Effects of Affect and Message Framing on Responses to Charity Advertising: A Construal Level and Regulatory Focus Perspective

References

• Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. The Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/321946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anghelcev, G., & Sar, S. (2011). The influence of pre-existing audience mood and message relevance on the effectiveness of health PSAs: Differential effects by message type. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anghelcev, G., & Sar, S. (2014). In the mood for [the right kind of] social marketing communication: How congruity between consumer mood and message framing influences intentions to recycle. Journal of Social Marketing, 4(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-04-2013-0025
   Google Scholar
• Baek, T. H., & Reid, L. N. (2013). The interplay of mood and regulatory focus in influencing altruistic behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartsch, A., & Kloß, A. (2019). Personalized charity advertising. Can personalized prosocial messages promote empathy, attitude change, and helping intentions toward stigmatized social groups? International Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1482098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bless, H. (2000). The interplay of affect and cognition: The mediating role of general knowledge structures. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 153–177). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 311–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullard, O., & Penner, S. (2017). A regulatory-focused perspective on philanthropy: Promotion focus motivates giving to prevention-framed causes. Journal of Business Research, 79, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.06.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkart, C., Wakolbinger, T., & Toyasaki, F. (2018). Funds allocation in NPOs: The role of administrative cost ratios. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 26(2), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0512-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Disaster Philanthropy. (2021). Philanthropy and COVID-19: Measuring one year of giving. https://doi.org/10/gh5dzk
   Google Scholar
• Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, M. Y. (2020). Portraying product or cause in charity advertising: How execution style and appeal type affects prosocial attitudes by enhancing perceived personal roles. International Journal of Advertising, 39(3), 342–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1642004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. R. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.3.291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., & Garvin, E. (2001). Affect as information. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 121–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Darwent, K. M., Fujita, K., & Wakslak, C. J. (2010). On the role of abstraction in global and local processing phenomena. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2010.502094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880801922854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eich, E., & Metcalfe, J. (1989). Mood dependent memory for internal versus external events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feiler, D. C., Tost, L. P., & Grant, A. M. (2012). Mixed reasons, missed givings: The costs of blending egoistic and altruistic reasons in donation requests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1322–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. (2010). Glomosys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2010.487849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fransen, M. L., Fennis, B. M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). When fit fosters favoring: The role of private self-focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1987). Happy and sad TV programs: How they affect reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1086/209122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorn, G., Tuan Pham, M., & Yatming Sin, L. (2001). When arousal influences ad evaluation and valence does not (and vice versa). Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1101_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 9679–9682. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, J. M., & Lee, W. N. (2019). An investigation of the interplay between regulatory fit and image–message congruence in fundraising messages. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 40(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1500322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamins, M. A., Marks, L. J., & Skinner, D. (1991). Television commercial evaluation in the context of program induced mood: Congruency versus consistency effects. Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2012). The role of regulatory focus and self-view in “green” advertising message framing. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.10672455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. J. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in message framing in antismoking advertisements for adolescents. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367350109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(3), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Micu, C. C., & Chowdhury, T. G. (2010). The effect of message’s regulatory focus and product type on persuasion. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 18(2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679180206
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-014-0602-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Council of Nonprofits. (2019). Nonprofit impact matters: How America’s charitable nonprofits strengthen communities and improve lives. https://www.nonprofitimpactmatters.org/site/assets/files/1/nonprofit-impact-matters-sept-2019-1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 353–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/380285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model of the self as an aspect of the human information processing system. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 193–213). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain-and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1355–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2002). Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: Cognitive tuning. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.), The wisdom in feelings (pp. 144–166). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3–4), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semin, G. R. (2011). The linguistic category Model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 309–326). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n16
   Google Scholar
• Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000006
   Google Scholar
• Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Septianto, F., & Tjiptono, F. (2019). The interactive effect of emotional appeals and past performance of a charity on the effectiveness of charitable advertising. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, M. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00819.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Esch, P., Cui, Y., & Jain, S. P. (2021). COVID-19 charity advertising: Identifiable victim message framing, self-construal, and donation intent. Journal of Advertising, 50(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1927911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Srull, T. K. (2014). Memory and cognition in its social context. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807591
   Google Scholar
• Wymer, W., & Gross, H. (2021). Charity advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1723
   Google Scholar
• Xiao, A., Huang, Y., Bortree, D. S., & Waters, R. D. (2021). Designing social media fundraising messages: An experimental approach to understanding how message concreteness and framing influence donation intentions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(4), 832–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211022838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, J., & Huang, G. (2020). The relative effectiveness of gain‐framed and loss‐framed messages in charity advertising: Meta‐analytic evidence and implications. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2009). Regulatory focus and message framing: A test of three accounts. Motivation and Emotion, 33(4), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9148-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar