
in a time of crisis.
http://donate.sosfamily.org

 

 

 

 

Figure 20. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 1.

160

 

Give

so our children can live to their full potential.

 

 

 

Your Neighbor Needs Help.

My name is Lisa Smith and lam director ofa nonproﬁt
organization dedicated to serving families living in our
community. The loss of automobile industryjobs, outsourcing of
. jobs to foreign countries and the banking crisis has forced many
people, including your friends, neighbors and acquaintances, to
lose theirjobs.

 

Parents used to working hard to provide a good home and quality
"Theprobierrv shotws education for their children are threatened with home eviction,
ZZZZZZSQ'QKTWI and unable to cook more than one hot and nutritious meal a
dim,“ assessment week for their kids. Your friends and neighbors are frightened
scores. The/ong-term and worried for their children who leave home too hungry to pay
"5’“5 “703m"! 01‘ attention at school. The problem shows up in lower individual

our students wril d d l d - Th l - k .
end up mow/paying gra es an ower Istrict assessment scores. e ong-term ris Is
jobglfarshort of that many of our students will end up in low paying jobs, far short
theirabilityf’ of their ability.

Your neighbors are too proud to ask for money needed now to
secure their child's future well-being, so we are asking for them.
They need ﬁnancial aid during
theirjob search. Our immediate
needs include rent assistance
for 20 families, hot meals for
100, transportation for 75, and
medical services for 80. These
families need your donation of
money today.

Neighbors helping Neighbors
secure the future.
http://donate.sosfamilyorg

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 21. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 2.

161

 

Pove r t :

It used to be a problem
that happened someplace else.

 

 

 

 

"Yourfriends

and neighbors are
emotionally distressed
for their children

who leave home

too hungry to pay
attention atschool. "

 

Your Neighbor Needs Help.

My name is Lisa Smith, director of a nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community. Many
people, including your friends, neighbors and acquaintances
don’t have the job skills needed for the few remaining jobs during
this economic crisis.

Parents who make a great effort to provide a secure home for
their children are threatened with eviction and unable to prepare
hot and nutritious meals for their kids. Your friends and neighbors
are emotionally distressed for their children who leave home too
hungry to pay attention at school.

Your neighbors are reluctant to admit they need money to pay
for food and shelter, so we are asking for them. Your friends need
support while they seek new skills andjobs We are especially
concerned about meeting the
needs of families whojust lost
jobs but don’t qualify for public
assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Neighbors helping Neighbors
in a time of need.
http://charity.sosfamily.org

 

 

 

Figure 22. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 3.

162

 

Give * @

so our children can make the most of their lives.

 

Your Neighbor Needs Help.

My name is Lisa Smith, director of a nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving families living in our community. Many

‘ people, including your friends, neighbors and acquaintances
don’t have thejob skills needed for the few remaining jobs during
this economic crisis.

Parents who make a great effort to provide a secure home for
their children are threatened with eviction and unable to prepare
“The eventual risk is hot and nutritious meals for their kids. Your friends and neighbors
:777I;:::’v’\’l‘;{":n‘;fu‘;”’ are emotionally distressed for their children who leave home too
denwluyed and hungry to pay attention at school. Lost household income causes
dissatisﬁed mm low instability in the home and hurts a school age child’s ability to
Paying/Obsvfa’m” pace with other students. The eventual risk is that too many of
ofthe'rfuupomm'w our children will end up underemployed and dissatisﬁed with low
paying jobs, far short oftheir full potential.

 

Your neighbors are reluctant to ask for help needed now to
protect their child’s chances later in life that, so we are asking
for them. Your friends need support while they seek new skills
and jobs.We are especially
concerned about meeting the
needs of families whojust lost
jobs but don’t qualify for public
assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Neighbors helping Neighbors
secure the future.
httpzllcharity.sosfami|y.org

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 23. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 4.

163

 

 

Pove r t y:

it used to never happen here.

 

Help A Stranger In Need.

My name is Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving local families. Donors often help their family
and neighbors when hit byjob loss, but please remember to be

‘ generous to the hundreds of men and women who lostjobsjust
after moving to our city. Their customs and language may be difﬁcult
. to understand, yet their problems are simple to understand: they
urgently need money to pay for food and shelter.

 

“Parents are

ﬁgmened and Adults used to working hard to provide a good home, healthy meals,
worriedfor their and quality education for their children, but now are threatened with
Zg’rlririggﬁjn‘jff home eviction as pa rents struggle to cook hot and nutritious food

to payment/0,, more than once a week. Parents are frightened and worried for their
at school- ” children who leave home too hungry to pay attention at school.

You don’t know these people, which mean they can’t directly ask
you for money needed to pay for food and shelter during this
economic recession, so we are asking for them. These parents need
ﬁnancial aid while they seek new
skills andjobs. Our immediate
needs include rent assistance
for 20 families, hot meals for
100, transportation for 75, and
medical services for 80. These
families need your donation of
money today.

Families helping Families
extending help in at time of crisis.
http://donate.sosfami|y.org

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 24 . Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 5.

164

 

 

Give

so new children in our community
can live to their full potential.

 

Help A Stranger In Need.

My name is Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization
2- , dedicated to serving local families. Donors often help their
family and neighbors when hit byjob loss, but please remember
to be generous to the hundreds of men and women who lost

"A "' jobs just after moving to our city. Their customs and language

‘ may be difﬁcult to understand, yet their problems are simple to
understand: they need money to pay for food and shelter.

 

“The problem shows

I . d. u I Adults used to working hard to provide a good home and quality
Zfége‘s’zljg'2w2’r ”a education for their children, are now threatened with home
district assessment eviction, and an inability to provide hot and nutritious meals for
scores. The (ong- their kids. Parents are frightened and worried for their children
{”7 "5" ’5 "7‘“ "my who leave home too hungry to pay attention at school. The
stucents Will end up in . . . . . .
lowpayingjobsl fa, problem shows up In lower IndIVIdual grades and lower district
short oftheirabihry” assessment scores. The long-term risk is that many students will

end up in low payingjobs, far short of their ability.

You don’ t know these people, which mean they can ’t directly ask
you for money needed to secure their child’ 5 future, so we are
asking for them. These parents
need ﬁnancial aid while they
seek new skills and jobs. Our
immediate needs include rent
assistance for 20 families, hot
meals for 100, transportation
for 75, and medical services for
. 80. These families need your
donation of money today.
Families helping Families
‘ secure the future.
“ http://donate.sosfamily.org

 

 

 

 

Figure 25. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 6.

165

 

 

ll

Pove r t y:

It used to be a problem
that happened someplace else.

 

 

Help A Stranger In Need.
* My name is Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization
dedicated to serving local families. Donors often help their family
and neighbors when times get tough, but please remember to
be generous to the hundreds of workers who lostjobsjust after
moving to our city. Their customs and language may be strange,
yet their problems are not so strange: they urgently need money
to pay for basic living expenses.

 

" Yoorfriends and

neighbors are Adults who make a great effort to provide a secure home for their
emotionally distressed children are threatened with eviction and unable to prepare hot
”the" (h’ld’m and nutritious meals for their kids. Your friends and neighbors

who leave home

too hungry ,0 pay are emotionally distressed for their children who leave home too
attention at “”00“ hungry to pay attention at school.

You don’t know these people, which mean they can’t directly ask
you for money needed to pay for food and shelter during this
economic emergency, so we are asking for them These parents

' ' ' ‘ need our support while they
seek new skills and jobs. We
are especially concerned about
meeting the needs of families
whojust lostjobs but don’t
qualify for public assistance.
These families deserve your
charity today.

Families helping Families

in a time ofneed.
http://charity.sosfamily.org

 

 

 

 

Figure 26. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 7.

166

 

W V
\ .I
ll

Give ......

so our children can make the most of their lives.

 

Help A Stranger In Need.
‘ My name is Lisa Smith, director of a local nonproﬁt organization

" ‘ dedicated to serving local families. Donors often help their family
, and neighbors when times get tough, but please remember to
,. be generous to the hundreds of workers who lostjobs just after

’ j moving to our city. Their customs and language may be strange,

yet their problems are not so strange: they need money to pay
for basic living expenses.

 

'S‘MO’ WAC?” ’" Adults make a great effort to provide a secure home for their
Eiffmggdﬁ’ children are threatened with eviction and unable to prepare
underemployed in hot and nutritious meals for their kids. Parents are emotionally
minimum wage/obs. distressed to know their children are often too hungry to pay
£33713 5" ”m“ attention to the teacher. School children in our community may
' fail now and end up underemployed in minimum wagejobs,
struggling to make ends meet.

You don't know these people, which mean they can't diectly ask
you for my needed now to protect their child’s chances later
in life, so we are asking for them. Parents need our support while
, they seek new skills and jobs.
We are especially concerned
about meeting the needs of
families who just lost jobs
but don’t qualify for public
assistance. These families
deserve your charity today.

Families helping Fanlles
' secure the future.
http:llcharity.sosfamily.org

 

copyright 0 2009 Clay Dedeaux

 

 

 

 

Figure 27. Stimuli Material, ME, Treatment 8

167

REFERENCES

Adler, F. (1956). The value concept in sociology, ”The American Journal of Sociology, 62,
272—279.

Allport, G. W. & Ross, J .M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 43 2—443.

Altarriba, J. & Bauer, L. M. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A

comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. The American
Journal of Psychology, 11 7, 389—4 10.

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of wann-
glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464—477.

Andrews, J .C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, SH. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing
and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of
Advertising, 19, 27—40.

Apsler, R. & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 162—166.

Archer, R. (1991). Dispositional empathy and pluralism of prosocial motives,
Psychological Inquiry, 2, 123—124.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 596—612.

Bakke, K. M., Cao, X., O’Loughlin, J ., & Ward, M. D. (2007). Social Distance in Bosnia
and the North Caucasus Region of Russia. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Washington at Seattle. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from
http://faculty.washington.edu/mdw/pdfs/socialdistance4web.pdf

Bandura, A. & Walters, R. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: Prentice—Hall.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological
distance and construal level: An implicit association test. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 135, 609—622.

Barone, D. F., Maddux, J. E., & Snyder, C. R. (1997). Social Cognitive Psychology:
History and Current. Berlin: Springer.

168

 

 

Batson, C. (1991). The Altruism question. Toward a social-psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of
prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107—122.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the
Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Bendapudi, N., Singh, S.N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An
integrative framework for promotion planning, Journal of Marketing, 60, 33—49.

Benson, P. L., Dehority, J ., Garman, L., Hanson, E., Hochschwender, M., Lebold, C.,
Rohr, R., & Sullivan, J. (1980). Interpersonal correlates of non-spontaneous
helping behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 87—95.

Berger, C. & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond.
Human Communication Research, 1, 99—112.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989).The relationship closeness inventory:
Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 792—807.

Boeree, G. (n.d). Spinoza emotions. 1 paragraph. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/spinozasemotions.htrnl

Borgardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9,
299—308.

Borgardus, E. S. (1926). Social distance in the city. Proceedings and Publications of the
American Sociological Society. 20, 40—46.

Bono (aka Hewson, P.D). Millennium Development Goals. National Prayer Breakfast.
Washington, DC, 2 Feb. 2006. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from
http://www.wor1dhunger.org/articles/O6/editorials/bono.htm

Boswell, J. (1889) Samuel L Johnson, LLD. Together with the Journal of a Tour to the
Hebrides. London: George Bell & Sons.

Butler, J. (1736). Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and
Nature. London: Knapton.

Cialdini, R., Levy, A., Herman, P., Kozlowski, L., & Petty, R. (1976). Elastic shifts of

opinion: Determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34, 663—672.

169

 

 

Clark, M. S. (1981). Noncomparability of beneﬁts given and received: A cue to the
existence of friendship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 375—381.

Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M., & Milberg, S. (1987). Relationship type, recipient
mood, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94—103.

Clark, M., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange
relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
1 9, 684—69 1.

C lotfelter, C. (2002). The economics of giving. In J .W. Berry and B.V. Manno (Eds)
Giving Better, Giving Smarter (Washington, DC: National Commission on
Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, 1997).

C ollett, J. L. & Morrissey, C .A. (2007). The social psychology of generosity: The state of
current interdisciplinary research. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from Notre Dame
University Science of Generosity Web site http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/

Comte, A. (1852). Catechisme positiviste or Catechism of Positivisim, tr. R. Congreve,
London: Kegan Paul.

Dawes, C.T., Fowler, J .H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smimov, O. (2007). Egalitarian
motives in humans. Nature, 446, 1—4.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46,
21—25.

Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behaviour and
Personality, 5, 143—156.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. A., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S.
(1997), Extending the beneﬁts of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure,
and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401—420.

Egbert, N., Mickley, J ., & Coeling, H. (2004). A review and application of social
scientiﬁc measures of religiosity and spirituality: Assessing a missing component
in health communication research, Health Communication, 16, 7—17.

Eisenberg, N. & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The Roots of Prosocial Behavior in Children.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved November 18, 2008 from
http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/paperS2.htrnl

170

 

Eyal, T., Libennan, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204—1209.

Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.
Higgins (Eds), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
behavior (pp 204—243). New York: Guilford Press.

Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Herr, P. M. (1983). Toward a process model of the
attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the
attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723—735.

Feather, N. T. (1975). Values in education and society. New York: Free Press.

F ieser, J. & Dowden, B. (2009). Ethics, Retrieved January 5, 2009, from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm

F ishbein, M. (1967). A consideration of beliefs, and their role in attitude measurement. In
M. F ishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 257—266).
New York: Wiley.

F ishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Attribution theory: Elements of Social Cognition NY:
McGraw-Hill.

Flippen, A. R., Homstein, H. A., Siegal, W.E., & Weitman, BA. (1996). A comparison
of similarity and interdependence as triggers for in-group formation. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 76, 338—402.

F riedlander, J. (2009). Abstract, concrete, general, and specific terms. Retrieved March
10, 2009 from Southwest Tennessee Community College Web site
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm

Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J ., & Moore, J. B. (2001). Some doubts about the measuring
of self-interest using dictator experiments: the costs of anonymity. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 271-290.

Froming, W. J ., Allen, L., & Underwood, B. (1983). Age and generosity reconsidered:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Child Development, 54, 585—593.

Giving USA (2007). Foundation Annual Report on Philanthropy. Retrieved October 17,
2008, from www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/3l l373_nonproﬁt_sector.pdf

Glazer, A. & Konrad, K. A. (1996). A signaling explanation for charity. The American
Economic Review, 86, 1019—1028.

171

 

 

 

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 26—34.

Gregory, G., Munch, J ., & Peterson, M. (2002). Attitude functions in consumer research:
Comparing value—attitude relations in individualist and collectivist cultures.
Journal of Business Research, 55, 933—942.

Hall, H. & Kean, S. (February 7, 2008) Bracing for hard times. Chronicle of
Philanthropy. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from
http://philanthropy.com/ free/articles/v20/ i08/08000601 .htm

Herek, GM. (1986). The instrumentality of attitudes: Toward a neofunctional theory.
Journal of Social Issues, 42, 99—114.

Herek, GM. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional
approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285—303.

Herek G.M., & Capitanio J .P. (1998). Symbolic prejudice or fear of infection? A
functional analysis of AIDS-related stigma among heterosexual adults. Basic
Applied Social Psychology, 20, 230—41.

Hoffman, C., Lau, I.J., & Johnson, DR. (1986). The linguistic relativity of person
cognition: An English-Chinese comparison. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1097-1105.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture ’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the
Scientiﬁc Study of Religion, 1 1, 369—3 76.

Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to
social identity. Washington Square: New York University Press.

 

Holmes, J. G., Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (1999). Symbolic threat in helping
situations: The exchange ﬁction. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Holmes, J. G., Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak
of self-interest: The exchange ﬁction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 144—151.

Honderich, T. (2005). The Oxford Guide to Philosophy. Oxford: University Press.

172

Hullet, C. R. & Boster, F. J. (2001). Matching messages to the values underlying value-
expressive and social-adjustive attitudes: Reconciling an old theory with a
contemporary measurement approach. Communication Monographs, 68, 133—
153.

Hume, D. (1888). A treatise of human nature, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1888; 1973 reprint), p. 577. Treatise will be cited as ‘T’
followed by the relevant page number(s).

Hunt, L. H. (1975). Generosity. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12, 235—244.

Jackson, J. W. & Smith, ER. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework

and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1, 120—135.

Johar, J .S. & Sirgy, M. J, (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals:
When and why to use that appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20, 23—33.

Kassin, S., Brehm, S. S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social Psychology. Houghton Mifflin: USA.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24, 163—204.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Vol. 1: A theory of
personality. Vol. 2: Clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy. New York: Norton. 2nd
ed. London: Routledge, 1991.

Kim, M. (2005). Cultural-based conversational constraints: Individual- and cultural- level
analyses. In W. B. Gudykunst, Theorizing About Intercultural Communication.
(pp. 107—110). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Choi, S. C.,Kagitcibasi, C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.) (1994).
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kinder, D. R. & Sears, D. O. (1985). Political opinion and action. In G. Lindzey & E.
Amonson (Eds), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp 659—742). New

York: Random House.

Kirchsteiger, G., Rigott, L., & Rustichini, A. (2006). Your morals might be your moods.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 59, 155—172. '

Kotler, P. (1980). Principles of Marketing, Vol. 3, Prentice-Hall, NJ. Pg 15.

Krebs, Daniel (1975). Empathy and altruism, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32, 1134—1 146.

173

 

Krugman, HE. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without
involvement, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349—356.

Kurtines, W. M. & Gewirtz, J. L. (Eds). (1984). Morality, moral behavior, and moral
development. New York: John Wiley.

Lambert, B. L. (1996). Face and politeness in pharmacist-physician interaction. Social
Science & Medicine, 43, 8, 1189—1198.

Law, S. (2007). The Great Philosophers: The Lives and Ideas of History ’s Greatest
Thinkers. London: Quercus Publishing.

Lavine, H. & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and functional matching effect in
persuasion: The mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 580—604.

Leonhardt, D. (2008, March 9). What makes people give? The New York Times
Magazine, 43—48.

Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-Categorization and
Bystander Non-Intervention: Two Experimental Studies. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 1452—63.

 

Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J ., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W.
(2006). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited, Human Communication
Research, 29, 291—308.

Levy, M. & Grewal, D. (2007). Publishing perspectives from the editors. Journal of
Retailing, 83, 247—52.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D.
Cartwright. New York: Harper & Row.

Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on
level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523—
5 34.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W.
Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353—383). New York: Guilford Press.

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 113—117.

174

Liviatan, 1., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Interpersonal similarity as a social
distance dimension: A construal level approach to the mental representations and
judgments of similar and dissimilar others’ actions. Unpublished manuscript, New
York University.

Loewenstein, G. & Small, DA. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes
of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychologi, 11, 112—26.

Loseke, D., (1997). The whole spirit of modern philanthropy: The construction of the
idea of charity, 1912—1992, Social Problems, 44, 425—444.

Luo, M. (2006, April 16). Evangelicals debate the meaning of evangelical. New York
Times- Week in Review, pp. 5.

Lynch, J. G. & Zauberman, G. (2006). When do you want it? Time, decisions, and public
Policy, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25, 67—78.

Macfarlane, B. & Spence, L]. (2003). Redeﬁning the scholarship of business ethics: An
editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 1—6.

Machan, T. R. (1998). Generosity: Virtue in Civil Society, Washington, DC: Cato
Institute.

Magazine Publishers Association (2008). Kelly Awards Gallery 2008. Retrieved October
20, 2008, from http://www.kellyawardsgallery.org/#/Gallery/Finalist/Greenpeace

Maio, G. R. & Olson, J. M. (1994). Value-attitude-behavior relations: The moderating
role of attitude functions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 301—3 12.

Maio, G. R. & Olson, J .M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behavioral
intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 31, 266—285.

Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224—252.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.Vol. 2, pp. 233—346). New York:
Random House.

Merkle (2006, May 1). Stupid nonproﬁt ads. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from

http://www.donorpowerblog.com/donor_power_blog/2006/05/stupid_nonproﬁ.ht
m1

175

 

 

 

Meyer, J. (2006). Elements of behavior. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from North
Carolina State University General Entomology Web site at
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Behavior/index.html

Meyer, P. (1999). An essay in the philosophy of social science. Retrieved April 14, 2006,
from http://www.hermetic.ch/compsci/pss1fn.htm#fn12

Michalski, J. (2003). Financial altruism or unilateral resource exchanges? Toward a pure
sociology of welfare. Sociological Theory, 21, 341—358.

Miller, D. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053—1060.

Miller, D.T. & Ratner, R. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power
of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 53—62.

Mills, J. & Clark, MS. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies and
research. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds), Theoretical Frameworks for Personal
Relationships (pp. 29—42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mills, J. & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp.121—144). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.

Mullis, E. C. (2008). Ritualized exchange: A consideration of Confucian reciprocity.
Asian Philosophy, 18, 35—50.

Nan, X. (2007). Social distance, framing, and judgment: A construal level perspective.
Human Communication Research, 33, 498—514.

Obler, J. (1986). Duty & the welfare state, Polity, 18, 408—430.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social
Issues, 46,1—20.

Omatowski, E. (1996). Continuity and change in the economic ethics of Buddhism:
Evidence from the History of Buddhism in India, China and Japan. Retrieved
April 1, 2006, from http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/3/omatowl.html

Paivio, A. U. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Papineau, D. (2004). Western Philosophy. London: Duncan Baird Publishers.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

176

 

Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J .T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3 7, 1915—1926.

Pitt, D. (2008). Mental representation, The Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy (Fall
2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal12008/entries/mental-representation/>.

Planstats (2008). Social justice. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from Planstats. Web site:
http://www.usq.edu.au/planstats/Docs/GlossaryTerms.doc

Pojman, L. P. (2003). Classics of Philosophy, 2"d Ed. New York: Oxford Press.

Pzaconsulting (2008). Social justice. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from Pzaconsulting.
Web site: http://www.pzaconsulting.com/jargon.html

Ratner, R. K. & Miller, D.T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social
action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 5—16.

Reitsma, J ., Scheepers, P., & Grotenhuis, MT, (2006). Dimensions of individual
religiosity and charity: cross-national effect differences in European countries?
Review of Religious Research, 4 7, 347—362.

Religious Tolerance (2008). Shared belief in the “Golden Rule”: Ethics of Reciprocity.
Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Ribar, D. C. & Wilhelm, M. O. (2002). Altruistic and joy-of-giving motivations in
charitable behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 2, 425—457.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367—3 72.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. & F azio, R. H. (1992). On the orienting value of attitudes:
Attitude accessibility as a determinant of an object’s attraction of visual attention.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 , 198—21 1.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 265—273.

177

 

 

Rushton, J. P. & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds) (1981). Altruism and helping behavior: Social,
personality, and developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Sagiv, L. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the components and meaning of
universalism values. Paper presented at the X11 International Conference of the
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Pamplona, Spain.

Schank, R.C. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale,
NJ: Earlbaum Assoc.

Schram, SF. (1995). Words of Welfare: The Poverty of Social Science and the Social
Science of Poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Schuetz, A. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. American Journal of
Sociology, 49, 499—507.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and
empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 25. New York: Academic Press: 1—65.

Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe.
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 38, 711—728.

Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of universal content and structure

of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 878—891.

Semin, G. R. (2002). Language and Social Cognition. In A. Tesser, M. Hewstone, & N.
Schwarz (Eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual
Processes, (pp. 1-18) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Shah, A. (2008). Today over 26,500 children died around the world. Retrieved January
12, 2009, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-over-26500-

children-died around-the-world

Sherif, M. & Hovland, C. (1961) Social judgment. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press.

Sherif, M. & Hovland, C. l. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects,
Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

178

 

 

Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W. (1979). Research on intergroup relations. In W.G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Shugan, S. M. (2003). Editorial: Deﬁning interesting research problems. Marketing
Science, 22, 1—15.

Simpson, 8., Irwin, K., Lawrence, P. (2006). Does a norm of self-interest discourage
prosocial behavior? Rationality and quid pro quo in charitable giving. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 69, 296—306.

 

Small, D. A. & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and
prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 532—542.

Smith, S. (2006, Spring). Persuasion. COM 860: Michigan State University.

Sober, E. (1991). The logic of the empathy—altruism hypothesis. Psychological Inquiry, 2,
144—147.

Stotland, E. & Walsh, J. A. (1963). Birth order and an experimental study of empathy.
Journal of A bnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 610—14.

Strom, S. (2008, January 23). Credit crisis is leaving charities low on cash. New York
Times. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/O1/24/us/24liquidity.ht1nl?_r=l&hp

Strunk W. & White, BB. (2005). The Elements of Style. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

 

Stryker, S. & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63, 4, 284—297.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tang, L.T., Sutarso, T., Davis, G.M.W., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A.H.S., & Wagner, S.L.
(2008). To help or not to help? The good Samaritan effect and the love of money
on helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 865—887.

Taylor, J. (2002). Hume on the standard of virtue. Journal of Ethics, 6, 43—62.
Thomson, J. (2007). Charitable donations by Americans reach record high. Retrieved
October 20, 2008, from

http://www.america.gov/st/washﬁle%20english/2007/June/200706261522251CJs
amohT0.8012354.html

179

Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance:
Construal and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 473—
482.

Tonnies, F. (1887). Community and Society. Lansing: East Michigan University Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96, 506—520.

Triandis, H. C. (1990), Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J.
Berman (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp.4l—l33), Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.

Triandis, HQ (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Triandis, H.C. & Triandis, L.M. (1962). A cross-cultural study of social distance.
Psychological Monographs: General and applied, 76, 1—42.

Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in
preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876—889.

Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403—
421.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological
distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 1 7, 83—95.

Whorf, B. L. (1957). Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt
behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25 , 41—78.

Will, A. & Cochran, J. K. (1995). God helps those who help themselves?: The effects of
religious afﬁliation, religiosity, and deservedness on generosity toward the Poor.
Sociology of Religion, 56, 327—338.

Wong, Bagozzi (2005). Emotional intensity as a function of psychological distance and
cultural orientation. Journal of Business Research 5 8, 533—542.

Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of Compassion. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University Press.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In
U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds),

Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175—188).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

180

 

Young, J ., Thomsen, C.J., Borgida, E., Sullivan, J., & Aldrich, J.H. (1991). When self-
interest makes a difference: The role of construct accessibility in political
reasoning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 271—296.

181