IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0302587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who follows through? Different factors predict initial commitment vs. Following through in a national survey of organ donor registration

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle Z Yang
  • Paschal Sheeran

Abstract

Objective: Little research has investigated factors that determine whether people falter in the face of an obstacle or successfully follow through on an initial commitment to act. We integrated multiple theories (the Reasoned Action Approach [RAA], Prototype Willingness Model, and anticipated regret theory) to test which factors predict initial commitment to register as an organ donor and to discover whether different factors predict initial commitment vs. following through with registration. Methods: Participants from a nationally representative UK sample (N = 1,008) reported their beliefs about organ donation and indicated their decision to register. An obstacle that participants could not foresee was that they had to complete registration in a second survey 3 days after making their initial commitment. Results: Findings showed that 14.8% of participants followed through, 19.7% demonstrated initial commitment, and 65.5% declined to register. Linear discriminant function analysis derived two functions that distinguished these registration patterns. The first function discriminated participants who declined to register from the other groups. The declined group had lower scores on RAA variables compared to their counterparts. The second function distinguished participants who made an initial commitment to register from those who followed through. Follow-through was associated with less anticipated negative affect, more favorable descriptive norms, and stronger identification with organ donors. Conclusions: The present findings indicate that even modest friction leads to a large reduction in follow-through. Moreover, different factors influence initial commitment vs. following through. Whereas RAA variables predicted initial commitment, following through was a function of anticipated negative affect and social processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle Z Yang & Paschal Sheeran, 2024. "Who follows through? Different factors predict initial commitment vs. Following through in a national survey of organ donor registration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302587
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302587
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302587&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0302587?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    2. Conner, Mark & McEachan, Rosemary & Lawton, Rebecca & Gardner, Peter, 2017. "Applying the reasoned action approach to understanding health protection and health risk behaviors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 140-148.
    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. Vicente Martínez-Tur & Vicente Peñarroja & Miguel A Serrano & Vanesa Hidalgo & Carolina Moliner & Alicia Salvador & Adrián Alacreu-Crespo & Esther Gracia & Agustín Molina, 2014. "Intergroup Conflict and Rational Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Harrington, Jean & Morgan, Myfanwy, 2016. "Understanding kidney transplant patients' treatment choices: The interaction of emotion with medical and social influences on risk preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 43-50.
    3. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    5. Gigi Foster, 2020. "The behavioural economics of government responses to COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S3), pages 11-43, December.
    6. Samahita, Margaret & Holm, Håkan J., 2020. "Mining for Mood Effect in the Field," Working Papers 2020:2, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    7. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    8. Ying-Hsuan Chen & Shun-Lung Chao & Yen-Wei Chu, 2022. "Effects of Perceived Benefit on Vitamin D Supplementation Intention: A Theory of Planned Behaviour Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    9. De Silva, Muthu & Rossi, Federica & Yip, Nick K.T. & Rosli, Ainurul, 2021. "Does affective evaluation matter for the success of university-industry collaborations? A sentiment analysis of university-industry collaborative project reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    10. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    11. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    12. Bachmann, Kremena & Meyer, Julia & Krauss, Annette, 2024. "Investment motives and performance expectations of impact investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    13. Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    14. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    16. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Kathleen McColl & Marion Debin & Cecile Souty & Caroline Guerrisi & Clement Turbelin & Alessandra Falchi & Isabelle Bonmarin & Daniela Paolotti & Chinelo Obi & Jim Duggan & Yamir Moreno & Ania Wisniak, 2021. "Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Robert J. Shiller, 2017. "Narrative Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 967-1004, April.
    19. van der Linden, Sander, 2014. "On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: the case of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. John Garcia, 2024. "Herding the crowds: how sentiment affects crowdsourced earnings estimates," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 38(3), pages 331-370, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0302587. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.