IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v40y2023i2p417-434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charitable maximizers: The impact of the maximizing mindset on donations to human recipients

Author

Listed:
  • Ma, Jingjing
  • Lin, Yu (Anna)
  • Ein-Gar, Danit

Abstract

The majority of donations are dedicated to helping human recipients. Building on prior literature that demonstrates the role of downward social comparisons between donors and donation recipients in elevating willingness to help those in need, we propose that a maximizing mindset increases such downward social comparisons, which in turn promote donations to human recipients. A set of seven studies, including online and field experiments and a secondary dataset, provides convergent support for the effect of the maximizing mindset (whether measured as an inherent individual difference or activated as a temporary mindset) on donations and the mediating role of downward social comparisons. This research enriches the understanding of donations to human recipients by showing that donations can be enhanced by a maximizing mindset. Our findings offer important insights to donation-raising agencies. Specifically, activating the maximizing mindset among prospective donors—by embedding certain words in donation appeals or encouraging donors to think about their best choices in everyday life—could benefit charities and social-cause platforms in their efforts to raise donations to support the needy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:40:y:2023:i:2:p:417-434
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811622000842
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.12.003?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. Eric M. Schwartz & Eric T. Bradlow & Peter S. Fader, 2017. "Customer Acquisition via Display Advertising Using Multi-Armed Bandit Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 500-522, July.
    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. Anat Keinan & Ran Kivetz, 2011. "Productivity Orientation and the Consumption of Collectable Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(6), pages 935-950.
    4. Ashlee Humphreys & Rebecca Jen-Hui Wang & Eileen FischerEditor & Linda PriceAssociate Editor, 2018. "Automated Text Analysis for Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(6), pages 1274-1306.
    5. Jonathan Levav & Nicholas Reinholtz & Claire Lin, 2012. "The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 585-599.
    6. Winterich, Karen Page & Zhang, Yinlong & Mittal, Vikas, 2012. "How political identity and charity positioning increase donations: Insights from Moral Foundations Theory," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 346-354.
    7. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:798-806 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Wang, Yajin & John, Deborah Roedder & Griskevicious, Vladas, 2021. "Does the devil wear Prada? Luxury product experiences can affect prosocial behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 104-119.
    10. Christoph Fuchs & Martijn G. de Jong & Martin Schreier, 2020. "Earmarking Donations to Charity: Cross-cultural Evidence on Its Appeal to Donors Across 25 Countries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4820-4842, October.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:126-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Buunk, Abraham P. & Gibbons, Frederick X., 2007. "Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 3-21, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Judd B. Kessler & Katherine L. Milkman & C. Yiwei Zhang, 2019. "Getting the Rich and Powerful to Give," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4049-4062, September.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:7-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Chen, Zengxiang & Huang, Yunhui, 2016. "Cause-related marketing is not always less favorable than corporate philanthropy: The moderating role of self-construal," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 868-880.
    17. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    18. 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.
    19. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    20. Julian Givi & Jeff Galak, 2020. "Selfish Prosocial Behavior: Gift-Giving to Feel Unique," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(1), pages 34-43.
    21. 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.
    22. Tilottama Chowdhury & S. Ratneshwar & Praggyan Mohanty, 2009. "The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 155-167, June.
    23. Ayelet Gneezy & Alex Imas & Amber Brown & Leif D. Nelson & Michael I. Norton, 2012. "Paying to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 179-187, January.
    24. Jingjing Ma & Neal J. Roese, 2014. "The Maximizing Mind-Set," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 71-92.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:516-526 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Misuraca, Raffaella & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    4. 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).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Kaeun Kim & Elizabeth Miller, 2017. "Vulnerable maximizers: The role of decision difficulty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 516-526, September.
    7. Xia, Lan & Bechwati, Nada Nasr, 2021. "Maximizing what? The effect of maximizing mindset on the evaluation of product bundles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 314-325.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:126-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ana Alina Tudoran, 2022. "A machine learning approach to identifying decision-making styles for managing customer relationships," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 351-374, March.
    10. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    11. 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.
    12. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    13. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    14. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic, 2016. "Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Abhishek Bhati & Ruth K. Hansen, 2020. "A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    16. Mittal, Banwari, 2016. "The maximizing consumer wants even more choices: How consumers cope with the marketplace of overchoice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 361-370.
    17. Nathan N. Cheek & Barry Schwartz, 2016. "On the meaning and measurement of maximization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(2), pages 126-146, March.
    18. Nathan N. Cheek & Jacob Goebel, 2020. "What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,†indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.
    19. Muthaffar, Aisha & Vilches-Montero, Sonia, 2023. "Empowering retailers: A bounded rationality perspective to enhancing omnichannel journey satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    20. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    21. Ernan Haruvy & Peter Popkowski Leszczyc & Greg Allenby & Russell Belk & Catherine Eckel & Robert Fisher & Sherry Xin Li & John A. List & Yu Ma & Yu Wang, 2020. "Fundraising design: key issues, unifying framework, and open puzzles," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 371-380, December.
    22. Harris, Patricia & Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca & Hand, Chris, 2021. "Multichannel shopping: The effect of decision making style on shopper journey configuration and satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    23. Luca Corazzini & Christopher Cotton & Enrico Longo & Tommaso Reggiani, 2021. "The Gates Effect in Public Goods Experiments: How Donations Flow to the Recipients Favored by the Wealthy," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2021-13, Masaryk University, revised Feb 2023.

    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:ijrema:v:40:y:2023:i:2:p:417-434. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    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.