The question of how to improve the effectiveness of charitable solicitation has long been a subject of investigation for charity organizations. Through six studies, including four incentive-compatible studies and a field study, the present research demonstrates an easy, actionable, and widely applicable semantic-framing strategy that can be utilized to promote charitable giving. Semantically framing charitable giving as a gift (rather than a donation) increases not only donors’ intention to contribute but also their actual contribution amount (Studies 1–3). Both mediation (Study 4) and moderation (Study 5) approaches provide convergent evidence that the effect of framing charitable giving as a gift rather than a donation on contribution is driven by donors’ perceived social distance from beneficiaries. The authors further find that this framing effect is weakened when soliciting contributions from donors who see social distance as desirable (e.g., those with a high need for status; Study 6). The current work contributes to the literature streams on charitable giving, social exchange, and semantic framing and provides strong managerial implications for charity organizations.
BekkersRenéWiepkingPamala (2011), “A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (5), 924–73.
3.
BelkRussell W. (1976), “It’s the Thought That Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (3), 155–62.
4.
BelkRussell W. (1982), “Effects of Gift-Giving Involvement on Gift Selection Strategies,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, Andrew Mitchell, ed. Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research, 408–12.
5.
BelkRussell W.CoonGregory S. (1993), “Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 393–417.
6.
BelmiPeterPfefferJeffrey (2015), “How ‘Organization’ Can Weaken the Norm of Reciprocity: The Effects of Attributions for Favors and a Calculative Mindset,” Academy of Management Discoveries, 1 (1), 36–57.
7.
CamererColin (1988), “Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols,” American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S180–214.
8.
CaplowTheodore (1982), “Christmas Gifts and Kin Networks,” American Sociological Review, 47 (3), 383–92.
9.
CasasantoDaniel (2008), “Similarity and Proximity: When Does Close in Space Mean Close in Mind,” Memory & Cognition, 36 (6), 1047–56.
10.
ChangChun-TuanLeeYu-Kang (2010), “Effects of Message Framing, Vividness Congruency and Statistical Framing on Responses to Charity Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (2), 195–220.
ChealDavid (1987), “‘Showing Them You Love Them’: Gift Giving and the Dialectic of Intimacy,” Sociological Review, 35 (1), 150–69.
13.
CheemaAmarPatrickVanessa M. (2008), “Anytime Versus Only: Mind-Sets Moderate the Effect of Expansive Versus Restrictive Frames on Promotion Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (4), 462–72.
14.
ChienYu-HungChangWen-Te (2015), “Effects of Message Framing and Exemplars on Promoting Organ Donation,” Psychological Reports, 117 (3), 692–702.
15.
DuboisDavidRuckerDerek D.GalinskyAdam D. (2012), “Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of Status,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1047–62.
16.
DuclosRodBaraschAlixandra (2014), “Prosocial Behavior in Intergroup Relations: How Donor Self-Construal and Recipient Group-Membership Shape Generosity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 93–108.
17.
Ein-GarDanitLevontinLiat (2013), “Giving from a Distance: Putting the Charitable Organization at the Center of the Donation Appeal,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (2), 197–211.
18.
FaulFranzErdfelderEdgarBuchnerAxelLangAlbert-Georg (2009), “Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses,” Behavior Research Methods, 41 (4), 1149–60.
19.
FennisBob M.JanssenLoesVohsKathleen D. (2009), “Acts of Benevolence: A Limited-Resource Account of Compliance with Charitable Requests,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), 906–24.
20.
FiedlerKlausJungJanisWänkeMichaelaAlexopoulosTheodore (2012), “On the Relations Between Distinct Aspects of Psychological Distance: An Ecological Basis of Construal-Level Theory,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (5), 1014–21.
21.
FischerEileenArnoldStephen J. (1990), “More Than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Gift Shopping,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 333–45.
FitzsimonsGráinne M.KayAaron C. (2004), “Language and Interpersonal Cognition: Causal Effects of Variations in Pronoun Usage on Perceptions of Closeness,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (5), 547–57.
24.
FlippenAnnette R.HornsteinHarvey A.SiegalWilliam E.WeitzmanEben A. (1996), “A Comparison of Similarity and Interdependence as Triggers for In-Group Formation,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (9), 882–93.
25.
FlynnFrancis J.ReagansRay E.AmanatullahEmily T.AmesDaniel R. (2006), “Helping One’s Way to the Top: Self-Monitors Achieve Status by Helping Others and Knowing Who Helps Whom,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (6), 1123–37.
26.
GalakJeffSmallDeborahStephenAndrew T. (2011), “Microfinance Decision Making: A Field Study of Prosocial Lending,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (Special Issue), S130–37.
27.
GerrandNicole (1994), “The Notion of Gift-Giving and Organ Donation,” Bioethics, 8 (2), 127–50.
28.
GershonRachelCryderCynthia (2018), “Goods Donations Increase Charitable Credit for Low-Warmth Donors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (2), 451–69.
GlazerAmihaiKonradKai A. (1996), “A Signaling Explanation for Charity,” American Economic Review, 86 (4), 1019–28.
31.
GoffmanErving (1971), Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic.
32.
GouldnerAlvin W. (1960), “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,” American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 176–77.
33.
GrauStacy LandrethFolseJudith Anne Garretson (2007), “Cause-Related Marketing (CRM): The Influence of Donation Proximity and Message-Framing Cues on the Less-Involved Consumer,” Journal of Advertising, 36 (4), 19–33.
34.
HanYoung JeeNunesJoseph C.DrèzeXavier (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (4), 15–30.
35.
HayesAndrew F.PreacherKristopher J. (2014), “Statistical Mediation Analysis with a Multicategorical Independent Variable,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67 (3), 451–71.
36.
HoggMichael A.ReidScott A. (2001), “Social Identity, Leadership, and Power,” in The Use and Abuse of Power: Multiple Perspectives on the Causes of Corruption, Lee-ChaiAnnette Y.BarghJohn A., eds. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 159–80.
37.
HungIris W.WyerRobert S.Jr. (2009), “Differences in Perspective and the Influence of Charitable Appeals: When Imagining Oneself as the Victim Is Not Beneficial,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (3), 421–34.
38.
JohnsonPalmer OliverNeymanJerzy (1936), “Tests of Certain Linear Hypotheses and Their Application to Some Educational Problems,” Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
39.
JoyAnnamma (2001), “Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum of Social Ties,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2), 239–56.
40.
KimKyeongheuiZhangMengLiXiuping (2008), “Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 706–13.
41.
KogutTehilaRitovIlana (2005), “The ‘Identified Victim’ Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18 (3), 157–67.
42.
KomiyaAsukaOhtsuboYohsukeNakanishiDaisukeOishiShigehiro (2019), “Gift-Giving in Romantic Couples Serves as a Commitment Signal: Relational Mobility Is Associated with More Frequent Gift-Giving,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 40 (2), 160–66.
43.
KooMinjungFishbachAyelet (2016), “‘Giving the Self’: Increasing Commitment and Generosity Through Giving Something That Represents One’s Essence,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7 (4), 339–48.
44.
LarsenDerekWatsonJohn J. (2001), “A Guide Map to the Terrain of Gift Value,” Psychology and Marketing, 18 (8), 889–906.
45.
LeBoeufRobyn A. (2006), “Discount Rates for Time Versus Dates: The Sensitivity of Discounting to Time-Interval Description,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (1), 59–72.
46.
LeeFionaTiedensLarissa Z. (2001), “Who’s Being Served? ‘Self-Serving’ Attributions in Social Hierarchies,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84 (2), 254–87.
47.
LibermanNiraTropeYaacovStephanElena (2007), “Psychological Distance,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, KruglanskiArie W.HigginsE. Tory, eds. New York: Guilford, 353–81.
48.
MacdonnellRhiannonWhiteKatherine (2015), “How Construals of Money Versus Time Impact Consumer Charitable Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 551–63.
49.
MageeJoe C.GalinskyAdam D. (2008), “Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status,” Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 351–98.
50.
MayerNicole D.TormalaZakary L. (2010), “‘Think’ Versus ‘Feel’ Framing Effects in Persuasion,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (4), 443–54.
51.
MeadNicole L.PatrickVanessa M. (2016), “The Taming of Desire: Unspecific Postponement Reduces Desire for and Consumption of Postponed Temptations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110 (1), 20–35.
NeelRebeccaKenrickDouglas T.WhiteAndrew EdwardNeubergSteven L. (2016), “Individual Differences in Fundamental Social Motives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110 (6), 887–907.
54.
PaolacciGabrieleStraeterLaura M.de HoogeIlona E. (2015), “Give Me Your Self: Gifts Are Liked More When They Match the Giver’s Characteristics,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (3), 487–94.
55.
PatrickVanessa M.HagtvedtHenrik (2012a), “How to Say ‘No’: Conviction and Identity Attributions in Persuasive Refusal,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 390–94.
56.
PatrickVanessa M.HagtvedtHenrik (2012b), “‘I Don’t’ Versus ‘I Can’t’: When Empowered Refusal Motivates Goal-Directed Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 371–81.
57.
PillaiRajani GaneshKrishnakumarSukumarakurup (2019), “Elucidating the Emotional and Relational Aspects of Gift Giving,” Journal of Business Research, 101 (August), 194–202.
58.
RidgewayCecilia L.CorrellShelley J. (2006), “Consensus and the Creation of Status Beliefs,” Social Forces, 85 (1), 431–53.
59.
RuddMelanieAakerJenniferNortonMichael I. (2014), “Getting the Most out of Giving: Concretely Framing a Prosocial Goal Maximizes Happiness,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54 (September), 11–24.
60.
RuthJulie A.OtnesCele C.BrunelFrédéric F. (1999), “Gift Receipt and the Reformulation of Interpersonal Relationship,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (4), 385–402.
61.
SapirEdward (1921), An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
62.
SelaAnerChristian WheelerS.Sarial-AbiGülen (2012), “We Are Not the Same as You and I: Causal Effects of Minor Language Variations on Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Brands,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 644–61.
63.
ShenHaoWanFangWyerRobert S.Jr. (2011), “Cross-Cultural Differences in the Refusal to Accept a Small Gift: The Differential Influence of Reciprocity Norms on Asians and North Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (2), 271–81.
64.
SherryJohn F.,Jr. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropomorpological Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 157–68.
65.
SimmonsRachel A.GordonPeter C.ChamblessDianne L. (2005), “Pronouns in Marital Interaction: What Do ‘You’ and ‘I’ Say About Marital Health?” Psychological Science, 16 (12), 932–36.
66.
SimpsonBonnieWhiteKatherineLaranJuliano (2018), “When Public Recognition for Charitable Giving Backfires: The Role of Independent Self-Construal,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1257–73.
67.
SmallDeborah A. (2011), “Reducing Social Distance to Boost Charitable Contributions,” in The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity, OppenheimerDaniel M.OlivolaChristopher Y., eds. New York: Psychology Press, 149–60.
68.
SmallDeborah A.SimonsohnUri (2008), “Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 532–42.
69.
SmallDeborah A.VerrochiNichole M. (2009), “The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 777–87.
70.
SmithPamela K.TropeYaacov (2006), “You Focus on the Forest When You're in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming and Abstract Information Processing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (4), 578–96.
71.
SpencerSteven J.ZannaMark P.FongGeoffrey T. (2005), “Establishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are Often More Effective Than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 845–51.
72.
Touré-TilleryMaferimaFishbachAyelet (2017), “Too Far to Help: The Effect of Perceived Distance on the Expected Impact and Likelihood of Charitable Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112 (6), 860–76.
73.
TownsendClaudia (2017), “The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements with and Without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 794–815.
74.
TropeYaacovLibermanNira (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63.
75.
WakslakCheryl J. (2012), “The Where and When of Likely and Unlikely Events,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117 (1), 150–57.
76.
WardMorgan K.BroniarczykSusan M. (2011), “It’s Not Me, It’s You: How Gift Giving Creates Giver Identity Threat as a Function of Social Closeness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1), 164–81.
77.
WardMorgan K.BroniarczykSusan M. (2016), “Ask and You Shall (Not) Receive: Close Friends Prioritize Relational Signaling over Recipient Preferences in Their Gift Choices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (6), 1001–18.
78.
WebleyPaulWilsonRichenda (1989), “Social Relationships and the Unacceptability of Money as a Gift,” Journal of Social Psychology, 129 (1), 85–91.
79.
WhorfBenjamin L. (1956), “Language and Logic,” in Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, CarrollJohn B., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 233–45.
80.
WilliamsLawrence E.BargnJohn A. (2008), “Keeping One’s Distance: The Influence of Spatial Distance Cues on Affect and Evaluation,” Psychological Science, 19 (3), 302–08.
81.
WinterichKaren PageMittalVikasRossWilliam T.Jr. (2009), “Donation Behavior Toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (2), 199–214.
82.
XuLidanMehtaRaviDahlDarren W. (2021), “Leveraging Creativity in Charity Marketing: The Impact of Engaging in Creative Activities on Subsequent Donation Behavior,” Journal of Marketing(published online October 16), https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211037587
83.
YanDengfeng (2014), “Future Events Are Far Away: Exploring the Distance-on-Distance Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106 (4), 514–25.
84.
YouYanfenYangXiaojingWangLiliDengXiaoyan (2020), “When and Why Saying ‘Thank You’ Is Better Than Saying ‘Sorry’ in Redressing Service Failures: The Role of Self-Esteem,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (2), 133–50.
85.
ZhangKuangjieCaiFengyanShiZhengyu (2021), “Do Promotions Make Consumers More Generous? The Impact of Price Promotions on Consumers’ Donation Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (3), 240–55.
86.
ZhangMengWangJing (2009), “Psychological Distance Asymmetry: The Spatial Dimension vs. Other Dimension,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 497–507.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
