), 陈斯允2 1中南财经政法大学工商管理学院, 武汉 430073
2暨南大学管理学院, 广州 510632
收稿日期:2020-07-29出版日期:2021-04-25发布日期:2021-02-22通讯作者:牛熠欣E-mail:niuyixinmkt@163.com基金资助:*国家自然科学基金(71802192);*国家自然科学基金(71772077);*国家自然科学基金(71832010);*教育部人文社科基金(18YJC630137);*寻找特殊抗战老兵“More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation
RAN Yaxuan1, NIU Yixin1(), CHEN Siyun2 1School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China
2School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
Received:2020-07-29Online:2021-04-25Published:2021-02-22Contact:NIU Yixin E-mail:niuyixinmkt@163.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 支付渠道通常是捐赠信息中的必要元素。研究基于元认知推断理论, 探讨了支付渠道数量因素(多个vs.单一)对个体捐赠的作用机制。通过6个实验和1个单文章元分析, 结果发现：相比单一支付渠道, 多个支付渠道反而会抑制个体捐赠的金额和意愿, 感知商业化和道德怀疑连续中介以上效应。关键原因在于, 多支付渠道在商业化背景下的频繁应用会使得人们持有“多支付渠道=商业化”的朴素信念。基于此, 个体会对多个(vs.单一)支付渠道的捐赠信息产生感知商业化的元认知推断, 进而怀疑捐赠对象的道德性, 最后弱化捐赠意愿与行为。此外, 朴素信念的可诊断性具有调节作用。具体而言, 当“多支付渠道=商业化”朴素信念的可诊断性低时, 个体将无法产生感知商业化的元认知推断过程, 从而弱化多个(vs.单一)支付渠道对个体捐赠的负面作用。
图/表 14
图1研究框架和实验逻辑
图1研究框架和实验逻辑表1预实验描述性结果
| 实验分组 | “最可能来自于什么网站” | “最不可能来自于什么网站” | “采用多个(vs.单一)支付 渠道的交易方的形象” | 感知商业 化评价 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 商业化网站 | 非商业化网站 | 商业化网站 | 非商业化网站 | ||||||||||
| 多个支付 | 64.29% | 35.71% | 32.14% | 67.86% | 3.43 (1.43) | 5.61 (0.92) | |||||||
| 单一支付 | 34.62% | 65.38% | 69.23% | 30.77% | -1.85 (3.03) | 3.00 (1.94) | |||||||
表1预实验描述性结果
| 实验分组 | “最可能来自于什么网站” | “最不可能来自于什么网站” | “采用多个(vs.单一)支付 渠道的交易方的形象” | 感知商业 化评价 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 商业化网站 | 非商业化网站 | 商业化网站 | 非商业化网站 | ||||||||||
| 多个支付 | 64.29% | 35.71% | 32.14% | 67.86% | 3.43 (1.43) | 5.61 (0.92) | |||||||
| 单一支付 | 34.62% | 65.38% | 69.23% | 30.77% | -1.85 (3.03) | 3.00 (1.94) | |||||||
图2实验1a实验材料图例(4个支付渠道组)
图2实验1a实验材料图例(4个支付渠道组)
图3支付渠道数量对捐赠比例的影响(实验1a)
图3支付渠道数量对捐赠比例的影响(实验1a)
图4实验1b实验材料图例(3种支付渠道组)
图4实验1b实验材料图例(3种支付渠道组)
图5支付渠道数量对捐赠意愿的影响(实验1b)
图5支付渠道数量对捐赠意愿的影响(实验1b)
图6Bootstrapping 中介分析(实验1b)
图6Bootstrapping 中介分析(实验1b)
图7支付渠道数量和支付对象对捐赠比例的交互作用(实验2)
图7支付渠道数量和支付对象对捐赠比例的交互作用(实验2)
图8实验3实验材料图例(5个支付渠道组)
图8实验3实验材料图例(5个支付渠道组)
图9Bootstrapping中介分析(实验3)
图9Bootstrapping中介分析(实验3)
图10可诊断性的边界作用(实验4)
图10可诊断性的边界作用(实验4)
图11可诊断性的调节作用(实验5)
图11可诊断性的调节作用(实验5)
图12Bootstrapping中介分析(实验5)
图12Bootstrapping中介分析(实验5)表2单文章元分析结果总结
| 实验 | 实验材料 | 实验组 | 操纵方式 | 均值 | 方差 | 样本量 | 捐赠测量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 实验 1a | 大学生互助活动 | 单一支付渠道 | 1个银行卡 | 41.27 | 37.83 | 103 | 捐赠比例 |
| 多个支付渠道 | 2、3、4个银行卡 | 29.09 | 34.30 | 239 | |||
| 实验 1b | 筹款——拉一把失明边缘的女孩！ | 无支付信息 | 无支付信息 | 5.36 | 1.14 | 58 | 捐赠意愿量表 |
| 单一支付渠道 | 翼支付、支付宝、中国银行 | 5.50 | 1.68 | 185 | |||
| 3个支付渠道 | 3种支付 | 4.91 | 1.20 | 52 | |||
| 实验2 | 宝贝回家之万家团圆项目 | 单一支付渠道 | 1个银行卡 | 29.39 | 33.09 | 153 | 捐赠比例 |
| 4个支付渠道 | 4个银行卡 | 16.81 | 22.72 | 145 | |||
| 实验3 | 中华社会福利基金会暖心工程：寻找特殊抗战老兵 | 无支付信息 | 无支付信息 | 5.14 | 1.01 | 47 | 想象捐赠金额、捐赠意愿量表 |
| 单一支付渠道 | 银联支付 | 5.10 | 1.32 | 51 | |||
| 5个支付渠道 | 银联支付、支付宝、财付通、百度钱包、快捷通 | 4.47 | 1.18 | 42 | |||
| 田野 实验4 | 绿色蔷薇女工组织募捐 | 单一支付渠道 | 微信支付 | 4.95 | 4.32 | 41 | 真实扫码支付、真实捐赠金钱 |
| 4个支付渠道 | 微信支付、支付宝、中国银行、农业银行 | 3.37 | 3.54 | 50 | |||
| 实验5 | 中华思源工程扶贫：山里孩子的小小车票 | 单一支付渠道 | 银联支付 | 6.14 | 0.75 | 56 | 捐赠意愿量表 |
| 4个支付渠道 | 银联支付、支付宝、Apple Pay、QQ钱包 | 5.49 | 1.40 | 55 |
表2单文章元分析结果总结
| 实验 | 实验材料 | 实验组 | 操纵方式 | 均值 | 方差 | 样本量 | 捐赠测量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 实验 1a | 大学生互助活动 | 单一支付渠道 | 1个银行卡 | 41.27 | 37.83 | 103 | 捐赠比例 |
| 多个支付渠道 | 2、3、4个银行卡 | 29.09 | 34.30 | 239 | |||
| 实验 1b | 筹款——拉一把失明边缘的女孩！ | 无支付信息 | 无支付信息 | 5.36 | 1.14 | 58 | 捐赠意愿量表 |
| 单一支付渠道 | 翼支付、支付宝、中国银行 | 5.50 | 1.68 | 185 | |||
| 3个支付渠道 | 3种支付 | 4.91 | 1.20 | 52 | |||
| 实验2 | 宝贝回家之万家团圆项目 | 单一支付渠道 | 1个银行卡 | 29.39 | 33.09 | 153 | 捐赠比例 |
| 4个支付渠道 | 4个银行卡 | 16.81 | 22.72 | 145 | |||
| 实验3 | 中华社会福利基金会暖心工程：寻找特殊抗战老兵 | 无支付信息 | 无支付信息 | 5.14 | 1.01 | 47 | 想象捐赠金额、捐赠意愿量表 |
| 单一支付渠道 | 银联支付 | 5.10 | 1.32 | 51 | |||
| 5个支付渠道 | 银联支付、支付宝、财付通、百度钱包、快捷通 | 4.47 | 1.18 | 42 | |||
| 田野 实验4 | 绿色蔷薇女工组织募捐 | 单一支付渠道 | 微信支付 | 4.95 | 4.32 | 41 | 真实扫码支付、真实捐赠金钱 |
| 4个支付渠道 | 微信支付、支付宝、中国银行、农业银行 | 3.37 | 3.54 | 50 | |||
| 实验5 | 中华思源工程扶贫：山里孩子的小小车票 | 单一支付渠道 | 银联支付 | 6.14 | 0.75 | 56 | 捐赠意愿量表 |
| 4个支付渠道 | 银联支付、支付宝、Apple Pay、QQ钱包 | 5.49 | 1.40 | 55 |
参考文献 56
| [1] | Aguinis,H., Gottfredson,R.K., & Joo,H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2),270-301. doi: 10.1177/1094428112470848URL |
| [2] | Alhidari,I.S., Veludo-de-oliveira,T., Yousafzai,S.,& Yani- de-soriano, M. (2018). Modeling the effect of multidimensional trust on individual monetary donations to charitable organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3),623-644. doi: 10.1177/0899764017753559URL |
| [3] | Bri?ol,P., Rucker,D.D., & Petty,R.E. (2015). Na?ve theories about persuasion: Implications for information processing and consumer attitude change. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1),85-106. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2014.997080URL |
| [4] | Brown,M. (2018). The moralization of commercialization: Uncovering the history of fee-charging in the U.S. nonprofit human services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5),960-983. doi: 10.1177/0899764018781749URL |
| [5] | Ceravolo,M.G., Fabri,M., Fattobene,L., Polonara,G., & Raggetti,G. (2019). Cash, card or smartphone: The neural correlates of payment methods. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13,1188. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.01188URLpmid: 31780885 |
| [6] | Chatterjee,P., & Rose,R.L. (2012). Do payment mechanisms change the way consumers perceive products? Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6),1129-1139. doi: 10.1086/661730URL |
| [7] | Chen,S.Y. Wei,H. Y.,& Meng,L. (2019). The impact of congruency between moral appeal and social perception on charitable donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(12),1351-1362. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01351URL |
| 陈斯允, 卫海英, 孟陆. (2019). 社会知觉视角下道德诉求方式如何提升劝捐效果. 心理学报, 51(12),1351-1362. | |
| [8] | Cheng,Y., Mukhopadhyay,A., & Williams,P. (2020). Smiling signals intrinsic motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(5),915-935. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz023URL |
| [9] | Chu,W., & Huang,W. (2017). Cultural difference and visual information on hotel rating prediction. World Wide Web, 20(4),595-619. doi: 10.1007/s11280-016-0404-2URL |
| [10] | de Kerviler, G., Demoulin, N.T. M.,& Zidda, P. (2016). Adoption of in-store mobile payment: Are perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31,334-344. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.011URL |
| [11] | Deval,H., Mantel,S.P., Kardes,F.R.,& Posavac,S.S. (2013). How naive theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6),1185-1201. doi: 10.1086/668086URL |
| [12] | Falk,T., Kunz,W.H., Schepers,J.J. L., & Mrozek,A.J. (2016). How mobile payment influences the overall store price image. Journal of Business Research, 69(7),2417-2423. |
| [13] | Fan,Y.F., Jiang,J., & Cui,W.Q. (2019). The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4),415-427. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00415URL |
| 樊亚凤, 蒋晶, 崔稳权. (2019). 网络公益平台默认选项设置对个人捐赠意愿的影响及作用机制. 心理学报, 51(4),415-427. | |
| [14] | Faul,F., Erdfelder,E., Buchner,A., & Lang,A.G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4),1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149URL |
| [15] | Feinberg,R.A. (1986). Credit cards as spending facilitating stimuli: A conditioning interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3),348-356. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1986.13.issue-3URL |
| [16] | Galperin,R.V., Hahl,O., Sterling,A.D., & Guo,J. (2020). Too good to hire? Capability and inferences about commitment in labor markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2),275-313. doi: 10.1177/0001839219840022URL |
| [17] | Goebel,R.A., & Stewart,C.G. (1971). Effects of experimenter bias and induced subject expectancy on hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(2),263-272. doi: 10.1037/h0030800URL |
| [18] | Goenka,S.,& van Osselaer, S.M. J. (2019). Charities can increase the effectiveness of donation appeals by using a morally congruent positive emotion. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4),774-790. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz012URL |
| [19] | Greene,J., & Haidt,J. (2002). How does moral judgment work. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12),517-523. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02011-9URLpmid: 12475712 |
| [20] | Guo,B. (2006). Charity for profit: Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1),123-138. doi: 10.1177/0899764005282482URL |
| [21] | Haidt,J., & Graham,J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1),98-116. doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-zURL |
| [22] | Hashimoto,T., Hayashi,Y., & Seta,K. (2019). Metacognitive inference activity support by visualizing eye-movement graph during critical reading. Procedia Computer Science, 159,1995-2004. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.372URL |
| [23] | Herr,P.M., Kardes,F.R., & Kim,J. (1991). Effects of word- of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4),454-462. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1991.17.issue-4URL |
| [24] | Higgins,E.T. 1996). Knowledge activation:Accessibility, Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 133-168. |
| [25] | Hofmann,W., Wisneski,D.C., Brandt,M.J., & Skitka,L.J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202),1340-1343. doi: 10.1126/science.1251560URLpmid: 25214626 |
| [26] | Hsee,C.K., & Rottenstreich,Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1),23-30. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23URL |
| [27] | Hung,C.K. (2020). Commercialization and nonprofit donations: A meta-analytic assessment and extension. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(2),287-309. doi: 10.1002/nml.v31.2URL |
| [28] | Kamleitner,B., & Erki,B. (2013). Payment method and perceptions of ownership. Marketing Letters, 24(1),57-69. doi: 10.1007/s11002-012-9203-4URL |
| [29] | Kyung,E.J., Thomas,M., & Krishna,A. (2017). When bigger is better (and when it is not): Implicit bias in numeric judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1),62-79. |
| [30] | Lee,S., Bolton,L.E., & Winterich,K.P. (2017). To profit or not to profit? The role of greed perceptions in consumer support for social ventures. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4),853-876. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx071URL |
| [31] | Lee,S., Winterich,K.P.,& Ross Jr, W.T. (2014). I’m moral, but I won’t help you: The distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3),678-696. doi: 10.1086/677226URL |
| [32] | Leyman,P., van Driessche,N., Vanhoucke,M.,& de Causmaecker, P. (2019). The impact of solution representations on heuristic net present value optimization in discrete time/cost trade-off project scheduling with multiple cash flow and payment models. Computers and Operations Research, 103,184-197. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.011URL |
| [33] | Lin,C., Ma,N., Wang,X., & Chen,J. (2020). Rapido: Scaling blockchain with multi-path payment channels. Neurocomputing, 406,322-332. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.114URL |
| [34] | L?nnqvist,J.E., Rilke,R.M., & Walkowitz,G. (2015). On why hypocrisy thrives: Reasonable doubt created by moral posturing can deter punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59,139-145. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.005URL |
| [35] | Mai,R., Hoffmann,S., Lasarov,W., & Buhs,A. (2019). Ethical products = less strong: How explicit and implicit reliance on the lay theory affects consumption behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3),659-677. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3669-1URL |
| [36] | McShane,B.B., & B?ckenholt,U. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6),1048-1063. |
| [37] | Menon,G., Raghubir,P., & Schwarz,N. (1995). Behavioral frequency judgments: An accessibility-diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2),212-228. doi: 10.1086/jcr.1995.22.issue-2URL |
| [38] | Molden,D.C., & Dweck,C.S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3),192-203. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192URL |
| [39] | Mukhopadhyay,A., & Johar,G.V. (2005). Where there is a will, is there a way? Effects of lay theories of self-control on setting and keeping resolutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4),779-786. doi: 10.1086/jcr.2005.31.issue-4URL |
| [40] | Preacher,K.J., & Hayes,A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879URL |
| [41] | Prelec,D., & Simester,D. (2001). Always leave home without it: A further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 12 (1),5-12. doi: 10.1023/A:1008196717017URL |
| [42] | Ran,Y.X. Liu,J. N., Zhang,Y.S.,& Wei,H.Y. (2020). The magic of one person: The effect of the number of endorsers on brand attitude. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3),371-385. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00371URL |
| 冉雅璇, 刘佳妮, 张逸石, 卫海英. (2020). “一”人代言的魅力:品牌代言人数如何影响消费者的品牌态度. 心理学报, 52(3),371-385. | |
| [43] | Ran,Y.X. Wei,H. Y., Maglio,S.J., Huang,M., & Li,Q. (2017). How and when the size of apology representative affects consumer forgiveness. Nankai Business Review, 20(4),38-48. |
| 冉雅璇, 卫海英, Maglio,S.J., 黄敏, 李清, (2017). “单枪匹马”还是“人多势众” ——企业道歉者人数对消费者宽恕的影响. 南开管理评论, 20(4),38-48. | |
| [44] | Savary,J., Goldsmith,K., & Dhar,R. (2015). Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1),27-38. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0244URL |
| [45] | Schwarz,N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4),332-48. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2URL |
| [46] | Shang,J., Reed,A., Sargeant,A., & Carpenter,K. (2020). Marketplace donations: The role of moral identity discrepancy and gender. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(2),375-393. doi: 10.1177/0022243719892592URL |
| [47] | Sharma,I., Jain,K., & Behl,A. (2020). Effect of service transgressions on distant third-party customers: The role of moral identity and moral judgment. Journal of Business Research, 121,696-712. http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.005. doi: http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.005URL |
| [48] | Sinnott-Armstrong,W. (2006). Moral skepticisms. Oxford:Oxford University Press. |
| [49] | Smith,R.W., & Schwarz,N. (2012). When promoting a charity can hurt charitable giving: A metacognitive analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4),558-564. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2012.01.001URL |
| [50] | Soetevent,A.R. (2011). Payment choice, image motivation and contributions to charity: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(1),180-205. doi: 10.1257/pol.3.1.180URL |
| [51] | Thomas,M., Desai,K.K., & Seenivasan,S. (2011). How credit card payments increase unhealthy food purchases: Visceral regulation of vices. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1),126-139. doi: 10.1086/657331URL |
| [52] | Wan,E.W., Chen,R.P., & Jin,L. (2017). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6),1008-1030. |
| [53] | Winterich,K.P., Mittal,V., & Aquino,K. (2013). When does recognition increase charitable behavior? Toward a moral identity-based model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3),121-134. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0477URL |
| [54] | Wu,E.C., Moore,S.G., & Fitzsimons,G.J. (2019). Wine for the table: Self-construal, group size, and choice for self and others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3),508-527. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy082URL |
| [55] | Zagefka,H., Noor,M., Brown,R., de Moura,G.R., & Hopthrow,T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3),353-363. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.781URL |
| [56] | Zane,D.M., Smith,R.W., & Reczek,R.W. (2020). The meaning of distraction: How metacognitive inferences from distraction during multitasking affect brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(5),974-994. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz035URL |
相关文章 0
| No related articles found! |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4915
