Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 421–434 | Cite as

Should donation ads include happy victim images? The moderating role of regulatory focus

  • Yael Zemack-RugarEmail author
  • Sona Klucarova-Travani
Article
  • 183 Downloads

Abstract

We examine how victim imagery interacts with ad messaging’s regulatory focus to determine the effectiveness of donation appeals. We predict and show that ads that combine a happy victim image with a promotion-focused message uniquely increase donation intentions. We demonstrate that this occurs because the combination of promotion-focused messaging, which makes gain goals salient, and a happy victim image, which signals gains are occurring, increases consumers’ perceived response efficacy. Four studies test the interaction of victim imagery and regulatory focus showing the predicted effect. We also test the mediating role of perceived response efficacy and rule out several alternative explanations. Our findings extend prior work which has overlooked the interactive effects of victim imagery and ad messaging and the effects of victim imagery on perceived response efficacy. By exploring these dimensions, we offer marketers and consumers guidance on how to construct effective fundraising ads.

Keywords

Donation Imagery Regulatory focus Emotion Advertising Response efficacy 

Supplementary material

11002_2018_9471_MOESM1_ESM.docx (509 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 508 kb)

References

  1. Batson, C. D., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: an integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhati, A., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2016). Faces of the needy: the portrayal of destitute children in the fundraising campaigns of NGOs in India. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloomberg View. (2012). Making sure nonprofits aren’t all about profit. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-11-14/making-sure-nonprofits-aren-t-all-about-profit.
  5. Cao, X. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: the effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao, X., & Jia, L. (2017). The effects of the facial expression of beneficiaries in charity appeals and psychological involvement on donation intentions: evidence from an online experiment. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(4), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, J., Rangan, P., & Singh, S. N. (2016). Do cold images cause cold-heartedness? The impact of visual stimuli on the effectiveness of negative emotional charity appeals. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyck, E. J., & Coldevin, G. (1992). Using positive vs. negative photographs for third-world fund raising. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 572–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Genevsky, A., & Knutson, B. (2015). Neural affective mechanisms predict market-level microlending. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1411–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giorgianni, A. (2017). What you should know about crowdfunding as Facebook readies the feature. Consumer Reports. Retrieved from https://www.consumerreports.org/crowdfunding/what-you-should-know-about-crowdfunding/.
  11. Greenaway, K. H., Kalokerinos, E. K., Murphy, S. C., & McIlroy, T. (2018). Winners are grinners: expressing authentic positive emotion enhances status in performance contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harvey, J. W. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fund raisers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mukherjee, S., Srinivasan, N., & Manjaly, J. A. (2014). Global processing fosters donations toward charity appeals framed in an approach orientation. Cognitive Processing, 15(3), 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pfattheicher, S. (2015). A regulatory focus perspective on reputational concerns: the impact of prevention-focused self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 39(6), 932–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ravaja, N., Kallinen, K., Saari, T., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2004). Suboptimal exposure to facial expressions when viewing video messages from a small screen: effects on emotion, attention, and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10(2), 120–131.Google Scholar
  20. Reed, L. I., & DeScioli, P. (2017). The communicative function of sad facial expressions. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schaffer, J. (2017). Reality check on nonprofit marketing. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/09/12/reality-check-nonprofit-marketing/.
  22. Sharma, E., & Morwitz, V. G. (2016). Saving the masses: the impact of perceived efficacy on charitable giving to single vs. multiple beneficiaries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ueda, R., Kuraguchi, K., & Ashida, H. (2016). Asymmetric effect of expression intensity on evaluations of facial attractiveness. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Kleef, G. A., van den Berg, H., & Heerdink, M. W. (2015). The persuasive power of emotions: effects of emotional expressions on attitude formation and change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1124–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wan, E. W., Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., & Clarkson, J. J. (2010). The effect of regulatory depletion on attitude certainty. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2010). The effects of mood, message framing, and behavioral advocacy on persuasion. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 344–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zemack-Rugar, Y., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). Just do it! Why committed consumers react negatively to assertive ads. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business Administration, BA2-308DUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.College of Business Administration, BA2-308KUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations