All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Exemplars and the Application of the Desert Heuristic When Responding to Fundraising Attempts
Unformatted Document Text:  10 7.32 , p < .001, 2 = .07). Post hoc comparisons showed that obese people (M = 3.66, SD = 1.75) were considered to be less in need of financial support than homeless alcoholics (M = 4.70, SD = 1.58), the Aids victims (M = 4.80, SD = 1.49), and the heart disease patients (M = 4.86, SD = 2.04). The latter three did not differ from each other. Therefore, the obesity problem was categorized as less severe than the other three problems. Second, we checked to see whether the responsibility manipulation was successful for the different kinds of problems. A 4 (kind of trouble) x 2 (responsible versus not-responsible) ANOVA was conducted on the perceived responsibility scores. There was a main effect of the responsibility manipulation (F (1, 276) = 226.82 , p < .001, 2 = .45) showing that the responsible exemplar was held more responsible for getting into trouble (M = 4.70, SD = 1.42) than the not-responsible exemplar (M = 2.34, SD = 1.55). There was also a main effect of the kind of trouble (F (3, 276) = 16.30 , p < .001, 2 = .15). Post hoc comparisons showed that the homeless alcoholic was held more responsible for the trouble he was in (M = 4.41, SD = 1.50) than the other three groups (obese person: M = 3.06, SD = 1.63; heart disease patient: M = 3.04, SD = 2.02; aids victim: M = 3.51, SD = 2.09). The two main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between kind of trouble and exemplar’s responsibility (F (3, 276) = 10.12 , p < .001, 2 = .10). The interaction appears to be caused by the fact that the difference between the not-responsible and the responsible exemplar was larger for the Aids exemplar (mean difference: 3.12) and the heart disease exemplar (mean difference: 3.30) than for the homeless alcoholic exemplar (mean difference: 1.22) and the obese person exemplar (mean difference: 1.83). Despite these differences in effect, for all four themes, contrasts revealed that there was a significant difference between the responsible and the not-responsible exemplar (all p’s < .001). The question was whether or not this difference would influence the perception of the group as a whole. The first column of Table 1 contains the responses to the item that “X usually have themselves to blame for the trouble they are in”. As in the first experiment, reading the letter with the responsible exemplar led to a higher perceived responsibility for the group, compared to reading the letter with the not-responsible exemplar (F (1, 278) = 19.05, p < .001, 2 = .06). There was also a main effect of the kind of trouble (F (3, 278) = 7.10, p < .001, 2 = .07). Post hoc comparisons showed that the people suffering from obesity or a heart disease were held less responsible for getting into trouble than the Aids victims and the homeless alcoholics. The interaction between the two factors was not significant (F < 1). The question is whether this difference in general responsibility perception had an effect on the attitude toward donating money and whether this effect depended on the seriousness of the problem. The second to fourth columns in Table 1 contain the scores for the attitude toward donation, the percentage of participants who were willing to donate money, and the average amount of money they would donate. Table 1 The mean responsibility ratings and attitude toward donating money (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive), the percentage of participants indicating their intention to give money, and the average amount of money (in Dutch guilders) people said they would give Responsibility Intention perception Attitude to donate Amount Heart disease Responsible 3.37 (1.35) 5.67 (1.14) 38.9% 5.33 (8.90)

Authors: Hoeken, Hans. and Hustinx, Lettica.
first   previous   Page 10 of 24   next   last



background image
10
7.32
, p < .001,
2
= .07). Post hoc comparisons showed that obese people (M = 3.66, SD =
1.75) were considered to be less in need of financial support than homeless alcoholics (M =
4.70, SD = 1.58), the Aids victims (M = 4.80, SD = 1.49), and the heart disease patients (M =
4.86, SD = 2.04). The latter three did not differ from each other. Therefore, the obesity
problem was categorized as less severe than the other three problems.
Second, we checked to see whether the responsibility manipulation was successful for
the different kinds of problems. A 4 (kind of trouble) x 2 (responsible versus not-responsible)
ANOVA was conducted on the perceived responsibility scores. There was a main effect of
the responsibility manipulation (F (1, 276) = 226.82
, p < .001,
2
= .45) showing that the
responsible exemplar was held more responsible for getting into trouble (M = 4.70, SD =
1.42) than the not-responsible exemplar (M = 2.34, SD = 1.55). There was also a main effect
of the kind of trouble (F (3, 276) = 16.30
, p < .001,
2
= .15). Post hoc comparisons showed
that the homeless alcoholic was held more responsible for the trouble he was in (M = 4.41,
SD = 1.50) than the other three groups (obese person: M = 3.06, SD = 1.63; heart disease
patient: M = 3.04, SD = 2.02; aids victim: M = 3.51, SD = 2.09).
The two main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between kind of trouble
and exemplar’s responsibility (F (3, 276) = 10.12
, p < .001,
2
= .10). The interaction appears
to be caused by the fact that the difference between the not-responsible and the responsible
exemplar was larger for the Aids exemplar (mean difference: 3.12) and the heart disease
exemplar (mean difference: 3.30) than for the homeless alcoholic exemplar (mean difference:
1.22) and the obese person exemplar (mean difference: 1.83). Despite these differences in
effect, for all four themes, contrasts revealed that there was a significant difference between
the responsible and the not-responsible exemplar (all p’s < .001).
The question was whether or not this difference would influence the perception of the
group as a whole. The first column of Table 1 contains the responses to the item that “X
usually have themselves to blame for the trouble they are in”. As in the first experiment,
reading the letter with the responsible exemplar led to a higher perceived responsibility for
the group, compared to reading the letter with the not-responsible exemplar (F (1, 278) =
19.05, p < .001,
2
= .06). There was also a main effect of the kind of trouble (F (3, 278) =
7.10, p < .001,
2
= .07). Post hoc comparisons showed that the people suffering from obesity
or a heart disease were held less responsible for getting into trouble than the Aids victims
and the homeless alcoholics. The interaction between the two factors was not significant (F <
1).
The question is whether this difference in general responsibility perception had an effect
on the attitude toward donating money and whether this effect depended on the seriousness
of the problem. The second to fourth columns in Table 1 contain the scores for the attitude
toward donation, the percentage of participants who were willing to donate money, and the
average amount of money they would donate.
Table 1
The mean responsibility ratings and attitude toward donating money (1 = very negative, 7 =
very positive), the percentage of participants indicating their intention to give money, and the
average amount of money (in Dutch guilders) people said they would give
Responsibility
Intention
perception
Attitude
to
donate Amount

Heart disease
Responsible
3.37 (1.35)
5.67 (1.14)
38.9%
5.33 (8.90)


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 10 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.