IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v161y2023ics0148296323001844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Help yourself: Pictures of donation recipients engaged in physical self-help enhance donations on crowdfunding platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Perez, Dikla
  • Munichor, Nira
  • Buskila, Gadi

Abstract

Many charity organizations raise money through crowdfunding platforms, in which donors choose among large numbers of projects that compete for funds. Prior research suggests that photos used in a charity appeal substantially affect donation behavior. This study identifies a novel feature of campaign imagery that influences the donation decision: portrayal of victims engaged in different types of “self-help” actions. Specifically, two controlled experiments and an analysis of field data explore how prospective donors respond to fundraising campaign photos featuring either physical self-help, non-physical self-help, or no self-help. Results show that donors contribute more funds to campaigns that show victims engaged in physical self-help than to campaigns portraying victims engaged in non-physical self-help or no self-help. The findings also suggest that this influence is attributable to the sense of inspiration elicited by such images and is attenuated when the self-help behavior is perceived as inappropriate for the situation at hand.

Suggested Citation

  • Perez, Dikla & Munichor, Nira & Buskila, Gadi, 2023. "Help yourself: Pictures of donation recipients engaged in physical self-help enhance donations on crowdfunding platforms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:161:y:2023:i:c:s0148296323001844
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323001844
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113826?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2016. "When should the ask be a nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations," Natural Field Experiments 00659, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Katherine White & Rishad Habib & Darren W. Dahl, 2020. "A Review and Framework for Thinking about the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer Behavior," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(1), pages 2-18.
    3. De Crescenzo, Veronica & Ribeiro-Soriano, Domingo Enrique & Covin, Jeffrey G., 2020. "Exploring the viability of equity crowdfunding as a fundraising instrument: A configurational analysis of contingency factors that lead to crowdfunding success and failure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 348-356.
    4. Mathias Ekström, 2012. "Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 530-546, September.
    5. Hinsch, Chris & Felix, Reto & Rauschnabel, Philipp A., 2020. "Nostalgia beats the wow-effect: Inspiration, awe and meaningful associations in augmented reality marketing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Small, Deborah A & Loewenstein, George, 2003. "Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-16, January.
    7. Tang, Yangyi (Eric) & Tsang, Alex S.L., 2020. "Inspire me to purchase: Consumers’ personal control and preference for underdog brand positioning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 101-109.
    8. Rauschnabel, Philipp A. & Felix, Reto & Hinsch, Chris, 2019. "Augmented reality marketing: How mobile AR-apps can improve brands through inspiration," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 43-53.
    9. Anderson, Laurel & Ostrom, Amy L. & Corus, Canan & Fisk, Raymond P. & Gallan, Andrew S. & Giraldo, Mario & Mende, Martin & Mulder, Mark & Rayburn, Steven W. & Rosenbaum, Mark S. & Shirahada, Kunio & W, 2013. "Transformative service research: An agenda for the future," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(8), pages 1203-1210.
    10. Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2005. "Anonymity in giving in a natural context--a field experiment in 30 churches," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(11-12), pages 2301-2323, December.
    11. Claudia Townsend & Darren DahlEditor & Page MoreauAssociate Editor, 2017. "The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements with and without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 794-815.
    12. Wartiovaara, Markus & Lahti, Tom & Wincent, Joakim, 2019. "The role of inspiration in entrepreneurship: Theory and the future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 548-554.
    13. Lipshitz, Raanan, 1989. ""Either a medal or a corporal": The effects of success and failure on the evaluation of decision making and decision makers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 380-395, December.
    14. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "Social Comparisons and Pro-social Behavior: Testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1717-1722, December.
    15. Riegger, Anne-Sophie & Klein, Jan F. & Merfeld, Katrin & Henkel, Sven, 2021. "Technology-enabled personalization in retail stores: Understanding drivers and barriers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 140-155.
    16. Adriaan Soetevent, 2005. "Anonymity in giving in a natural context-a field experiment in thirty churches," Framed Field Experiments 00198, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Bennett, Roger & Sargeant, Adrian, 2005. "The nonprofit marketing landscape: guest editors' introduction to a special section," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 797-805, June.
    18. Deborah A. Small & Uri Simonsohn, 2008. "Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 532-542, December.
    19. Gallan, Andrew S. & McColl-Kennedy, Janet R. & Barakshina, Tatiana & Figueiredo, Bernardo & Jefferies, Josephine Go & Gollnhofer, Johanna & Hibbert, Sally & Luca, Nadina & Roy, Sanjit & Spanjol, Jelen, 2019. "Transforming community well-being through patients' lived experiences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 376-391.
    20. Karen Page Winterich & Yinlong Zhang, 2014. "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 274-293.
    21. Hazel Rose Markus & Barry Schwartz, 2010. "Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well-Being?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 344-355, August.
    22. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    23. Carroll, Ryall & Kachersky, Luke, 2019. "Service fundraising and the role of perceived donation efficacy in individual charitable giving," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 254-263.
    24. Robert J. Fisher & Mark Vandenbosch & Kersi D. Antia, 2008. "An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers' Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 519-531, February.
    25. Bruno Frey & Stephan Meier, 2004. "In a field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00243, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vyrastekova, Jana & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "Cooperation in a sequential dilemma game: How much transparency is good for cooperation?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 88-95.
    2. Simon Gaechter, 2006. "Conditional cooperation: Behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications," Discussion Papers 2006-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Krupka, Erin & Weber, Roberto A., 2009. "The focusing and informational effects of norms on pro-social behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 307-320, June.
    4. Cueva, Carlos & Dessi, Roberta, 2012. "Charitable Giving, Self-Image and Personality," TSE Working Papers 12-342, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Judd B. Kessler & Katherine L. Milkman, 2018. "Identity in Charitable Giving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 845-859, February.
    6. Borgloh, Sarah & Dannenberg, Astrid & Aretz, Bodo, 2013. "Small is beautiful—Experimental evidence of donors’ preferences for charities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 242-244.
    7. Bullard, Olya & Penner, Sara, 2017. "A regulatory-focused perspective on philanthropy: Promotion focus motivates giving to prevention-framed causes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 173-180.
    8. Ma, Jingjing & Lin, Yu (Anna) & Ein-Gar, Danit, 2023. "Charitable maximizers: The impact of the maximizing mindset on donations to human recipients," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 417-434.
    9. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    11. Simon Gaechter & Daniele Nosenzo & Elke Renner & Martin Sefton, 2009. "Sequential versus simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence," Discussion Papers 2009-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    12. Bottan, Nicolas L. & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo, 2015. "Losing my religion: The effects of religious scandals on religious participation and charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 106-119.
    13. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2014. "Reprint of: Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 87-100.
    14. Edwards, James T. & List, John A., 2014. "Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Martin Daniel Siyaranamual, 2015. "Are Results of Social- and Self-Image Concerns in Voluntary Contributions Game Similar?," Working Papers in Economics and Development Studies (WoPEDS) 201501, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University, revised Feb 2015.
    16. Krasteva, Silvana & Saboury, Piruz, 2021. "Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    17. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.
    18. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    19. Gregor Schwerhoff, 2016. "The economics of leadership in climate change mitigation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 196-214, March.
    20. Simon Gaechter & Daniele Nosenzo & Elke Renner & Martin Sefton, 2009. "Sequential versus simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence," Discussion Papers 2009-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:161:y:2023:i:c:s0148296323001844. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.