Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell

Strahilevitz, Michal; Myers, John G.

doi:10.1086/209519

Cited by 942 publications

(851 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

773

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consumer support for CSR activities is influenced by a variety of factors such as the fit between the company and the cause (i.e., Barone et al 2007), the type of product associated with a cause-related marketing campaign (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998), and the attributions consumers make regarding company's engagement in CSR (i.e., Ellen et al 2006). Future research could examine whether the factors previously explored in the CSR literature still maintain the importance to consumers as it relates to socially responsible gift-giving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially Responsible Gift-Giving

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research demonstrates that consumers support firms' CSR activities, and increasingly demand socially responsible products and services. However, an implicit assumption in the extant literature is that the purchaser and the consumer of the product are the same person. The current research focuses on a unique form of socially responsible consumption behavior: giftgiving. Through thirty depth consumer interviews, we develop a typology of consumers based on whether consumers integrate CSR-related information into purchases, and whether the purchases are for themselves or for others (i.e., gifts). We find that in some instances, consumers actively avoid purchasing products from socially responsible organizations and do so with the intention of managing their impressions with the gift recipient. This is counter to previous research that suggests consumers often choose to make socially responsible consumption decisions in efforts to satisfy self-presentation concerns. In addition, the decision to engage in socially responsible consumption for oneself but not for others was motivated by a variety of factors including the role of the recipient and a concern over the credibility of socially responsible gifts. Finally, some participants who do not incorporate CSR into their own personal consumption chose gifts based on a variety of CSR activities in an effort to build awareness for socially responsible organizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially Responsible Gift-Giving

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, when exposed to a loyalty program requiring greater effort, individuals prefer a luxury reward in comparison to more utilitarian choices than when the program requires less effort (Kivetz and Simonson 2002). Similarly, donations to charity are preferred to a monetary incentive when they are bundled with a hedonic product such as a hot fudge sundae than when they are bundled with a utilitarian item (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). Preference for luxuries, relative to utilities, is also enhanced by previous acts enhancing self-concept, such as donations to charity (Khan and Dhar 2006).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it fun or exercise? The framing of physical activity biases subsequent snacking

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do consumers eat more when they exercise more? If so, the implications could ripple through the multi-billion dollar fitness and food industries and have implications for both consumers and health-care providers. Three studies-two field experiments and one observational field study-triangulate on this potential compensatory mechanism between physical activity and food intake. The findings showed that when physical activity was perceived as fun (e.g., when it is labeled as a scenic walk rather than an exercise walk), people subsequently consume less dessert at mealtime and consume fewer hedonic snacks. A final observational field study during a competitive race showed that the more fun people rated the race as being, the less likely they were to compensate with a hedonic snack afterwards. Engaging in a physical activity seems to trigger the search for reward when individuals perceive it as exercise but not when they perceive it as fun. Key implications for the fitness industry and for health-care professionals are detailed along with the simple advice to consumers to make certain they make their physical activity routine fun in order to avoid compensation.

show abstract

“…The existing literature on charitable giving choices has focused not on people's motivation for giving and preferences for causes, but has instead emphasized solicitation strategies, focusing for example on the role of framing (Gourville 1998), anchor points (Fraser, Hite, and Sauer 1998), negative emotions elicited in ads (Bagozzi and Moore 1994), mortality salience (Ferraro, Shiv, and Bettman 2005), and the bundling of products with promised donations by companies (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). In this paper, we focus on what drives people to care about and donate to particular causes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior

Small

Simonsohn

2006

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do different people give to different causes? We show that the sympathy inherent to a close relationship with a victim extends to other victims suffering from the same misfortunes that have afflicted their friends and loved ones. Both sympathy and donations are greater among those related to a victim, and they are greater among those in a communal relationship as compared to those in an exchange relationship. Experiments that control for information support causality and rule out the alternative explanation that any effect is driven by the information advantage possessed by friends of victims. The Wharton School uws@wharton.upenn.edu Why do different people give to different causes? We argue that knowing people with specific misfortunes is an important determinant of preference. Four studies demonstrate that knowing a victim increases prosocial behavior directed toward other victims of the same misfortune in the lab and field, for both donated time and money. An experiment shows that the relationship is causal, not due to unobserved heterogeneity. Survey data suggests that knowing a victim decreases social distance and increases perceived responsibility for others' welfare, together fully mediating the effect on prosocial behavior.We would like to thank Rachel Croson, Eli Finkel, Barbara Kahn, George Loewenstein, Jay Russo, Maurice Schweitzer, Jack Soll and Ebonya Washington for valuable comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank

show abstract

Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell

Cited by 942 publications

References 1 publication

Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially Responsible Gift-Giving

Giving the Gift of Goodness: An Exploration of Socially Responsible Gift-Giving

Is it fun or exercise? The framing of physical activity biases subsequent snacking

Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About