̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Eric Levy

Willingness to give to charity depends on how inferior or superior you feel

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:51:05 +0000

Suppose a cancer charity’s advertisement that says “Making strides toward a world with more birthdays” was changed to say “Making strides toward giving you more birthdays.” Would this influence your likelihood to donate? A new study argues that it does – depending on whether you are comparing yourself favourably or unfavourably to other people.

̽��ֱ��first advert (the actual ad copy used by the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life), which focuses on giving the world more birthdays, would be more effective if you feel relatively better off than others (a “downward comparison”). This is because people making downward comparisons are more likely to give as a means of expressing altruistic values, such as to give back and be a better person. In contrast, people who feel inferior in some way (an “upward comparison”) are more likely to give in order to benefit themselves – to give oneself more birthdays, in this example.

In a study published online in Journal of Consumer Psychology, Professor Ann Schlosser of Foster School of Business, ̽��ֱ�� of Washington, and Dr Eric Levy of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Judge Business School found that those making downward and upward comparisons differ in how willing they are to help in order to benefit others’ lives.

These results have important implications, because, depending on whether an advert’s target segment feels generally better or worse off than others, charities should craft their appeals to emphasise benefits to others or individuals, respectively – and this context is critical to the success of a charitable appeal, the study found.

“For charities, the study finds that adverts highlighting the altruistic reasons for giving, such as how giving would benefit others, would be more likely to appeal to people who feel in a relatively good position in their lives,” says Dr Levy, ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer in Marketing at Cambridge Judge. “This can help charities target their ads far more effectively.

“Given that most charity advertisements focus on 'benefits to others' rather than to oneself, the study suggests that many of these ads may be ineffective in motivating people to give when they are feeling worse off than others. So charity managers should seek to ascertain if their target audience feels worse off than others, and if so say something like ‘help improve air quality so you can live a healthier life’ rather than ‘help improve air quality so people around the world can live healthier lives’.”

Although there has been six decades of research on “comparison theory,” the direction of comparison as a predictor of people’s willingness to give had previously been little explored, the paper said.

̽��ֱ��paper is based on four separate but related experimental tests on hundreds of people, including undergraduate students as well as non-students.

In one test, students were told that their job prospects were easier (prompting downward comparison) or worse (prompting upward comparison) to another group of college students. ̽��ֱ��students were then shown volunteering opportunities that emphasised benefits to others (”help those less fortunate by giving to those who need it”) or self-benefit (“build connections by networking with local business and community leaders”). ̽��ֱ��result: “Those in the downward (vs. upward) condition were more willing to help when the ad used an other-benefit appeal.”

Another of the four studies showed that those making downward comparisons gave more money than a no-comparison control group, while those making upward comparisons gave marginally less.

Across the four studies, the researchers consistently found that downward comparisons increase individuals’ willingness to give when the context explicitly states or implies that giving will benefit others.

Reference
Ann E. Schlosser and Eric Levy. Helping others or oneself: How direction of comparison affects prosocial behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology; 22 Feb 2016; DOI: doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.02.002

Adapted from a press release from the Cambridge Judge Business School

An individual’s likelihood to donate to charity – and the amount they donate – depends on whether they feel superior or inferior to others, which has implications for charity advertising strategies, according to new study co-authored at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Judge Business School.

Given that most charity advertisements focus on 'benefits to others' rather than to oneself, the study suggests that many of these ads may be ineffective in motivating people to give when they are feeling worse off than others

Eric Levy

Images Money

Coins (cropped)

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: What do our spending habits reveal about our romantic intentions?

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:20:08 +0000

Money might not buy you love, but according to some studies in psychology and consumer behaviour, how you spend it could reveal a thing or two about your romantic intentions. These studies demonstrate that just thinking about meeting a new partner can actually impact our shopping decisions in surprising ways – affecting men and women differently.

Male satin bower bird building a nest by collecting blue objects. CC BY-SA

These studies are largely based on “costly signalling theory” – a model borrowed from evolutionary biology which suggests that conspicuous displays that are difficult to acquire, such as the elaborate and colourful nests of bowerbirds, serve a vital function in signalling one’s desirable traits.

In humans, the signals displayed by men and women tend to differ, due to the different traits that are thought to be attractive to the opposite sex based on evolutionary pressures. According to costly signalling theory, men should seek to display their wealth and resources to women, while women should advertise their helpfulness and kindness to men.

Emotional shopping

But how does this relate to spending? One study investigated this question by showing half of the participants pictures of attractive people of the opposite sex or having them reading a scenario about meeting an attractive person for a romantic walk on the beach. ̽��ֱ��other half read a neutral scenario unrelated to attraction. ̽��ֱ��results showed that men who had romance on their minds were more likely to report that they would spend money on conspicuous luxury goods, for example a new car, a new watch, a new cell phone or a nice holiday.

Women, on the other hand, did not increase their desire for luxury goods when thinking about meeting a new partner. However, such thoughts did increase their desire to be altruistic and helpful (this was determined by a question to both women and men about how much volunteer work they were willing to do if they had free time).

Another set of studies found that men were particularly interested in making luxury purchases after reading a scenario about a fleeting romance, rather than a potential long-term relationship. This was especially the case in men who were already more interested in short-term relationships than in long-term partnerships. Interestingly, women reported being more attracted to such conspicuously consuming men if they were looking for a short-term relationship, but not for the long term.

But what about women? One study found that women who were thinking about female romantic rivals trying to poach their mate were more likely to purchase luxury goods. This effect was not found when they did not imagine attractive rivals being around. However, the study did not examine to what extent men’s consumption can be linked to being scared about losing a partner.

Surprisingly, this study also found that women who possessed luxury goods were seen by other women as having a more devoted romantic partner.

Another study looked at how women’s spending habits would change during an economic recession. From a list of items, women chose more objects associated with grooming when thinking about a recession, as compared to no recession. However, non-grooming items such as headphones were more likely to be chosen when not thinking about a recession. Women also reported being more eager to attract a mate with resources (such as money) when thinking about a recession.

But how do we spend when we’re less optimistic about our romantic chances? A study by me and my colleagues has shown that men are willing to pay more for a conspicuous luxury car after thinking about a romantic rejection. This could be due to their desire to attract a new partner, after having had their self-esteem harmed. However, women show the opposite pattern: they are willing to pay more for a luxury car after thinking about a romantic success, likely because they view the car as a sign of relationship commitment with their partner.

Eric Levy, ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer in Marketing (Assistant Professor), ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Eric Levy (Cambridge Judge Business School) discusses how thinking about meeting a new partner can impact our shopping decisions.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

‘Moral identity’ key to charitable time giving

sc604 — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:31:32 +0000

Charities have long wrestled with the issue of persuading people to donate their time to worthy causes. Many potential time-givers donate money instead due to the perceived psychological costs of giving their time – which is by definition limited.

But new research co-authored at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge finds that ‘moral identity’ can overcome time aversion because it affirms and reinforces this identity, especially when the cost of giving time rises – and charities can use this key insight in recruiting people for time-giving tasks.

Significantly, the study found that charities can issue 'moral cues' that trigger such moral identity and make people more likely to donate their time to good causes – a key practical finding for the charitable sector. Defining 'moral identity' around a set of nine traits including kindness, caring and generosity, the study found that moral identity can be activated by showing people images of 'moral exemplars' such as Gandhi and Mother Teresa, and quotations focused on the same idea such as: “Wherever there is a human being, there is a chance for kindness.”

According to the study, a strong moral identity may reduce time aversion not despite the higher cost of giving time, but rather because of it. Put another way, giving time more strongly reinforces the moral self, compared to giving money, according to the researchers, who call time aversion a ‘socio-psychological malady.’

̽��ֱ��study, entitled “I don’t want the money, I just want your time: how moral identity overcomes the aversion to giving time to pro-social causes”, has just been accepted for publication by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“ ̽��ֱ��study has significant implications for how charities and other good causes recruit volunteers for time-giving tasks,” says co-author Eric Levy, of Cambridge Judge Business School. “We found that there is a strong connection between moral identity and the willingness to donate time.”

One key finding was that when the cost of giving time rises, people with a high moral identity may be more motivated to give their time, and those with a low moral identity are more averse to giving their time. Conversely, in low-cost situations, those with a high moral identity are less apt to give their time than are people with low moral identity.

This suggests that charities need to consider levels of ‘moral salience’ in their promotional material and other outreach to potential time-givers.

According to the study, if charities wish to recruit volunteers for low-time-cost tasks they may be better off targeting individuals whose moral identities occupy a less central role within their self-concept. Conversely, if they wish to recruit volunteers for tasks with a high time cost they may do well to target individuals whose moral identities occupy a more central role in their self-concept.

̽��ֱ��research paper comprises four separate studies. ̽��ֱ��first finds that moral identity can make giving time appear less costly; the second and third find that a ‘moral cue’ reduces time aversion even in unpleasant situations (such as emptying dirty hospital bedpans) and when time appears to be scarce (by enhancing a perceived connection between the time-giver and the beneficiary of the time donation); the fourth accounts for the real costs of time, finding that the ‘chronic salience of moral identity’ especially lessens time aversion when giving time becomes increasingly costly.

̽��ֱ��study was co-authored by Americus Reed II of the Wharton School, ̽��ֱ�� of Pennsylvania; Adam Kay, a doctoral student at the ̽��ֱ�� of British Columbia; Stephanie Finnel, a marketing support services specialist at BAYADA Home Health Care; Karl Aquino of the Sauder School of Business at the ̽��ֱ�� of British Columbia; and Eric Levy of ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Judge Business School.

Adapted from a Cambridge Judge Business School story.

Charities want your time and not just your money: new study identifies factors that lessen ‘time aversion’ in charitable giving.

There is a strong connection between moral identity and the willingness to donate time

Eric Levy

Bio Blitz

Tony Smith, volunteer naturalist, talks to students from Brislington Enterprise College

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution