Representing disability in charity promotions

Abstract

Social psychological research in relation to charity advertising in the area of disability has attempted to distinguish between`positive' and`negative' images and the way in which these are related to their fundraising potential. In the light of the critique of charity advertising oered by a number of disability theorists, it is suggested that this perspective would be enhanced by consideration of the attitudes of disabled people to charity advertisements. A study is reported that compares the attitudes of disabled and non-disabled people to two charity advertisements. Dierences between these two groups are reported and in the light of the nature of these it is suggested that what are considered to constitute`positive images' is unlikely to be consensual.

Exploring persuasive message strategy for international aid campaigns: potential donors’ inter-attitudinal structure using Galileo model

“…It mainly examines the instantaneous effect of campaign messages, so that it tends to ignore negative side effects in the longer term. The use of negative campaigns that describe the recipients as helpless and hopeless can reinforce prejudice and negative stereotypes about the recipients and their group (Barnett and Hammond 1999;Bozinoff and Ghingold 1983;Doddington et al 1994). Thus, the negative effects can decrease future donations, even though emotional appeals seem to increase monetary donations on the spot.…”

Ethics of Care as a theory of normative fundraising ethics

“…Beneficiaries may find some interactions with potential donors to be negative in nature. For example, studies of both the disabled population (Barnett & Hammond, 1999) and the homeless population (Breeze & Dean, 2012) reveal dissatisfaction with their portrayal in nonprofit fundraising and advertising campaigns.…”

Applying a stakeholder management approach to ethics in charitable fundraising

“…Fundraisers write differently about populations that are more socially stigmatized, justifying their worthiness with additional facts, and downplaying their expected positive outcomes relative to more acceptable populations (Hansen, 2020a). Beneficiaries are not always pleased with how they appear in fundraising materials, although often they accept the need to simplify the situation for the purposes of seeking funding (Barnett & Hammond, 1999; Bhati & Eikenberry, 2016; Breeze & Dean, 2012; Gies, 2021).…”