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:  11 Not-responsible 2.54 (1.62) 5.48 (1.25) 50.0% 3.14 (6.53) Aids victims Responsible 3.89 (1.43) 5.69 (1.12) 25.0% 3.61 (9.61) Not-responsible 3.33 (1.35) 5.30 (0.97) 33.3% 4.14 (8.27) Homeless alcoholic Responsible 4.44 (1.56) 5.19 (1.07) 25.0% 5.39 (17.01) Not-responsible 3.28 (1.30) 5.17 (1.06) 27.8% 7.11 (18.33) Obese person Responsible 3.19 (1.53) 4.45 (1.09) 2.8% 0.00 (0.00) Not-responsible 2.75 (1.44) 4.45 (0.94) 25.7% 2.42 (6.69) As in the first experiment, there was no effect of the responsibility manipulation on the attitude toward giving money (F (1, 280) = 1.36, p = .25). There was an effect of the kind of trouble F (3, 280) = 16.04, p < .001, 2 = .15). Post hoc comparisons showed that the attitude toward donating money for the more severe kinds of trouble (heart disease, aids, homeless alcoholic) was more positive than the one toward the less severe kind of trouble (being obese). There was no interaction between kind of trouble and responsibility (F < 1). More participants were willing to donate money for the severe kinds of trouble (heart disease, aids, homeless alcoholics) than for the less severe kind of trouble (being obese): 33.3% versus 14.1%, Π 2 (1) = 9.70, p < .01. There was also an effect of the responsibility manipulation on the willingness to donate money (not responsible: 34.9% versus responsible: 22.9%, Π 2 (1) = 4.53, p < .05). However, when the effect of the responsibility manipulation was analyzed for each of the kinds of trouble separately, the only significant effect was obtained for the less severe kind of trouble (Obesity: Π 2 (1) = 7.72, p < .01). For the more severe kinds of trouble, no effects of responsibility were obtained (p’s > .34). Finally, the amount of money one intended to donate was analyzed. Because of the absence of any variation in one of the cells (responsible for being obese), an ANOVA was deemed inappropriate. We chose to analyze the data using non-parametric (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests). There was no main effect of responsibility on the amount of money participants intended to donate (z = 0.84, p = .40). There was a main effect of kind of trouble (H (3) = 11.88, p < .01). Separate analyses showed that participants intended to donate more money to the more severe kinds of trouble than to the less severe kind of trouble (z = 3.27, p < .001). When analyzing the different kinds of trouble separately for the effect of the responsibility manipulation, there was an effect only for the less severe kind of trouble (z = 2.54, p < .05): participants who read the version in which the person suffered from obesity as a function of glandular dysfunction gave larger amounts of money compared to participants who read the version in which the person suffered from obesity as a result of not being able to stick to a diet; for the more severe kinds of trouble, no effects of responsibility were obtained (p’s > .52). Discussion The results of this experiment partly replicated and extended the findings of the first experiment. Again, the responsibility manipulation of the exemplar was generalized to the group as a whole. Again, there was no effect of the responsibility difference on the attitude toward donating money. However, there was an effect on the intention to donate money (and the amount of money). This suggests that the question of whether to give money or not, though more restricted in range, is a more sensitive measure for tapping the application of

Authors: Hoeken, Hans. and Hustinx, Lettica.
first   previous   Page 11 of 24   next   last



background image
11
Not-responsible 2.54 (1.62)
5.48 (1.25)
50.0%
3.14 (6.53)
Aids victims
Responsible
3.89 (1.43)
5.69 (1.12)
25.0%
3.61 (9.61)
Not-responsible 3.33 (1.35)
5.30 (0.97)
33.3%
4.14 (8.27)
Homeless alcoholic
Responsible
4.44 (1.56)
5.19 (1.07)
25.0%
5.39 (17.01)
Not-responsible 3.28 (1.30)
5.17 (1.06)
27.8%
7.11 (18.33)
Obese person
Responsible
3.19 (1.53)
4.45 (1.09)
2.8%
0.00 (0.00)
Not-responsible 2.75 (1.44)
4.45 (0.94)
25.7%
2.42 (6.69)
As in the first experiment, there was no effect of the responsibility manipulation on the
attitude toward giving money (F (1, 280) = 1.36, p = .25). There was an effect of the kind of
trouble F (3, 280) = 16.04, p < .001,
2
= .15). Post hoc comparisons showed that the attitude
toward donating money for the more severe kinds of trouble (heart disease, aids, homeless
alcoholic) was more positive than the one toward the less severe kind of trouble (being
obese). There was no interaction between kind of trouble and responsibility (F < 1).
More participants were willing to donate money for the severe kinds of trouble (heart
disease, aids, homeless alcoholics) than for the less severe kind of trouble (being obese):
33.3% versus 14.1%,
Π
2
(1) = 9.70, p < .01. There was also an effect of the responsibility
manipulation on the willingness to donate money (not responsible: 34.9% versus
responsible: 22.9%,
Π
2
(1) = 4.53, p < .05). However, when the effect of the responsibility
manipulation was analyzed for each of the kinds of trouble separately, the only significant
effect was obtained for the less severe kind of trouble (Obesity:
Π
2
(1) = 7.72, p < .01). For
the more severe kinds of trouble, no effects of responsibility were obtained (p’s > .34).
Finally, the amount of money one intended to donate was analyzed. Because of the
absence of any variation in one of the cells (responsible for being obese), an ANOVA was
deemed inappropriate. We chose to analyze the data using non-parametric (Mann-Whitney
and Kruskal-Wallis tests). There was no main effect of responsibility on the amount of money
participants intended to donate (z = 0.84, p = .40). There was a main effect of kind of trouble
(H (3) = 11.88, p < .01). Separate analyses showed that participants intended to donate more
money to the more severe kinds of trouble than to the less severe kind of trouble (z = 3.27, p
< .001). When analyzing the different kinds of trouble separately for the effect of the
responsibility manipulation, there was an effect only for the less severe kind of trouble (z =
2.54, p < .05): participants who read the version in which the person suffered from obesity as
a function of glandular dysfunction gave larger amounts of money compared to participants
who read the version in which the person suffered from obesity as a result of not being able
to stick to a diet; for the more severe kinds of trouble, no effects of responsibility were
obtained (p’s > .52).
Discussion

The results of this experiment partly replicated and extended the findings of the first
experiment. Again, the responsibility manipulation of the exemplar was generalized to the
group as a whole. Again, there was no effect of the responsibility difference on the attitude
toward donating money. However, there was an effect on the intention to donate money
(and the amount of money). This suggests that the question of whether to give money or not,
though more restricted in range, is a more sensitive measure for tapping the application of


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
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 11 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.