Gyuris Petra, Gáspár Baksa Gergely, Birkás Béla, Csókási Krisztina, Kocsor Ferenc
Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Department of Behavioural Sciences, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Front Psychol. 2021 Sep 9;12:653848. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.653848. eCollection 2021.
Blood donation is considered as one of the purest forms of altruism. Plasma donation, in contrast, despite being a similar process, is mostly a paid activity in which donors are compensated for their contribution to the production of therapeutic preparations. This creates a so-called "plasma paradox:" If remuneration is promised for a socially useful effort, volunteers with altruistic motives might be deterred. At the same time, regular plasma donors who pursue the monetary benefits of donation might drop out if remuneration stops. The same controversy can be caught in the messages of most plasma donation companies as well: They promise a monetary reward (MR), and at the same time, highlight the altruistic component of donation. In this study, we tested the assumption that emphasizing the social significance enhances the willingness to donate blood plasma more effectively than either MR or the combination of these two incentives. This had to be rejected since there was no significant difference between the three scenarios. Furthermore, we also hypothesized that individuals might be more motivated to donate plasma if there is a possibility of offering an MR toward other socially beneficial aims. We found an increased willingness to donate in scenarios enabling "double altruism", that is, when donating plasma for therapeutic use and transferring their remuneration to nongovernmental organizations, is an option. We propose relying on double altruism to resolve the plasma paradox, and suggest that it could serve as a starting point for the development of more optimized means for donor recruitment.
献血被视为最纯粹的利他主义形式之一。相比之下,血浆捐献尽管过程相似,但大多是有偿活动,捐献者会因其对治疗制剂生产的贡献而获得补偿。这就产生了所谓的“血浆悖论”:如果为一项对社会有益的行为承诺给予报酬,可能会阻碍那些出于利他动机的志愿者。同时,如果停止报酬,那些追求献血浆金钱利益的定期捐献者可能会退出。大多数血浆捐献公司的宣传信息中也存在同样的争议:他们承诺给予金钱奖励(MR),同时强调捐献的利他成分。在本研究中,我们检验了这样一种假设,即强调社会意义比MR或这两种激励措施的组合更能有效地提高捐献血浆的意愿。但这一假设被否定了,因为这三种情况之间没有显著差异。此外,我们还假设,如果有可能将MR用于其他社会有益目标,个人可能会更有动力捐献血浆。我们发现在能够实现“双重利他主义”的情况下,即当捐献血浆用于治疗用途并将报酬转给非政府组织成为一种选择时,捐献意愿会增加。我们建议依靠双重利他主义来解决血浆悖论,并认为这可以作为开发更优化的招募捐献者方法的起点。