Mood states in the volunteer blood donor

Abstract

Mood changes across time were evaluated as they applied to the process of volunteer blood donation. Measures of mood (from the Mood Adjective Check List) were taken before and at three different intervals after blood donations by 245 college students. Anxiety scores were significantly higher before blood donation, and elation scores showed a significant increase following donation. Veteran donors experienced significantly less discomfort before donation. These findings imply that blood donations can be viewed as an "opponent-affective process," in which initial, mildly aversive feelings lead to positive aftereffects. Current findings suggest that blood donation can be explained, in part, by a self-serving, addictive process.

The blood‐donation experience: perceived physical, psychological and social impact of blood donation on the donor

“…Instead, the results of the present study are in line with the findings of Zillmer et al . [31], who also did not observe any increase in positive postdonation feelings with increasing number of blood donations. Obviously, the importance of altruism for donating blood should not be underestimated.…”

Negative experiences and donor return: an examination of the role of asking for something different

“…This contrasts with other analyses in which all donors who attempted a donation were recruited. Further, donors can experience heightened postdonation positive affect . In this context, our question that focused on the successful outcome of the process (i.e., a donation, not merely a donation attempt) may have led donors to positively reflect on their experience and discount any minor negative experiences.…”

First year donation patterns predict long‐term commitment for first‐time donors

“…They believed that donors become ‘addicted’ after three to four donations. Similarly, Zilmer and colleagues found a decrease in negative feelings about blood donation as donors returned more frequently, thus making blood donation a self‐serving and addictive process [23]. James & Matthews analysed donor histories for up to four previous donations and concluded that the length of the interval since the previous donation affected the likelihood of a subsequent donation [24].…”