Charitable organizations are increasingly soliciting donors to engage in word of mouth (WOM) as a strategy to foster future contributions. While some organizations encourage donors to share WOM that focuses on their own donations (donor-focused WOM; e.g., “I just donated to the kids of @StJude. Join me in saving children's lives.”), others prompt donors to share WOM that focuses on the organization itself (charity-focused WOM; e.g., “Smile Train gives children with clefts the #PowerOfASmile.”). Contrary to the common belief that people mostly want to talk about themselves, the current research demonstrates that donor-focused WOM backfires, such that donors are less likely to share donor- than charity-focused WOM. This effect is driven by their belief that donor-focused WOM is less altruistic and is therefore less efficacious in persuading others to contribute to the same cause. In addition to sharing, the type of WOM solicited exerts far-reaching impact, with donor-focused WOM attracting fewer new donors than charity-focused WOM. The current research improves the understanding of WOM type, its effect, and the underlying processes.
AllardThomasDunnLea H.WhiteKatherine (2020), “Negative Reviews, Positive Impact: Consumer Empathetic Responding to Unfair Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (4), 86–108.
2.
AschS.E. (1946), “Forming Impressions of Personality,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41 (3), 258–90.
3.
BanduraAlbert (1982), “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122–47.
4.
BaraschAlixandraBermanJonathan Z.SmallDeborah A. (2016), “When Payment Undermines the Pitch: On the Persuasiveness of Pure Motives in Fund-Raising,” Psychological Science, 27 (10), 1388–97.
5.
BaraschAlixandraLevineEmma E.BermanJonathan Z.SmallDeborah A. (2014), “Selfish or Selfless? On the Signal Value of Emotion in Altruistic Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107 (3), 393–413.
BatsonC. DanielLaura L.Shaw (1991), “Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives,” Psychological Inquiry, 2 (2), 107–22.
8.
BemDaryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, BerkowitzLeonard, ed. Academic Press, 1–62.
9.
BergerJonah (2014), “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (4), 586–607.
10.
BermanJonathan Z.LevineEmma E.BaraschAlixandraSmallDeborah A. (2015), “The Braggart’s Dilemma: On the Social Rewards and Penalties of Advertising Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 90–104.
11.
Bliege BirdRebeccaReadyElspethPowerEleanor A. (2018), “The Social Significance of Subtle Signals,” Nature Human Behaviour, 2 (7), 452–57.
12.
CarlsonKurt A.MeloyMargaret G.RussoJ. Edward (2006), “Leader-Driven Primacy: Using Attribute Order to Affect Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 513–18.
13.
ChenYu-JenKirmaniAmna (2015), “Posting Strategically: The Consumer as an Online Media Planner,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (4), 609–21.
14.
D’AngeloJennifer K.ValsesiaFrancesca (2023), “You Should Try These Together: Combinatory Recommendations Signal Expertise and Improve Product Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 60 (1), 155–69.
15.
DavisDerick F.BagchiRajesh (2018), “How Evaluations of Multiple Percentage Price Changes are Influenced by Presentation Mode and Percentage Ordering: The Role of Anchoring and Surprise,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (5), 655–66.
16.
DavisLenitaRountreeMelissa MarkleyDavisJullet A. (2016), “Global Cause Awareness: Tracking Awareness Through Electronic Word of Mouth,” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 28 (3), 252–72.
17.
DunbarMarriottMarriottAnnaDuncanC. (1997), “Human Conversational Behavior,” Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 8 (3), 231–46.
18.
FajardoTatiana M.TownsendClaudiaBolanderWilly (2018), “Toward an Optimal Donation Solicitation: Evidence from the Field of the Differential Influence of Donor-Related and Organization-Related Information on Donation Choice and Amount,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (2), 142–52.
19.
FisherRobert J.VandenboschMarkAntiaKersi D. (2008), “An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers’ Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 519–31.
20.
GalliGiuliaChoyTsee LengOttenLeun J. (2012), “Prestimulus Brain Activity Predicts Primacy in List Learning,” Cognitive Neuroscience, 3 (3–4), 160–67.
21.
Harmon-JonesEddieArmstrongJoelOlsonJames M. (2018), “The Influence of Behavior on Attitudes,” in The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles, 2nd ed., AlbarracínDoloresJohnsonBlair T., eds. Routledge, 404–49.
22.
HartmanRachelMossAaron J.JaffeShalom N.RosenzweigCheskieLitmanLeibRobinsonJonathan (2023), “Introducing Connect by CloudResearch: Advancing Online Participant Recruitment in the Digital Age,” PsyArXiv (September 15), https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksgyr.
23.
HasfordJonathanFarmerAdamWaitesStacie F. (2015), “Thinking, Feeling, and Giving: The Effects of Scope and Valuation on Consumer Donations,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32 (4), 435–38.
24.
HauserDavid J.MossAaron J.RosenzweigCheskieJaffeShalom N.RobinsonJonathanLitmanLeib (2023), “Evaluating CloudResearch’s Approved Group as a Solution for Problematic Data Quality on MTurk,” Behavior Research Methods, 55 (8), 3953–64.
25.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press.
26.
HoorensVera (1993), “Self-Enhancement and Superiority Biases in Social Comparison,” European Review of Social Psychology, 4 (1), 113–39.
27.
JohnsonEric J.HäublGeraldKeinanAnat (2007), “Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (3), 461–74.
28.
KristoffersonKirkWhiteKatherinePelozaJohn (2014), “The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1149–66.
29.
LeeJeffrey K.KronrodAnn (2020), “The Strength of Weak-Tie Consensus Language,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (2), 353–74.
30.
LemmensKaren P.AbrahamCharlesRuiterRobert A.C.VeldhuizenIngrid J.DehingCary J.BosArjan E.SchaalmaHerman P. (2010), “Modelling Antecedents of Blood Donation Motivation Among Non-Donors of Varying Age and Education,” British Journal of Psychology, 100 (1), 71–90.
31.
LitmanLeibRobinsonJonathanAbberbockTzvi (2017), “Turkprime.com: A Versatile Crowdsourcing Data Acquisition Platform for the Behavioral Sciences,” Behavior Research Methods, 49 (2), 433–42.
32.
LundFrederick Hansen (1925), “The Psychology of Belief: IV. The Law of Primacy in Persuasion,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20 (2), 183–91.
33.
MasserBarbara M.WhiteKatherine M.HydeMelissa K.TerryDeborah J. (2008), “The Psychology of Blood Donation: Current Research and Future Directions,” Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 22 (3), 215–33.
MonnierArnaudThomasManoj (2023), “Experiential and Analytical Price Evaluations: How Experiential Product Description Affects Prices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 49 (4), 574–94.
36.
MoonAliceVanEppsEric M. (2023), “Giving Suggestions: Using Quantity Requests to Increase Donations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 50 (1), 190–210.
37.
NaamanMorBoaseJeffreyLaiChih-Hui (2010), “Is It Really About Me?” in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 189–92, https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1718918.1718953.
38.
PackardGrantGershoffAndrew D.WootenDavid B. (2016), “When Boastful Word of Mouth Helps Versus Hurts Social Perceptions and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (1), 26–43.
39.
PaleyAnnaTullyStephanie M.SharmaEesha (2018), “Too Constrained to Converse: The Effect of Financial Constraints on Word-of-Mouth,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (5), 889–905.
40.
PennerLouis A. (2002), “Dispositional and Organizational Influences on Sustained Volunteerism: An Interactionist Perspective,” Journal of Social Issues, 58 (3), 447–67.
41.
PetricanRalucaPalomboDaniela J.SheldonSignyLevineBrian (2020), “The Neural Dynamics of Individual Differences in Episodic Autobiographical Memory,” Eneuro, 7 (2), 1–18.
42.
ReedAmericusAquinoKarlLevyEric (2007), “Moral Identity and Judgments of Charitable Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 178–93.
43.
SavaryJenniferGoldsmithKelly (2020), “Unobserved Altruism: How Self-Signaling Motivations and Social Benefits Shape Willingness to Donate,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26 (3), 538–50.
44.
SilverIkeSmallDeborah A. (2024), “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: A Field Experiment Encouraging Donors to Share About Charity,” Marketing Science, 43 (2), 392–406.
45.
SimonsohnUriSimmonsJoseph P.NelsonLeif D. (2015), “Better P-Curves: Making P-Curve Analysis More Robust to Errors, Fraud, and Ambitious P-Hacking, a Reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015),” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 (6), 1146–52.
46.
SimpsonBonnieSchreierMartinBitterlSallyWhiteKatherine (2021), “Making the World a Better Place: How Crowdfunding Increases Consumer Demand for Social-Good Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (2), 363–76.
47.
SpangenbergEric R.KareklasIoannisDevezerBernaSprottDavid E. (2016), “A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Question–Behavior Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (3), 441–58.
48.
SpassovaGerriLeeAngela Y. (2013), “Looking into the Future: A Match Between Self-View and Temporal Distance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 159–71.
49.
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.
50.
TamirDiana I.MitchellJason P. (2012), “Disclosing Information About the Self Is Intrinsically Rewarding,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (21), 8038–43.
51.
WhiteKatherinePelozaJohn (2009), “Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (4), 109–24.
52.
WinterichKaren PageZhangYinlong (2014), “Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 274–93.
53.
WuLaurieGaoYixingMattilaAnna S. (2017), “The Impact of Fellow Consumers’ Presence, Appeal Type, and Action Observability on Consumers’ Donation Behaviors,” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58 (2), 203–13.
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.
