Designing Social Media Fundraising Messages: An Experimental Approach to Understanding How Message Concreteness and Framing Influence Donation Intentions

Abstract

This experiment examined the effects of fundraising message characteristics on donation intentions through a simulated social media campaign. A 2 (abstract vs. concrete message) × 2 (gain vs. loss framing) between-subjects experiment (n = 213) revealed that a message with detailed fundraising outcomes elicited a greater intention to donate through heightened perceived message credibility, perceived transparency, cognitive elaboration, and empathy. Gain and loss framing, however, did not result in significant differences in donation intentions. Theoretically, this study uncovered the psychological mechanisms through which message concreteness increases donation intentions. Practically, results of this study provided implications for drafting effective fundraising messages that can be disseminated on social media.

Keywords

fundraising social media message framing message concreteness strategic communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alesandrini

K. L.

(1983). Strategies that influence memory for advertising communications. In Harris

R. J.

(Ed.), Information processing research in advertising (pp. 65–82). Erlbaum.

Babin

L. A.

Burns

A. C.

Biswas

(1992). A framework providing direction for research on communications effects of mental imagery-evoking advertising strategies. Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1), 621–628.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Moore

D. J.

(1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy gimle prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252251

Batson

C. D.

O’Quin

Fultz

Vanderplas

Isen

A. M.

(1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.706

Batson

C. D.

Shaw

L. L.

(1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com ’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Bhati

McDonnell

(2020). Success in an online giving day: The role of social media in fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49, 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019868849

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Bult

J. R.

Van der Scheer

Wansbeek

(1997). Interaction between target and mailing characteristics in direct marketing, with an application to health care fund raising. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(4), 301–308.

10.

Burns

A. C.

Biswas

Babin

L. A.

(1993). The operation of visual imagery as a mediator of advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1993.10673405

11.

Cao

(2015). Framing charitable appeals: the effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1536

12.

Castillo

Petrie

Wardell

(2014). Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 114, 29–35.

13.

Center for Effective Philanthropy. (2013.). Nonprofit challenges: What foundations can do? http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/portfolio-items/nonprofit-challenges[accessed 1 April 2016]

14.

Chang

C. T.

Lee

Y. K.

(2009). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048710201129

15.

Chang

C. T.

Lee

Y. K.

(2010). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00555.x

16.

Chow

C. W. C.

Luk

C.-L.

(2006). Effects of comparative advertising in high– and low–cognitive elaboration conditions. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2006.10639229

17.

Chu

S. C.

Kamal

(2013). The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 26–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722140

18.

Comello

M. L. N. G.

Myrick

J. G.

Raphiou

A. L.

(2016). A health fundraising experiment using the “foot-in-the-door” technique. Health Marketing Quarterly, 33(3), 206–220.

19.

Dardis

Shen

(2008). The influence of evidence type and product involvement on message-framing effects in advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 238, 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb

20.

Das

Kerkhof

Kuiper

(2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880801922854

21.

Das

Kerr

A. H.

(2009). Improving the impact of cause-related donation exchanges through message framing: A conceptual perspective. Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v25i2.1037

22.

DiStaso

M. W.

Bortree

D. S.

(2012). Multi-method analysis of transparency in social media practices: Survey, interviews and content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 511–514.

23.

Eisenberg

Shea

C. L.

Carlo

Knight

G. P.

(2014). Empathy-related responding and cognition: A “chicken and the egg” dilemma. In Kurtines

W. M.

Gewirtz

J. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Research (Vol. 2, pp. 63–87). Psychology Press.

24.

Feshbach

N. D.

(1978). Studies of empathic behavior in children. In Maher

B. A.

(Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 8, pp. 1–47). Academic Press.

25.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342.

26.

Galaradi

(1989). What may lay ahead for DM fundraising? DM News, 11, 192–100.

27.

Goering

Connor

U. M.

Nagelhout

Steinberg

(2011). Persuasion in fundraising letters: An interdisciplinary study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 228–246.

28.

Grau

S. L.

Folse

J. A. G.

(2008). 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. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360402

29.

Griffin

Babin

B. J.

Attaway

J. S.

Darden

W. R.

(1993). Hey you, can ya spare some change? The case of empathy and personal distress as reactions to charitable appeals. In McAlister

Rothschild

M. L.

(Eds.), ACR North American Advances (pp. 508–514). Association for Consumer Research.

30.

Hibbert

Smith

Davies

Ireland

(2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20181

31.

Hoffman

M. L.

(1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In Eisenberg

(Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 281–313). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-234980-5.50016-X

32.

Hong

(2006). The influence of structural and message features on Web site credibility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20258

33.

Jeong

E. S.

Shi

Baazova

Chiu

Nahai

Moons

W. G.

Taylor

S. E.

(2011). The relation of approach/avoidance motivation and message framing to the effectiveness of charitable appeals. Social Influence, 6(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.524369

34.

Kelly

K. S.

(2012). Effective fund-raising management. Erlbaum.

35.

Kemp

Kennett-Hensel

P. A.

Kees

(2013). Pulling on the heartstrings: Examining the effects of emotions and gender in persuasive appeals. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 69–79.

36.

Kim

H. J.

(2011). The effects of gender and gain versus loss frame on processing breast cancer screening messages. Communication Research, 39(3), 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211427557

37.

Kim

H. J.

Cameron

G. T.

(2011). Emotions matter in crisis: The role of anger and sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Communication Research, 38(6), 826–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210385813

38.

Kisielius

Sternthal

(1984). Detecting and explaining vividness effects in attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 54–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151792

39.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

(2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205

40.

(2015). Relationship maintenance on Twitter: implications from loyalty leaders. Journal of Communication Management, 19, 184–202.

41.

MacInnis

D. J.

Price

L. L.

(1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1086/209082

42.

MacLaughlin

(2018). Charitable giving report: How nonprofit fundraising performed in 2017. Blackbaud. http://institute.blackbaud.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/BlackbaudInstitute_2017CGR.pdf

43.

Mason

D. P.

(2013). Putting charity to the test: A case for field experiments on giving time and money in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 193–202.

44.

McDonald

N. M.

Messinger

D. S.

(2011). The development of empathy: How, when, and why. In Sanguineti

J. J.

Acerbi

Lombo

J. A.

(Eds.), Moral behavior and free will: A neurobiological and philosophical approach (pp. 341–368). If press.

45.

McGill

A. L.

Anand

(1989). The effect of vivid attributes on the evaluation of alternatives: The role of differential attention and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/209207

46.

McGregor

L. M.

Ferguson

O’Carroll

R. E.

(2012). Living organ donation: The effect of message frame on an altruistic behaviour. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(6), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311423862

47.

Miller

C. H.

Lane

L. T.

Deatrick

L. M.

Young

A. M.

Potts

K. A.

(2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x

48.

Nan

(2007). The relative persuasive effect of gain- versus loss-framed messages: Exploring the moderating role of the desirability of end-states. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400307

49.

Nonprofit Tech for Good. (2016). 2016 Global NGO Online Technology Report. Retrieved from https://www.nptechforgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-Global-NGO-Online-Technology-Report.pdf

50.

Null

(2011). Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5-6), 455–465.

51.

O’Keefe

D. J.

Jensen

J. D.

(2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15567419cy3001_1

52.

O’Keefe

D. J.

Jensen

J. D.

(2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies, 59(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051097070184938

53.

Olver

M. A.

(1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in recognition and free recall [Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario].

54.

Panic

Hudders

Cauberghe

(2016). Fundraising in an interactive online environment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(2), 333–350.

55.

Paivio

(1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76(3), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027272

56.

Perloff

(2010). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (4th ed.). Routledge.

57.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T. J. T. J

. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

58.

Petty

R. E.

Haugtvedt

C. P.

(1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In Petty

R. E.

Krosnick

J. A.

(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93–130). Erlbaum.

59.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In Hayes

A. F.

Slater

M. D.

Snyder

L.B.

(Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Sage Publications.

60.

Rawlins

(2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1–21.

61.

Rawlins

(2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99.

62.

Robertson

K. R.

(1987). Recall and recognition effects of brand name imagery. Psychology & Marketing, 4(1), 3–15.

63.

Rosenthal

(1971). Specificity, verifiability, and message credibility. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5(4), 393–401.

64.

Rozin

Royzman

E. B.

(2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2

65.

Sargeant

(2009). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1362/2F026725799784870351

66.

Sargeant

Lee

(2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the UK charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185–202.

67.

Saxton

G. D.

Wang

(2014). The social network effect: The determinants of giving through social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 850–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013485159

68.

Saxton

G. D.

Waters

R. D.

(2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721

69.

Smith

S. M.

Petty

R. E.

(1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223004

70.

Sundstrom

Levenshus

A. B.

(2017). The art of engagement: Dialogic strategies on Twitter. Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 17–33.

71.

Svensson

P. G.

Mahoney

T. Q.

Hambrick

M. E.

(2015). Twitter as a communication tool for nonprofits: A study of sport-for-development organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1086–1106.

72.

Taylor

S. E.

(1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85.

73.

Teng

Khong

K. W.

Goh

W. W.

Chong

A. Y. L.

(2014). Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review, 38(6), 746–768. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2014-0089

74.

Todd

S. J.

Lawson

R. W.

(1999). Towards a better understanding of the financial donor: An examination of donor behaviour in terms of value structure and demographics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(3), 235–244.

75.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574

76.

van der Veur

B. W

. (1975). Imagery Rating of 1,000 Frequently Used Words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078670

77.

Verhaert

G. A.

Van den Poel

(2011). Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1288–1295.

78.

Waters

R. D.

Jamal

J. Y.

(2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002

79.

White

MacDonnell

Dahl

D. W.

(2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485.