• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

社会信息会减少后期筹款活动中的捐赠。

Social information decreases giving in late-stage fundraising campaigns.

机构信息

Department of Management, Ben-Gurion University, Be'er Sheva, Israel.

Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278391. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0278391
PMID:36454746
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9714697/
Abstract

Online fundraisers often showcase information about the number of donations received and the proximity to the campaign goal. This practice follows research on descriptive norms and goal-directed motivation, which predicts higher contributions as the number of donors increases and as the campaign goal is approached. However, across three studies, we demonstrate that when the campaign is close to completion, individuals give more when they see that there are few (vs. many) donors to the campaign. We observe this result across real campaigns on a fundraising website and obtain causal evidence for this effect in two laboratory experiments. We find that this effect is driven in part by an increase in the perceived progress that one's donation makes towards reaching the campaign goal. This work identifies a counterintuitive consequence of norm-based marketing appeals and has important implications for fundraisers.

摘要

在线筹款活动通常展示有关收到的捐款数量和接近活动目标的信息。这种做法遵循描述性规范和目标导向动机的研究,该研究预测随着捐款人的增加和活动目标的接近,捐款会增加。然而,在三项研究中,我们证明了当活动接近完成时,当看到活动的捐款人很少(而不是很多)时,个人的捐款会更多。我们在筹款网站上的真实活动中观察到了这一结果,并在两个实验室实验中获得了这一效应的因果证据。我们发现,这种效果部分是由于人们的捐款在实现活动目标方面所取得的进展感的增加所驱动的。这项工作揭示了基于规范的营销诉求的一个反直觉的后果,对筹款人具有重要意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17ec/9714697/f125d1d19461/pone.0278391.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17ec/9714697/f0578bb4bb38/pone.0278391.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17ec/9714697/f125d1d19461/pone.0278391.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17ec/9714697/f0578bb4bb38/pone.0278391.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/17ec/9714697/f125d1d19461/pone.0278391.g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Social information decreases giving in late-stage fundraising campaigns.社会信息会减少后期筹款活动中的捐赠。
PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278391. eCollection 2022.
2
Understanding the Dimensions of Medical Crowdfunding: A Visual Analytics Approach.理解医疗众筹的维度:一种可视化分析方法。
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 3;22(7):e18813. doi: 10.2196/18813.
3
Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a 'real world' campaign.人们为何为环境保护事业捐款?来自一项“真实世界”活动的见解。
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0191888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191888. eCollection 2018.
4
Complex Contagion of Campaign Donations.竞选捐款的复杂传播
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 14;11(4):e0153539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153539. eCollection 2016.
5
Agentic appeals increase charitable giving in an affluent sample of donors.有影响力的呼吁增加了富裕捐赠者群体的慈善捐赠。
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 6;13(12):e0208392. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208392. eCollection 2018.
6
Media portrayal of illness-related medical crowdfunding: A content analysis of newspaper articles in the United States and Canada.媒体对与疾病相关的医疗众筹的描绘:对美国和加拿大报纸文章的内容分析。
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 23;14(4):e0215805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215805. eCollection 2019.
7
Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving.慈善捐赠中的动机弱化激励和动机挤出。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jul 11;114(28):7301-7306. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616921114. Epub 2017 Jun 27.
8
The Influence of Proportion Dominance and Global Need Perception on Donations.比例优势和全球需求认知对捐赠的影响。
Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 2;13:800867. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.800867. eCollection 2022.
9
Behavioral economics. Avoiding overhead aversion in charity.行为经济学。避免慈善中的管理费用厌恶。
Science. 2014 Oct 31;346(6209):632-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1253932.
10
"Fundathon": toward massively multiplayer online fundraising games.“基金马拉松”:迈向大型多人在线筹款游戏
AIDS Treat News. 2007 Jan-Jun(422):3-4.

本文引用的文献

1
Group size effects and critical mass in public goods games.群体规模效应对公共物品博弈的影响和关键质量。
Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 2;9(1):5503. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41988-3.
2
Group size effect on cooperation in one-shot social dilemmas.单次社会困境中群体规模对合作的影响。
Sci Rep. 2015 Jan 21;5:7937. doi: 10.1038/srep07937.
3
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization.一项涉及 6100 万人的社会影响和政治动员实验。
Nature. 2012 Sep 13;489(7415):295-8. doi: 10.1038/nature11421.
4
So near and yet so far: the mental representation of goal progress.近在咫尺,却又遥不可及:目标进展的心理表象。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Aug;103(2):225-41. doi: 10.1037/a0028443. Epub 2012 May 14.
5
Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment to charitable donations: social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation, and donation behavior.克服受益对象的种族因素对慈善捐赠的阻碍:社会支配取向、道德升华体验与捐赠行为。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009 Jan;35(1):72-84. doi: 10.1177/0146167208325415. Epub 2008 Nov 18.
6
Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation.自我调节的动态过程:已(未)完成的目标行为如何影响动机。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Feb;94(2):183-95. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.183.
7
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.《不确定性下的判断:启发式与偏差》
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
8
The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms.社会规范的建构力、破坏力和重建力。
Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):429-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x.
9
Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention.针对对描述性饮酒规范的误解:计算机提供的个性化规范反馈干预的效果
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004 Jun;72(3):434-47. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.434.
10
Social influence: compliance and conformity.社会影响:顺从与从众。
Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591-621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.