), 崔稳权3 1 清华大学经济管理学院, 北京 100084
2 中国人民大学商学院, 北京 100872
3 中移互联网有限公司, 广州 510640
收稿日期:2017-07-16出版日期:2019-04-25发布日期:2019-02-22通讯作者:蒋晶E-mail:jiangjing@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn基金资助:* 中国人民大学研究品牌计划基础研究项目资助(13XNI008)The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform
FAN Yafeng1, JIANG Jing2(), CUI Wenquan3 1 School of Business and management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2 School of Business, Renmin University, Beijing 100872, China
3 China Mobile Internet Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510640, China
Received:2017-07-16Online:2019-04-25Published:2019-02-22Contact:JIANG Jing E-mail:jiangjing@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 本文探讨了在网络公益背景下默认选项金额对个人捐赠意愿的影响及其心理机制。通过4个实验, 本文发现在网络公益平台中将默认选项设置为高金额会显著地减少个人的捐赠意愿, 而感知被操控在该影响过程中起到了中介作用。具体而言, 当公益机构将默认选项的金额设置为高金额(vs. 低金额)时, 人们的被操控感知增强, 进而捐赠意愿降低, 产生了默认效应的反作用。此外, 个体道德认同水平在这一影响中发挥了调节作用。当个体道德认同水平较低时, 高金额默认选项(vs. 低金额默认选项)会降低其捐赠意愿, 而对于道德认同水平较高的个体而言, 他们的捐赠意愿在高/低金额默认选项时不存在显著差异。研究结论推进了默认效应在捐赠决策领域的理论研究, 同时对于当前快速发展的网络公益平台进行捐赠金额的设置具有重要的实践意义。
图/表 7
表1实验1各组捐款情况汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐赠率 | 捐款人平均捐款额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5元 | 8元 | 12元 | 不捐赠 | ||||||
| 高默认金额 | 46 | 23 | 50.00% | 6.00 | 3.00 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 23 |
| 低默认金额 | 51 | 41 | 80.40% | 6.05 | 4.86 | 32 | 5 | 4 | 10 |
表1实验1各组捐款情况汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐赠率 | 捐款人平均捐款额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5元 | 8元 | 12元 | 不捐赠 | ||||||
| 高默认金额 | 46 | 23 | 50.00% | 6.00 | 3.00 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 23 |
| 低默认金额 | 51 | 41 | 80.40% | 6.05 | 4.86 | 32 | 5 | 4 | 10 |
表2实验2各组捐赠情况汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐赠总额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10元 | 20元 | 30元 | 不捐赠 | |||||
| 高默认金额 | 22 | 22 | 300 | 13.64 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 低默认金额 | 29 | 26 | 560 | 19.31 | 11 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
表2实验2各组捐赠情况汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐赠总额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10元 | 20元 | 30元 | 不捐赠 | |||||
| 高默认金额 | 22 | 22 | 300 | 13.64 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 低默认金额 | 29 | 26 | 560 | 19.31 | 11 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
图1不同默认选项金额下的捐赠意愿
图1不同默认选项金额下的捐赠意愿表3实验3各组捐赠意愿汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐款率 | 捐款人平均捐款额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5元 | 10元 | 15元 | 不捐赠 | ||||||
| 高默认金额 | 17 | 11 | 64.7% | 9.54 | 6.18 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
| 低默认金额 | 32 | 31 | 96.87% | 10 | 9.69 | 9 | 13 | 9 | 1 |
| 对照组 | 46 | 42 | 91.3% | 11.43 | 10.44 | 6 | 18 | 18 | 4 |
表3实验3各组捐赠意愿汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐款率 | 捐款人平均捐款额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5元 | 10元 | 15元 | 不捐赠 | ||||||
| 高默认金额 | 17 | 11 | 64.7% | 9.54 | 6.18 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
| 低默认金额 | 32 | 31 | 96.87% | 10 | 9.69 | 9 | 13 | 9 | 1 |
| 对照组 | 46 | 42 | 91.3% | 11.43 | 10.44 | 6 | 18 | 18 | 4 |
图2不同默认选项金额下的捐赠意愿
图2不同默认选项金额下的捐赠意愿表4实验4各组捐赠意愿汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐款率 | 捐款人平均捐款额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5元 | 10元 | 15元 | 不捐赠 | ||||||
| 高默认金额 | 64 | 51 | 79.7% | 8.33 | 6.64 | 27 | 14 | 10 | 13 |
| 低默认金额 | 61 | 56 | 91.8% | 10.18 | 9.34 | 17 | 20 | 19 | 5 |
| 对照组 | 67 | 60 | 89.6% | 9.00 | 8.06 | 26 | 20 | 14 | 7 |
表4实验4各组捐赠意愿汇总
| 组别 | 人数 | 捐赠人数 | 捐款率 | 捐款人平均捐款额 | 平均捐款额 | 捐赠金额分布 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5元 | 10元 | 15元 | 不捐赠 | ||||||
| 高默认金额 | 64 | 51 | 79.7% | 8.33 | 6.64 | 27 | 14 | 10 | 13 |
| 低默认金额 | 61 | 56 | 91.8% | 10.18 | 9.34 | 17 | 20 | 19 | 5 |
| 对照组 | 67 | 60 | 89.6% | 9.00 | 8.06 | 26 | 20 | 14 | 7 |
表5实验4中6组捐赠意愿汇总
| 组别 | 高道德水平 | 低道德水平 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 人数 | 捐款人数 | 捐款率 | 平均捐款额 | 人数 | 捐款人数 | 捐款率 | 平均捐款额 | |
| 高默认 | 30 | 25 | 83.30% | 8.50 | 34 | 26 | 76.50% | 5.00 |
| 低默认 | 32 | 27 | 84.40% | 8.91 | 29 | 29 | 100% | 9.83 |
| 对照 | 31 | 26 | 83.90% | 8.87 | 36 | 34 | 94.40% | 7.36 |
表5实验4中6组捐赠意愿汇总
| 组别 | 高道德水平 | 低道德水平 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 人数 | 捐款人数 | 捐款率 | 平均捐款额 | 人数 | 捐款人数 | 捐款率 | 平均捐款额 | |
| 高默认 | 30 | 25 | 83.30% | 8.50 | 34 | 26 | 76.50% | 5.00 |
| 低默认 | 32 | 27 | 84.40% | 8.91 | 29 | 29 | 100% | 9.83 |
| 对照 | 31 | 26 | 83.90% | 8.87 | 36 | 34 | 94.40% | 7.36 |
参考文献 38
| [1] | Amir, O., &Levav, J. ( 2008). Choice construction versus preference construction: The instability of preferences learned in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45( 2), 145-158. doi: 10.2307/30164027URL |
| [2] | Andreoni,J. ( 1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100( 401), 464-477. doi: 10.2307/2234133URL |
| [3] | Aquino, K., & Reed II,A. , ( 2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83( 6), 1423-1440. |
| [4] | Bi S., Pang J., & Lv Y. L . ( 2016). The effect of stress on consumers’ nostalgic preference. Journal of Marketing Science, 12( 1), 38-50. |
| [ 毕圣, 庞隽, 吕一林 . ( 2016). 压力对怀旧偏好的影响机制. 营销科学学报, 12( 1), 38-50.] | |
| [5] | Brown, C. L.,& Krishna, A. , ( 2004). The skeptical shopper: A metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31( 3), 529-539. doi: 10.1086/425087URL |
| [6] | Campbell, M.C . ( 1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4( 3), 225-254. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02URL |
| [7] | Clee,M. A., & Wicklund,R. A . ( 1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6( 4), 389-405. doi: 10.1086/208782URL |
| [8] | Croson,R ., & Shang J. Y, . ( 2008). The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Experimental Economics, 11( 3), 221-233. |
| [9] | Ding, Y, ., & Gong, X.S . ( 2016). The influence of social exclusion on consumer preference for products with different textures and its underlying process. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 10), 1302-1313. |
| [ 丁瑛, 宫秀双 . ( 2016). 社会排斥对产品触觉信息偏好的影响及其作用机制. 心理学报, 48( 10), 1302-1313.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01302URL | |
| [10] | Dinner I., Johnson E. J., Goldstein D. G., & Liu K . ( 2011). Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17( 4), 332-341. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1352488pmid: 21707203 |
| [11] | Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R . ( 2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23( 1), 82-94. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1030.0033URL |
| [12] | Flavell, J. H . ( 1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence, 12, 231-235. |
| [13] | Goswami, I., &Urminsky, O. ( 2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53( 5), 829-846. doi: 10.1509/jmr.15.0001URL |
| [14] | Hardy, S.A . ( 2006). Identity, reasoning, and emotion: An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30( 3), 205-213. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9034-9URL |
| [15] | Hayes, A. F. ( 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from |
| [16] | He Y. Q., Tang Y. Y., & Zhang J. F . ( 2016). Consumer psychological reactance: A literature review and prospects. Foreign Economics & Management, 38( 2), 49-61. |
| [ 贺远琼, 唐漾一, 张俊芳 . ( 2016). 消费者心理逆反研究现状与展望. 外国经济与管理, 38( 2), 49-61.] doi: 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2016.02.004URL | |
| [17] | Hong, S. M.,& Faedda, S. , ( 1996). Refinement of the hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56( 1), 173-182. |
| [18] | Janoff-Bulman R., Sheikh S., & Hepp S . ( 2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96( 3), 521-537. doi: 10.1037/a0013779URLpmid: 19254101 |
| [19] | Johnson E. J., Bellman S., & Lohse G. L . ( 2002). Defaults, framing and privacy: Why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters, 13( 1), 5-15. doi: 10.1023/A:1015044207315URL |
| [20] | Johnson E. J., Hershey J., Meszaros J., & Kunreuther H . ( 1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7( 1), 35-51. doi: 10.1007/BF01065313URL |
| [21] | Johnson, E. J.,& Goldstein, D. , ( 2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302( 5649), 1338-1339. |
| [22] | Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R. H . ( 1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5( 1), 193-206. doi: 10.1257/jep.5.1.193URL |
| [23] | Krishna,A. ( 2011). Can supporting a cause decrease donations and happiness? The cause marketing paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21( 3), 338-345. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.02.001URL |
| [24] | Levav, J., &Zhu, R. ( 2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36( 4), 600-610. |
| [25] | Monin, B. Jordan A. H. , ( 2009) . The dynamic moral self: A social psychological perspective. In Narvaez D., & Lapsley D. K. (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 341-354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.. |
| [26] | Oppenheimer D. M., Meyvis T., & Davidenko N . ( 2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45( 4), 867-872. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009URL |
| [27] | Park C. W., Jun S. Y., & Macinnis D. J . ( 2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37( 2), 187-202. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731URL |
| [28] | , Preacher, K. J., & Hayes A. F, . ( 2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36( 4), 717-731. |
| [29] | Prelec D., Wernerfelt B., & Zettelmeyer F . ( 1997). The role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. Journal of Consumer Research, 24( 1), 118-125. doi: 10.1086/209498URL |
| [30] | Reed A., Aquino K., & Levy E . ( 2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71( 1), 178-193. |
| [31] | Rooij, M. V.,& Teppa, F. , ( 2014). Personal traits and individual choices: Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 100, 33-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.019URL |
| [32] | Shang J., Reed A., & Croson R . ( 2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45( 3), 351-361. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351URL |
| [33] | Slovic,P. ( 1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50( 5), 364-371. |
| [34] | Thaler, R. H. Sunstein, C. R. , ( 2008) . Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven: CT Yales University Press. |
| [35] | Wang, X., &Tong, L. ( 2015). Hide the light or let it shine? Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’ happiness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32( 4), 418-424. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.06.001URL |
| [36] | Wei M. L., Fischer E., & Main K. J . ( 2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27( 1), 34-44. doi: 10.1509/jppm.27.1.34URL |
| [37] | Wright,P. ( 2002). Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 28( 4), 677-682. doi: 10.1086/338210URL |
| [38] | Zhang, H. W., & Li Y. , ( 2014). Moral behavior under two kinds of moral self-regulation mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 22( 7), 1178-1187. |
| [ 张宏伟, 李晔 . ( 2014). 两种道德自我调节机制下的道德行为. 心理科学进展, 22( 7), 1178-1187.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.01178URL |
相关文章 1
| [1] | 黄元娜, 宋星云, 邵洋, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 以小拨大：默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 868-879. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4418
