IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v48y2022i5p839-857..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obligatory Publicity IncreasesCharitable Acts
[Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal]

Author

Listed:
  • Adelle X Yang
  • Christopher K Hsee

Abstract

To entice new donors and spread awareness of the charitable cause, many charity campaigns encourage donors to broadcast their charitable acts with self-promotion devices such as donor pins, logoed apparel, and social media hashtags. However, this voluntary-publicity strategy may not be particularly attractive because potential donors may worry that observers will attribute their publicized charitable behavior to “impure” image motives rather than “pure” altruistic motives. We propose and test a counterintuitive campaign strategy—obligatory publicity, which requires prospective donors to use a self-promotion device as a prerequisite for contributing to the campaign. Five studies (N = 10,866) test the application and effectiveness of the proposed strategy. The first three studies, including two field experiments, find that obligatory-publicity campaigns recruit more contributions and campaign promoters than voluntary-publicity campaigns. The last two studies demonstrate that the obligatory-publicity strategy produces a greater effect among people with stronger image motives and that the effect is mitigated when the publicized charitable act signals a low level of altruism. Finally, we discuss limitations and implications of this research.

Suggested Citation

  • Adelle X Yang & Christopher K Hsee, 2022. "Obligatory Publicity IncreasesCharitable Acts [Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 48(5), pages 839-857.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:48:y:2022:i:5:p:839-857.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucab020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:jconrs:v:48:y:2022:i:5:p:839-857.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.