The impact of anthropomorphism on charitable giving behavior has been extensively studied, but not all forms of anthropomorphism have a positive effect on donation intentions. Additionally, the influence of anthropomorphism on cognitive processing during individual donation decisions remains incomplete. This study aims to investigate how different scenarios involving anthropomorphism affect donation intentions and measure changes in empathic responses using cognitive neural methods to uncover the neural representation associated with anthropomorphic money for monetary donations. By utilizing functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), participants’ frontal activations are measured while performing a monetary donation task within four groups designed as a between-participants experiment with factors including object type (money vs. product) and presence or absence of anthropomorphism (yes vs. no). The results reveal three main findings: first, money anthropomorphism specifically enhances individuals’ intention to donate; second, empathy significantly influences both information-processing and donation decision stages; third, complex cognitive processes including affective empathy (rIFG), rational processing, and reward processing during the information-processing stage predict subsequent donation intentions, whereas cognitive empathy (lIFG) during the decision stage determines the amount of money donated. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of how anthropomorphism impacts monetary donation decision-making.
AggarwalP.McgillA. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479.
2.
AhnH. K.KimH. J.AggarwalP. (2014). Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science, 25(1), 224–229.
3.
BaekT. H.BakpayevM.YoonS.KimS. (2022). Smiling ai agents: How anthropomorphism and broad smiles increase charitable giving. International Journal of Advertising, 41(5), 850–867.
4.
BairdA. D.SchefferI. E.WilsonS. J. (2011). Mirror neuron system involvement in empathy: A critical look at the evidence. Social Neuroscience, 6(4), 327–335.
5.
BartalI. B. A.DecetyJ.MasonP. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334(6061), 1427–1430.
6.
BasilD. Z.RidgwayN. M.BasilM. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23.
7.
BatsonC. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65–122.
8.
ButterfieldM. E.HillS. E.LordC. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 957–960.
9.
CaporaelL. R.HeyesC. (1997). Why anthropomorphize? Folk psychology and other stories. In MitchellR. W.ThompsonN. S.MilesH. L. (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 59–73). University of New York Press.
10.
CarlsonM.MillerN. (1987). Explanation of the relation between negative mood and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 91–108.
11.
DarleyJ. M.LataneB. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
12.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
13.
De CremerD.Van LangeP. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15, S5–S18.
14.
de WaalF. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300.
15.
DickertS.SagaraN.SlovicP. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376.
16.
EisenbergN.MillerP. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.
17.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
18.
FedeS. J.PearsonE. E.KerichM.MomenanR. (2021). Charity preferences and perceived impact moderate charitable giving and associated neural response. Neuropsychologia, 160, Article 107957.
19.
GreitemeyerT.OsswaldS.BrauerM. (2010). Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion, 10(6), 796–802.
20.
GuthrieS. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds. Oxford University Press.
HeL.PelowskiM.YuW. H.LiuT. (2021). Neural resonance in consumers’ right inferior frontal gyrus predicts attitudes toward advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 38(9), 1538–1549.
23.
HollmannM.HellrungL.PlegerB.SchlöglH.KabischS.StumvollM.VillringerA.HorstmannA. (2012). Neural correlates of the volitional regulation of the desire for food. International Journal of Obesity, 36(5), 648–655.
24.
HuJ.LiY.YinY. L.BlueP. R.YuH. B.ZhouX. L. (2017). How do self-interest and other-need interact in the brain to determine altruistic behavior?Neuroimage, 157, 598–611.
25.
KeukenM. C.HardieA.DornB. T.DevS.PaulusM. P.JonasK. J.Den WildenbergW. P.PinedaJ. A. (2011). The role of the left inferior frontal gyrus in social perception: An RTMS study. Brain Research, 1383, 196–205.
26.
KnutsonB.TaylorJ.KaufmanM.PetersonR.GloverG. (2005). Distributed neural representation of expected value. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(19), 4806-4812.
27.
KoglerL.MullerV. I.WerminghausenE.EickhoffS. B.DerntlB. (2020). Do I feel or do I know? Neuroimaging meta-analyses on the multiple facets of empathy. Cortex, 129, 341–355.
28.
LevineM.ProsserA.EvansD.ReicherS. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453.
29.
LiakakisG.NickelJ.SeitzR. J. (2011). Diversity of the inferior frontal gyrus-a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Behavioural Brain Research, 225(1), 341–347.
30.
LiuT.SaitoG.LinC. H.SaitoH. (2017). Inter-brain network underlying turn-based cooperation and competition: A hyperscanning study using near-infrared spectroscopy. Scientific Reports, 7, 8684.
31.
LiuT.SaitoH.OiM. (2015). Role of the right inferior frontal gyrus in turn-based cooperation and competition: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain and Cognition, 99, 17–23.
32.
LiuW.AakerJ. (2008). The happiness of giving: The time-ask effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 543–557.
33.
MaY. N.WangC. B.HanS. H. (2011). Neural responses to perceived pain in others predict real-life monetary donations in different socioeconomic contexts. Neuroimage, 57(3), 1273–1280.
34.
MarcianoD.StavelandB. R.LinJ. J.SaezI.HsuM.KnightR. T. (2023). Electrophysiological signatures of inequity-dependent reward encoding in the human ofc. Cell Reports, 42(8), Article 112865.
35.
MeyerM. L.LiebermanM. D. (2018). Why people are always thinking about themselves: Medial prefrontal cortex activity during rest primes self-referential processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(5), 714–721.
36.
MollJ.KruegerF.ZahnR.PardiniM.de Oliveira-SouzatR.GrafmanJ. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(42), 15623–15628.
37.
O’DohertyJ.KringelbachM. L.RollsE. T.HornakJ.AndrewsC. (2001). Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 4(1), 95–102.
38.
ParkG.ChungJ.LeeS. (2024). Scope and limits of ai fundraisers: Moderated serial multiple mediation model between artificial emotions and willingness to donate via humanness and empathy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123211.
39.
PennerL. A.DovidioJ. F.PiliavinJ. A.SchroederD. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.
40.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.SchumannD. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.
41.
PhilippiC. L.DuffM. C.DenburgN. L.TranelD.RudraufD. (2012). Medial PFC damage abolishes the self-reference effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(2), 475–481.
42.
PlassmannH.VenkatramanV.HuettelS.YoonC. (2015). Consumer neuroscience: Applications, challenges, and possible solutions. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 427–435.
43.
PornpattananangkulN.HaririA. R.HaradaT.ManoY.KomedaH.ParrishT. B.SadatoN.IidakaT.ChiaoJ. Y. (2016). Cultural influences on neural basis of inhibitory control. Neuroimage, 139, 114–126.
44.
PrestonS. D.de WaalF. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1.
45.
ProtS.GentileD. A.AndersonC. A.SuzukiK.SwingE.LimK. M.HoriuchiY.JelicM.KrahéB.LiuqingW.LiauA. K.KhooA.PetrescuP. D.SakamotoA.TajimaS.TomaR. A.WarburtonW.ZhangX.LamB. P. (2014). Long-term relations among prosocial-media use, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 25(2), 358–368.
46.
QuachS.CheahI.ThaichonP. (2024). The power of flattery: Enhancing prosocial behavior through virtual influencers. Psychology & Marketing, 41(7), 1629.
47.
RamesonL. T.LiebermanM. D. (2009). Empathy: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(1), 94–110.
48.
Shamay-TsooryS. G.Aharon-PeretzJ.PerryD. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617–627.
49.
TaylorM. J.RobertsonA.KellerA. E.SatoJ.UrbainC.PangE. W. (2018). Inhibition in the face of emotion: Characterization of the spatial-temporal dynamics that facilitate automatic emotion regulation. Human Brain Mapping, 39(7), 2907–2916.
50.
TriantosA.PlakoyiannakiE.OutraE.PetridisN. (2016). Anthropomorphic packaging: Is there life on “mars”?European Journal of Marketing, 50(1–2), 260–275.
51.
WangH. Y.YouH. L.SongC. L.ZhouL.WangS. Y.LiX. L.LiangZ. H.ZhangB. W. (2024). Shared and distinct prefrontal cortex alterations of implicit emotion regulation in depression and anxiety: An fNIRS investigation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 354, 126–135.
52.
WilliamsL. A.BrosnanS. F.ClayZ. (2020). Anthropomorphism in comparative affective science: Advocating a mindful approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 115, 299–307.
53.
WuX. L.XuF. F.ChenX. G.WangL.HuangW. L.WanK.JiG. J.XiaoG.XuS.YuF.ZhuC.XiC.WangK. (2018). The effect of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation of the right inferior frontal gyrus on empathy in healthy individuals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, Article 446.
54.
YangH. T.YenG. F. (2018). Consumer responses to corporate cause-related marketing: A serial multiple mediator model of self-construal, empathy and moral identity. European Journal of Marketing, 52(9–10), 2105–2127.
55.
YinS. H.BiT. Y.ChenA. T.EgnerT. (2021). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex drives the prioritization of self-associated stimuli in working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(9), 2012–2023.
56.
YuX. Y.LiuT.HeL.LiY. J. (2023). Micro-foundations of strategic decision-making in family business organisations: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Long Range Planning, 56(5), Article 102198.
57.
ZhangB.RollsE. T.WangX.XieC.ChengW.FengJ. (2024). Roles of the medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortex in major depression and its treatment. Molecular Psychiatry, 29, 914–928.
58.
ZhouX. Y.KimS.WangL. L. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 953–972.
