Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Intervention Intentions and Donation Decisions for Nonprofit Organizations Combating Violence Against Women: The Role of Holistic versus Analytic Thinking Style
This research explored the role of holistic-analytic thinking style in predicting the willingness to intervene in cases of intimate partner violence against women and donation decisions to nonprofit organizations combating this issue. Specifically, holistic individuals (as measured individual difference or manipulated state) were more willing to intervene and donate. These effects were mediated by participants’ beliefs about intervention and donation contributions. Across three empirical studies, we used samples from different populations and different methodological approaches to increase the generalizability of our findings. Our research offers insights for nonprofit organizations combating this problem about how to increase fundraising effectively.
AlfredssonH.AskK.von BorgstedeC. (2014). Motivational and cognitive predictors of the propensity to intervene against intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(10), 1877–1893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511696
2.
ApanovichV. V.BezdenezhnykhB. N.SamsM.JääskeläinenI. P.AlexandrovY. (2018). Event-related potentials during individual, cooperative, and competitive task performance differ in subjects with analytic vs. holistic thinking. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 123, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.10.001
3.
BurkeE.WatsonK.EvaG.GoldJ.Garcia-MorenoC.AminA. (2024). Is addressing violence against women mobilization in health policies? Findings from a WHO policies database. PLOS Global Public Health, 4(2),Article e0002504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002504
ChoiI.KooM.ChoiJ. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568
6.
ChuaK.-W.RichlerJ. J.GauthierI. (2014). Becoming a Lunari or Taiyo expert: Learned attention to parts drives holistic processing of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 1174–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035895
7.
CinquegranaV.BaldryA. C.PagliaroS. (2018). Intimate partner violence and bystanders’ helping behaviour: An experimental study. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-08-2016-0243
8.
CoppJ. E.GiordanoP. C.LongmoreM. A.ManningW. D. (2016). The development of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: An examination of key correlates among a sample of young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 1357–1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516651311
9.
DaleE. J.AckermanJ.MeschD. J.OsiliU. O.GarciaS. (2018). Giving to women and girls: An emerging area of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640177446
10.
DevriesK. M.MakJ. Y.García-MorenoC.PetzoldM.ChildJ. C.FalderG.LimS.BacchusL. J.EngellR. E.RosenfeldL.PallittoC.VosT.AbrahamsN.WattsC. H. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340, 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937
11.
DuttonM. A.JamesL.LanghorneA.KelleyM. (2015). Coordinated public health initiatives to address violence against women and adolescents. Journal of Women's Health, 24(1), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4884
12.
Eggers del CampoI.SteinertJ. I. (2022). The effect of female economic empowerment interventions on the risk of intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 810–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020976088
13.
EllsbergM. (2006). Violence against women and the Millennium Development Goals: Facilitating women’s access to support. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 94(3), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.04.021
14.
EllsbergM.ArangoD. J.MortonM.GennariF.KiplesundS.ContrerasM.WattsC. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say?The Lancet, 385(9977), 1555–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7
15.
FarleyS. D.StassonM. F. (2003). Relative influences of affect and cognition on behavior: Are feelings more related to blood donation intentions?Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1027//1618-3169.50.1.55
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
17.
García-MorenoC.ZimmermanC.Morris-GehringA.HeiseL.AminA.AbrahamsN.MontoyaO.Bhate-DeosthaliP.KilonzoN.WattsC. (2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. The Lancet, 385(9978), 1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61830-4
18.
GraciaE.GarcíaF.LilaM. (2009). Public responses to intimate partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 648–656. https://doi.org/10.1017/S113874160000
19.
GraciaE.Martín-FernándezM.MarcoM.SantirsoF. A.VargasV.LilaM. (2018). The willingness to intervene in cases of intimate partner violence against women (WI-IPVAW) scale: Development and validation of the long and short versions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,Article 1146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01146
20.
GraciaE.TomásJ. M. (2014). Correlates of victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner violence against women among the Spanish general population. Violence Against Women, 20, 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780121352057
21.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to meditation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
22.
HerreroJ.RodríguezF. J.TorresA. (2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870
23.
ItoK.LiL. M. W. (2019). Holism and pro-environmental commitment: An examination on the mediating roles of affective and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.055
24.
JenningsW. G.PowersR. A.PerezN. M. (2021). A review of the effects of the Violence Against Women Act on law enforcement. Violence Against Women, 27(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220949694
25.
JiL. J.GuoT.ZhangZ.MesserveyD. (2009). Looking into the past: Cultural differences in perception and representation of past information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014498
KitayamaS.ParkH.SevincerA. T.KarasawaM.UskulA. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 236–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015999
28.
LackoD.ČeněkJ.ArıkanA.DreslerT.GalangA. J.StachoňZ.ŠašinkováA.TsaiJ.-L.ProšekT.UgwitzP.ŠašinkaČ (2024). Investigating the geography of thought across 11 countries: Cross-cultural differences in analytic and holistic cognitive styles using simple perceptual tasks and reaction time modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(2), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001685
29.
LelaurainS.GrazianiP.Lo MonacoG. (2017). Intimate partner violence and help-seeking: A systematic review and social psychological tracks for future research. European Psychologist, 22(4), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000304
30.
LeonC. M.AizpuruaE.RolleroC. (2022). None of my business? An experiment analyzing willingness to formally report incidents of intimate partner violence against women. Violence Against Women, 28(9), 2163–2185. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211025990
31.
LutwakN. (2018). The psychology of health and illness: The mental health and physiological effects of intimate partner violence on women. The Journal of Psychology, 152(6), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1447435
32.
LuxA. A.GroverS. L.TeoS. T. T. (2021). Development and validation of the holistic cognition scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 551623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.551623
33.
MadduxW. W.YukiM. (2006). The “ripple effect”: Cultural differences in perceptions of the consequences of events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205283840
34.
Martín-FernándezM.RequeroB.ZhouX.GonçalvesD.SantosD. (2022). Refinement of the Analysis-Holism Scale: A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of two shortened measures of analytic versus holistic thinking in Spain and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 111322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111322
35.
MinckasN.ShannonG.MannellJ. (2020). The role of participation and community mobilization in preventing violence against women and girls: A programme review and critique. Global Health Action, 13(1),Article 1775061. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1775061
36.
MiyamotoY. (2013). Culture and analytic versus holistic cognition: Toward multilevel analyses of cultural influences. In MiyamotoY. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 131–188). Academic Press.
37.
MorrisM. W.PengK. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.949
38.
NaJ.GrossmannI.VarnumM. E. W.KarasawaM.ChoY.KitayamaS.NisbettR. E. (2020). Culture and personality revisited: Behavioral profiles and within-person stability in interdependent (vs. independent) social orientation and holistic (vs. analytic) cognitive style. Journal of Personality, 88(5), 908–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12536
39.
NaJ.GrossmannI.VarnumM. E. W.KitayamaS.GonzalezR.NisbettR. E. (2010). Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(14), 6192–6197. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001911107
NisbettR. E.MasudaT. (2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 11163–11170. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1934527100
42.
PowellA.WebsterK. (2018). Cultures of gendered violence: An integrative review of measures of attitudinal support for violence against women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816675669
43.
RequeroB.SantosD.CancelaA.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2021). Promoting healthy eating practices through persuasion processes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 43, 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2021.1929987
44.
RiveraR.SantosD.BrändleG.CárdabaMÁM (2016). Design effectiveness analysis of a media literacy intervention to reduce violent video games consumption among adolescents: The relevance of lifestyles segmentation. Evaluation Review, 40(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16666196
45.
Sánchez-PradaA.Delgado-AlvarezC.Bosch-FiolE.Ferreiro-BasurtoV.Ferrer-PerezV. A. (2022). Personal traits of the people who help: The case of bystanders to violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20),Article 13544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013544
46.
SantosD.RequeroB.Martín-FernándezM. (2021). Individual differences in thinking style and dealing with contradiction: The mediating role of mixed emotions. PLoS One, 16(9),Article e0257864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257864
47.
SantosD.RequeroB.Martín-FernándezM. (2025). Holism and causal responsibility: The role of number and valence of event consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51, 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231192827
48.
SardinhaL.Maheu-GirouxM.StöcklH.MeyerS. R.García-MorenoC. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7
49.
SeptiantoF.NasutionR. A.ArnitaD.SeoY. (2022). The role of threat-based awe and construal level in charitable advertising. European Journal of Marketing, 56(5), 1532–1555. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2021-0403
50.
Serrano-MontillaC.Valor-SeguraI.PadillaJ. L.LozanoL. M. (2020). Public helping reactions to intimate partner violence against women in European countries: The role of gender-related individual and macrosocial factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17),Article 6314. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176314
51.
SimpsonB.WhiteK.LaranJ. (2018). When public recognition for charitable giving backfires: The role of independent self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1257–1273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx101
52.
SmithR. W.ReddenJ. P. (2020). The role of holistic processing in simultaneous consumption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91,Article 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104023
53.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. 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), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
54.
Spencer-RodgersJ.WilliamsM. J.PengK. (2012). Culturally based lay beliefs as a tool for understanding intergroup and intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.01.002
55.
StubbsA.SzoekeC. (2022). The effect of intimate partner violence on the physical health and health-related behaviors of women: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(4), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020985541
56.
ThalerR. H. (1990). Anomalies: Saving, fungibility, and mental accounts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.4.1.193
57.
WertenbrochK.SkieraB. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086
58.
WongV. C.WyerR. S.Jr.WyerN. A.AdavalR. (2021). Dimensions of holistic thinking: Implications for nonsocial information processing across cultures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(12), 2636–2658. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001060
59.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564625
YamaH.ZakariaN. (2019). Explanations for cultural differences in thinking: Easterners’ dialectical thinking and Westerners’ linear thinking. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 31(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1626862
62.
ZhouX. Z.RequeroB.GonçalvesD.SantosD. (2021). Every penny counts: The effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on donation decisions in the times of COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences, 175,Article 110713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110713
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.
