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:  18 Next, we assessed whether the male Flemish participants did indeed more agree with the meaning of these proverbs than the female Flemish participants, whereas no such difference would be obtained for the Dutch participants. A 2 (nationality) x 2 (gender) MANOVA was conducted using the agreement scores for the two proverbs as dependent variables. 2 The expected interaction did not arise (Wilks’ λ = .995, F < 1), nor were there any main effects (Nationality: Wilks’ λ = .982, F (2, 203) = 1.84, p = .16; Gender: Wilks’ λ = .993, F < 1). 3 A 2 (nationality) x 2 (responsibility manipulation) x 2 (heuristic priming manipulation) ANOVA was carried out to assess whether the responsibility manipulation had been successful in influencing the perception of responsibility of the exemplar for both cultures. There was a strong main effect of the responsibility manipulation on the extent to which the exemplar in the responsible version was held responsible for getting into trouble (F (1, 217) = 338.31, p < .001, η 2 = .61). None of the other main effects or interactions was significant (p’s > .13). Next, a three-way MANOVA was carried out taking the general responsibility perception, attitude, and amount of money donated as dependent variables. Table 3 contains the scores for general responsibility perception, attitude toward donation, intention to donate, and the average amount of donation. Table 3 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 people said they would give (in Euros) Responsibility Intention perception Attitude to donate Amount The Netherlands Responsible 3.40 (1.47) 5.02 (1.19) 42.1% 1.18 (1.73) Not-responsible 2.36 (1.53) 5.40 (0.90) 61.1% 2.32 (3.73) Flanders Responsible 3.22 (1.67) 4.70 (1.09) 25.5% 1.11 (2.62) Not-responsible 2.41 (1.32) 5.09 (1.05) 41.8% 5.15 (8.59) There were no relevant effects of proverb priming for any of the dependent variables nor were there any relevant significant two or three-way interactions. 4 The only significant effects were a main effect of Nationality (Wilks’ λ = 0.945, F (3, 209) = 4.05, p < .01, η 2 = .05) and a main effect of the Responsibility manipulation (Wilks’ λ = 0.860, F (3, 209) = 11.35, p < .001, η 2 = .14). Subsequent univariate analyses revealed that the main effect of Nationality was the result of the Dutch participants holding a more positive attitude towards donating money than the Flemish participants (Dutch: M = 5.20, SD = 1.07; Flemish: M = 4.89, SD = 1.09; F (1, 211) = 5.23, p < .05, η 2 = .02). Despite the more positive attitude of the Dutch, the Flemish participants appeared to indicate that they would donate a larger amount of money compared to the Dutch participants; the latter effect did not reach conventional levels of significance (Dutch: M = 1.73, SD = 2.92; Flemish: M = 3.11, SD = 6.61; F (1, 211) = 3.84, p = .051). Univariate analyses revealed that the main effect of the responsibility manipulation did occur for each of the dependent variables. After reading the letter containing the responsible

Authors: Hoeken, Hans. and Hustinx, Lettica.
first   previous   Page 18 of 24   next   last



background image
18
Next, we assessed whether the male Flemish participants did indeed more agree with
the meaning of these proverbs than the female Flemish participants, whereas no such
difference would be obtained for the Dutch participants. A 2 (nationality) x 2 (gender)
MANOVA was conducted using the agreement scores for the two proverbs as dependent
variables.
2
The expected interaction did not arise (Wilks’
λ
= .995, F < 1), nor were there any
main effects (Nationality: Wilks’
λ
= .982, F (2, 203) = 1.84, p = .16; Gender: Wilks’
λ
= .993,
F < 1).
3
A 2 (nationality) x 2 (responsibility manipulation) x 2 (heuristic priming manipulation)
ANOVA was carried out to assess whether the responsibility manipulation had been
successful in influencing the perception of responsibility of the exemplar for both cultures.
There was a strong main effect of the responsibility manipulation on the extent to which the
exemplar in the responsible version was held responsible for getting into trouble (F (1, 217) =
338.31, p < .001,
η
2
= .61). None of the other main effects or interactions was significant (p’s
> .13).
Next, a three-way MANOVA was carried out taking the general responsibility perception,
attitude, and amount of money donated as dependent variables. Table 3 contains the scores
for general responsibility perception, attitude toward donation, intention to donate, and the
average amount of donation.

Table 3
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 people said they would give (in Euros)
Responsibility
Intention
perception
Attitude
to
donate Amount

The Netherlands
Responsible
3.40 (1.47)
5.02 (1.19)
42.1%
1.18 (1.73)
Not-responsible 2.36 (1.53)
5.40 (0.90)
61.1%
2.32 (3.73)
Flanders
Responsible
3.22 (1.67)
4.70 (1.09)
25.5%
1.11 (2.62)
Not-responsible 2.41 (1.32)
5.09 (1.05)
41.8%
5.15 (8.59)
There were no relevant effects of proverb priming for any of the dependent variables nor
were there any relevant significant two or three-way interactions.
4
The only significant effects
were a main effect of Nationality (Wilks’
λ
= 0.945, F (3, 209) = 4.05, p < .01,
η
2
= .05) and a
main effect of the Responsibility manipulation (Wilks’
λ
= 0.860, F (3, 209) = 11.35, p < .001,
η
2
= .14).
Subsequent univariate analyses revealed that the main effect of Nationality was the
result of the Dutch participants holding a more positive attitude towards donating money than
the Flemish participants (Dutch: M = 5.20, SD = 1.07; Flemish: M = 4.89, SD = 1.09; F (1,
211) = 5.23, p < .05,
η
2
= .02). Despite the more positive attitude of the Dutch, the Flemish
participants appeared to indicate that they would donate a larger amount of money compared
to the Dutch participants; the latter effect did not reach conventional levels of significance
(Dutch: M = 1.73, SD = 2.92; Flemish: M = 3.11, SD = 6.61; F (1, 211) = 3.84, p = .051).
Univariate analyses revealed that the main effect of the responsibility manipulation did
occur for each of the dependent variables. After reading the letter containing the responsible


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 18 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.