Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Self-regulatory focus affects responses to persuasive messages, and personal values influence charity donation decisions. We examined joint effects by measuring participants’ (a) promotion focus on aspirations/gains versus prevention focus on obligations/losses and (b) prioritization of the refined universalism-concern value. Participants read a promotion- or prevention-framed appeal to act on poverty, emphasizing universalism-concern by highlighting poverty related inequality. They evaluated the appeal, stated whether they wanted to receive campaign materials, and could donate part of their remuneration to charities targeting poverty alleviation or other causes. Participants not reporting recent financial hardship and prioritizing universalism-concern evaluated the promotion-framed appeal more favorably the stronger their promotion focus was, but this fit effect did not emerge when including participants who would personally benefit from the campaign’s success. Moreover, only universalism-concern value prioritization predicted interest in campaign materials and donations. Overall, when advocating for poverty alleviation, emphasizing universalism-concern values seems advisable.

Keywords

personal values regulatory fit universalism-concern donations poverty alleviation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaker

J. L.

Lee

A. Y.

(2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.15

Abdallah

(2022). The relative importance of self-focused and society-focused values in explaining political attitudes in Europe. Political Psychology, 44(3), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12856

ACNC. (2023). Australian charities report–9th edition. https://www.acnc.gov.au/tools/reports/australian-charities-report-9th-edition

Aiken

West

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Anderson

John

O. P.

Keltner

(2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x

Andreoni

Payne

A. A.

(2011). Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of charities. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.011

Arieli

Sagiv

Roccas

(2020). Values at work: The impact of personal values in organizations. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 230–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12181

Baek

T. H.

Reid

L. N.

(2013). The interplay of mood and regulatory focus in influencing altruistic behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20636

Banaji

M. R.

Heiphetz

(2010). Attitudes. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 353–393). John Wiley.

10.

Bekkers

Ottoni-Wilhelm

Verkaik

D. J.

(2015). Altruism, warm glow, and charitable giving: Three experiments. https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/15_09_30_spi_bekkers_verkaik_ottoni-wilhelm.pdf

11.

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927

12.

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving Part One: Religion, education, age and socialization. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712

13.

Bertolotti

Catellani

(2014). Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2033

14.

Botner

K. A.

Mishra

(2015). What’s in a message? The longitudinal influence of a supportive versus combative orientation on the performance of nonprofits. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0211

15.

Cao

(2016). 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

16.

Caprara

G. V.

Vecchione

Schwartz

S. H.

Schoen

Bain

P. G.

Silvester

Cieciuch

Pavlopoulos

Bianchi

Kirmanoglu

Baslevent

Mamali

Manzi

Katayama

Posnova

Tabernero

Torres

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

. . .Caprara

M. G.

(2017). Basic values, ideological self-placement, and voting: A cross-cultural study. Cross-Cultural Research, 51(4), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117712194

17.

Carlsson

Martinsson

(2013). Easy come, easy go: The role of windfall money in lab and field experiments. Experimental Economics, 16, 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9326-8

18.

Cesario

Corker

K. S.

Jelinek

(2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.014

19.

Cesario

Higgins

E. T.

Scholer

(2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x

20.

Chang

C.-T.

Lee

Y.-K.

(2011). The “I” of the beholder: How gender differences and self-referencing influence charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 447–478. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-3-447-478

21.

Charity Commission. (2023). Charities in England and Wales. https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/sector-data/sector-overview

22.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Coleman

J. T.

Royne

M. G.

Pounders

K. R.

(2020). Pride, guilt, and self-regulation in cause-related marketing advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 49(1), 34–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1689871

24.

Cornelis

Cauberghe

De Pelesmacker

(2014). Regulatory congruence effects in two-sided advertising: The mediating role of processing fluency and processing depth. European Journal of Marketing, 48(7/8), 1451–1465. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2012-0094

25.

Dickert

Sagara

Slovic

(2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.697

26.

Einolf

C. J.

(2017). Cross-national differences in charitable giving in the West and the world. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 472–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9758-4

27.

Fajardo

T. M.

Townsend

Bolander

(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), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0511

28.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

29.

Fransen

M. L.

Fennis

B. M.

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Vohs

K. S.

(2011). When fit fosters favoring: The role of private self-focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.004

30.

Giving USA Foundation. (2023). Giving USA 2023: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2022. https://givingusa.org/

31.

Gneezy

Keenan

E. A.

Gneezy

(2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346(6209), 632–635. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253932

32.

Goenka

van Osselaer

S. M. J.

Can

(2019). Increase the effectiveness of donation appeals by using a morally congruent positive emotion. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 774–790. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz012

33.

Helmig

Jegers

Lapsley

(2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VOLU.0000033176.34018.75

34.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

35.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

36.

Higgins

E. T.

(2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217

37.

Higgins

E. T.

(2005). Value from fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00366.x

38.

Higgins

E. T.

(2008). Culture and personality: Variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 608–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00075.x

39.

Higgins

E. T.

Friedman

R. S.

Harlow

R. E.

Idson

L. C.

Ayduk

O. N.

Taylor

(2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27

40.

Joyal-Desmarais

Scharmer

A. K.

Madzelan

M. K.

See

J. V.

Rothman

A. J.

Snyder

(2022). Appealing to motivation to change attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 702 experimental tests of the effects of motivational message matching on persuasion. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7-8), 465–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000377

41.

Judd

C. M.

McClelland

G. H.

Ryan

C. S.

(2011). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. Routledge.

42.

Klandermans

Van Stekelenburg

Damen

M.-L.

(2015). Beneficiary and conscience constituencies: On interest and solidarity. In Giugni

Grasso

(Eds.), Austerity and protest: Popular contention in times of economic crisis (pp. 155–169). Routledge.

43.

Konrath

Handy

(2018). The development and validation of the motives to donate scale. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 347–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017744894

44.

Kumar

Chakrabarti

(2023). Charity donor behavior: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 35(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1905134

45.

Lake

Sneddon

Bardi

Lee

J. A.

(2024). How far into the future can values predict behavior? It depends on value importance. Social Psychology and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241233

46.

Lakens

(2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267

47.

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

48.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

Gardner

W. K.

(2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1122

49.

Lee

A. Y.

Higgins

E. T.

(2009). The persuasive power of regulatory fit. In Wänke

(Ed.), The social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 319–333). Psychology Press.

50.

Lee

J. A.

Bardi

Gerrans

Sneddon

Van Herk

Evers

Schwartz

S. H.

(2022). Are value-behavior relations stronger than previously thought? It depends on value importance. European Journal of Personality, 36(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211002965

51.

Lee

J. A.

Evers

Sneddon

Rahn

Schwartz

(2019a). What do we value? How our values influence everyday behaviours. https://whatdowevalue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Values-Report-Final-2019-SM.pdf

52.

Lee

J. A.

Sneddon

J. N.

Daly

T. M.

Schwartz

S. H.

Soutar

G. N.

Louviere

J. J.

(2019b). Testing and extending Schwartz Refined Value Theory using a best–worst scaling approach. Assessment, 26(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116683799

53.

Leikas

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

Verkasalo

Lindeman

(2009). Regulatory focus systems and personal values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.547

54.

Levis

Miller

Williams

(2018). 2018 fundraising effectiveness survey report. http://afpfep.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-Fundraising-Effectiveness-SurveyReport.pdf

55.

Liang

Liu

(2019). Does windfall money encourage charitable giving? An experimental study. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30, 841–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9985-y

56.

Lockwood

Jordan

C. H.

Kunda

(2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854

57.

Lönnqvist

J. E.

Verkasalo

Wichardt

P. C.

Walkowitz

(2013). Personal values and prosocial behaviour in strategic interactions: Distinguishing value-expressive from value-ambivalent behaviours. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1976

58.

Louviere

J. J.

Flynn

T. N.

Marley

A. A. J.

(2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

59.

Ludolph

Schulz

P. J.

(2015). Does regulatory fit lead to more effective health communications? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.021

60.

Maio

G. R.

(2010). Mental representation of social values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42001-8

61.

Maio

G. R.

Olson

J. M.

(1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(3), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1013

62.

Maio

G. R.

Olson

J. M.

Allen

Bernard

M. M.

(2001). Addressing discrepancies between values and behavior: the motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1436

63.

McCarthy

J. D.

Zald

M. N.

(1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464

64.

Motyka

Grewal

Puccinelli

N. M.

Rogeveen

A. L.

Avnet

Daryanto

de Ruyter

Wetzels

(2014). Regulatory fit: A meta-analytical synthesis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.014

65.

Mukherjee

Srinivasan

Manjaly

J. A.

(2014). Global processing fosters donations towards an approach orientation. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-014-0602-8

66.

Naletelich

Ketron

Spears

Gelves

J. A.

(2022). Using representational and abstract imagery to create regulatory fit effects. Psychology and Marketing, 40, 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21736

67.

Newman

G. E.

Shniderman

Cain

D. M.

Sevel

(2019). Do the ends justify the means? The relative focus on overhead versus outcome in charitable fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018794903

68.

O’Keefe

(2013). The relative persuasiveness of different forms of arguments-from-consequences: A review and integration. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679128

69.

Ratner

P. K.

Zhao

Clarke

J. A.

(2011). The norm of self-interest: Implications for charitable giving. In Oppenheimer

D. M.

Olivola

C. Y.

(Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 113–131). Psychology Press.

70.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.

71.

Sagiv

Roccas

(2021). How do values affect behavior? Let me count the ways. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211015975

72.

Sagiv

Roccas

Cieciuch

Schwartz

S. H.

(2017). Personal values in human life. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(9), 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0185-3

73.

Sagiv

Schwartz

S. H.

(1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.437

74.

Sagiv

Schwartz

S. H.

(2020). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 517–546. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100

75.

Sassenberg

Ellemers

Scheepers

(2012). The attraction of social power: The influence of construing power as opportunity versus responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.008

76.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6

77.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). American Psychological Association.

78.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bardi

(2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002

79.

Schwartz

S. H.

Butenko

(2014). Values and behavior: Validating the refined value theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2053

80.

Schwartz

S. H.

Cieciuch

(2022). Measuring the refined theory of individual values in 49 cultural groups: Psychometrics of the revised portrait value questionnaire. Assessment, 29(5), 1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121998760

81.

Schwartz

S. H.

Cieciuch

Vecchione

Davidov

Fischer

Beierlein

Ramos

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

Demirutku

Dirilen-Gumus

Kontoy

(2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393

82.

Sekścińska

Trzcińska

Maison

(2023). Charity campaigns with promotion-framed goals are more effective than those with prevention-framed goals. PLOS ONE, 18(8), Article e0286028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286028

83.

Semin

G. R.

Higgins

de Montes

L. G.

Estourget

Valencia

J. F.

(2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.36

84.

Shah

Higgins

Friedman

R. S.

(1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.285

85.

Shaw

A. Z.

Dolan

E. A.

Yurgalite

Walton

J. A.

Underwood

(2017). Using regulatory fit theory to examine how the communication context of compliance-gaining interactions influences compliance. Social Influence, 12(2-3), 80–89. https://doi.org/10/1080/15534510.2017.1365759

86.

Sneddon

J. N.

Evers

Lee

J. A.

(2020). Personal values and choice of charitable cause: An exploration of donors’ giving behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020908339

87.

Spiegel

Grant-Pillow

Higgins

E. T.

(2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.180

88.

Todd

S. J.

Lawson

R. W.

(1999). Towards a better understanding of the financial donor: An examination of donor behavior in terms of value structure and demographics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.76

89.

Vecchione

(2023). The five factors of personality and personal values: An update with the refined theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 203, 112033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112033

90.

Vecchione

Schwartz

S. H.

Caprara

G. V.

Schoen

Cieciuch

Silvester

Bain

Bianchi

Kirmanoglu

Baslevent

Mamali

Manzi

Pavlopoulos

Posnova

Torres

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

J. E.

Vondráková

Welzel

Alessandri

(2015). Personal values and political activism: A cross-national study. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12067

91.

Verplanken

Holland

R. W.

(2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434

92.

Wiepking

Bekkers

R. H. F. P

. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, marital status, income, and wealth. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X649379

93.

Wolf

L. J.

Haddock

Manstead

A. S.

Maio

G. R.

(2020). The importance of (shared) human values for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12401

94.

Woltin

K.-A.

Bardi

(2018). Fitting motivational content and process: A systematic investigation of fit between value framing and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 86(6), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12369

95.

Woltin

K.-A.

Sneddon

Bardi

(2022). Effects of nature values and regulatory fit of message framing on message evaluation and actual pro-environmental donations. Environment and Behavior, 54(3), 597–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165211060516

96.

Wymer

Gross

(2021). Charity advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28, Article e1723. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1723

97.

(2019). The impact of self-construal and message frame valence on reactance: A cross-cultural study in charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1536506

98.

Huang

(2020). The relative effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages in charity advertising: Meta-analytic evidence and implications. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 25(4), Article e1675. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1675

99.

Yousef

Dietrich

Rundle-Thiele

Alhabash

(2022). Emotional appeals effectiveness in enhancing charity digital advertisements. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 27(4), Article e1763. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1763

100.

Zemack-Rugar

Klucarova-Travani

S. K.

(2018). Should donation ads include happy victim images? The moderating role of regulatory focus. Marketing Letters, 29, 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9471-8

Examining Personal Values and Regulatory Fit in Poverty Alleviation Appeals: Impact on Appeal Evaluations,Campaign Interest,and Donations

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References