Effects of the severity of collective threats on people's donation intention

Abstract

Understanding people's behavior when they are under threat is important to both researchers and practitioners. This study investigates the impact of the severity of collective threats on people's donation intention. Through a series of studies, our findings show that the severity of collective threats positively affects people's donation intention. Specifically, when a collective threat becomes more severe, people under threat tend to pay more attention to and feel empathy for others experiencing the same threat, thus increasing their donation intention. Furthermore, the positive effect of collective threat severity on people's donation intention becomes weaker when the degree of threat relief is high (vs. low). It is also found that when donation recipients are experiencing a different threat from that of donors, the positive effect of collective threat severity disappears. This study enriches our understanding of people's behavior under threat and extends the literature on social identity theory. Additionally, our results provide important managerial implications for charity organizations regarding how to increase people's donation intention by selecting appropriate locations and timings for donation activities.

What goes around comes around: The effect of belief in karma on charitable donation behavior

“…Numerous studies have discussed the factors that can influence individuals' charitable behavior, such as customer engagement (Christofi et al, 2020), self-gain/other-gain appeals (Chapman et al, 2020), collective threats (Zheng et al, 2021), servant brand consumption (Ho et al, 2021). However, research on the joint effect of belief and appeal frame on donors' behavior remains limited.…”

Marketing in an identity‐threatened world: Consumer coping strategies and indulgent consumption

“…Our examination of differences between the coping strategies used to manage social identity threats responds to Mandel et al's call (2017) for more work in this area and contributes to an emerging stream of work that has started to compare the effects of using self‐affirmation to those of group‐affirmation (Sherman et al, 2007). Most of the research on social identity threats has studied only one coping strategy in isolation or has not explored their differential consequences for people's subsequent indulgence (e.g., Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Maass et al, 2003; White & Argo, 2009; White et al, 2012; Zheng et al, 2021). This has limited our understanding of the positive and negative consequences of their use.…”

What drives sponsorship effectiveness? An examination of the roles of brand community identification, brand authenticity, and sponsor–club congruence

“…Social identity is anchored on social categorization, which entails that people are represented not only as individuals but also as members of specific social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity embodies how an individual collectively defines himself as a member of a social aggregate (Zheng et al, 2021). Based on the tenets of social identity theory, Mael and Ashforth (1992) define social identification as "the perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate" (p. 21).…”

“…Such individuals who identify as members of a social group hold more favorable opinions of the group's characteristics when compared with other groups, culminating in in‐group bias (Lin & Bruning, 2020; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Extant research indicates that social identity influences people's preferences and behavior considerably (Zheng et al, 2021), because of which they think and act in ways that are consistent with the group's values. For example, individuals are more likely to form favorable attitudes toward individuals within their group (i.e., in‐group members) than those outside their group (i.e., outgroup members; Demirel et al, 2018; Thompson & Sinha, 2008).…”