.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
Identifiable Victim Effect refers to enhancing charitable giving by presenting vivid information of one specific victim. The specific information on the recipient immediately causes donors to form a mental image on the recipient and to evoke strong emotion. In contrast, abstract information about recipients prevent donors having a clear image on them, so that leads to deliberation. Current study assumed that identifiability victim effect only occurs when the recipients' social categorization is the same to donors because recipients who have close social distance to donors cause strong emotion and affective processing mode while those who have far social distance to donors cause deliberative processing mode. Furthermore, it was assumed that different information processing modes interact with message framing. That is, deliberative mode aroused by abstract information would reduce the difference between gain and loss framing. The results indicated that identifiable recipient elicited strong sympathy and donation amounts. However, there were no statistical main effects of social distance. Additionally, only when recipients were identifiable loss-framed message evoked more sympathy than gain-framed message, whereas non-identifiable recipients diluted the message framing effect. Lastly, the identifiable recipients increased donation amounts only when they were socially close to donors; Recipients socially far to donors led to no statistical difference between identifiable and non-identifiable conditions.
성영신, 김지연, 민승기 (2010). 수혜자의 표정과 기부 목적에 따른 기부 설득 효과. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고(12), 477-496.
통계청 (2011. 11). 2011 사회조사 결과 [나눔문화]
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Contingent Value Measurement: On the Nature and Meaning of Willingness To Pay. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1(4), 297-316.
Batson, D. C., Lishner, D. A., Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and nurturance: Two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 15-25.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale, Sociology & Social Research(17), 265-271.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Sawyer, A. G. (1983). Effects of involvement and message content on information processing intensity. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Information processing research in advertising, 43-64. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chang, C. (2007a). Health-care product advertising: The influences of message framing and perceived product characteristics. Psychology and Marketing, 24, 143-169.
Chang, C. (2007b). Interactive effects of message framing, product perceived risk, and mood: The case of travel healthcare product advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 51-65.
Chang, C., & Lee, Y., (2008). Framing Charity Advertising: Influences of Message Framing, Image Valence, and Temporal Framing on a Charitable Appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935.
Cheng, F., & Wu, C. (2010). Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement. Decision Support Systems 49, 328-334.
Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the Effectiveness of Fundraising Messages: The Impact of Charity Goal Attainment, Message Framing, and Evidence on Persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175.
Dickert S. (2008). Two routes to the perception of need: The role of affective vs. deliberative information processing in prosocial behavior. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, OR.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23-30.
Jeong, E. S., Shi, Y., Baazova, A., Chiu, C., Nahai, A., Moons, W. G., & Taylor, S. E. (2011). The relation of approach/avoidance motivation and message framing to the effectiveness of charitable appeals. SOCIAL INFLUENCE, 6(1), 15-21.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 18, 157-167.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). “One of us”: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 150-157.
Lee, J. A., & Murnighan J. K. (2001). The empathy-prospect model and the choice to help, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 816-839.
Loewenstein, G. F., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. J. Davidson & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences. Series in affective science (pp.563-673). London: Oxford University Press.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. H., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 517-522.
Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1993) Social Perception and Interpersonal Influence: Some Consequences of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype in a Personal Selling Setting. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2(1), 25-38.
Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich & D. Griffin (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp.397-420). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press, Xvi, 857.
Small, D. A. & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The Face of Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 777-787.
Small, D. A, Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: Affect and deliberations in donation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143-153.
Smith R. W., Faro D., & Burson K. A. (2012). More for the many: The influence of entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, DOI:10.1086/666470.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Contrual-Level Theory of Psychological distance. Psychological Review. 117(2), 440-463.
Tversky A, & Kahneman D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 21,(4481), 453-458.