psychology research paper

Running head: NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION 2

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION 2

Normative Social Influence: Charity Donation

Name

Florida International University

Date of Submission

Methods

Participants

A total of 147 participants were selected randomly to participate in the charity donation study. From these 147 individuals, 90.5% (n=133) were students of Florida International University students, whereas 9.5% (n=14) were not university students. Out of the 147 respondents, 51.7% (n=76) and 48.3% (n=71) were female. Most participants were between the age of 18 years to 24years, with 72 years being the oldest of all. The mean age was 24.59 years (SD=8.72). further, the sample included diverse cultures including; Hispanic 47.6% (n=70), Caucasian 27.9% (n=41), African American 11.6% (n=17), Asian American 4.8% (n=7), Native Indians being 1.4% (n=2) and individuals from other ethnic origins being 6.8% (n=10).

Materials and Procedure

As per the standard procedures, the intended participants were selected randomly, and they were informed of the benefits and possible risks of taking part in the study process. The individuals who agreed to take part in the study were randomly given one of three questionnaires. Each of these questionnaires included five different sections.

The first section included the About Page. The participants were required to view the “About” page of a Facebook user called Michael Bezjian. The account page entailed an image header profile picture of Michael, basic data about Michael, fake promotions, a list of “Friends” with selfies of six friends, as well as an appeal from Michael to contribute towards the birthday charity which he had picked. This appeal also included a short description of the charity and an image accompanied by a link towards the contribution. Generally, the three questionnaires presented the same initial plea for charity donation; however, with alternative conditions (high, medium, and low) that led to the various outputs.

In the “High” condition included that comments from the account user friends reveal that they were willing to contribute a high sum of cash to the “Unlikely Heroes,” that is Michael’s selected charity for his birthday. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “Count me in for $45, Mike. I just donated $50. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” all the eight comments from friends we noted they included pledged donations, which ranged between 45 and 50 dollars.

In the “Middle” condition, the comments from friends were noted, and they pledged to contribute an average amount of money to Michael’s “Unlikely Heroes,” the amounts indicated ranged between 25 and 30 dollars. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “Count me in for $25, Mike, I just donated $30. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” The phrasing is similar to the high condition, the difference being the dollar amounts pledged are lower.

In the “Low” condition, eight different comments similar to the ones in the high and middle conditions from Michael’s friends were again noted; however, the dollar amounts were between $5 and $10.

Section two included guidelines for the contribution. Participants were to go through a brief set of guidelines notifying them to imagine that they were requested to donate to the charity as well. Participants were to fill three open-ended questions, including “how much they would donate? how much they think other people would contribute? Can you contribute time instead of money? If yes, how much of their time they were willing to donate?” The three questions required that participants respond to all three questions by indicating an amount ranging from 0 to 100 dollars for the first and second questions and time in hours for the third question.

In the third section, the participants to give their impression of the Facebook account user called Michael Bezjian. They were asked to rate on the five statements about the Facebook account user, and it was based on an interval scale, which had a range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The statements to be rated included: “Michael seems like a warm person,” “Michael seems like a generous person,” “Michael seems like a stingy person,” “Michael seems to care about others,” and “Michael seems like a selfish person.” The next five statements were similar to the ones about the account user; nevertheless, they emphasized on Michael’s friends and enquired if the participant agrees or disagrees that they were also warm, generous, stingy, caring, or selfish. The subsequent two questions in the section focused on the participants’ impressions of the charity, “Unlikely Heroes.” Finally, the participants were asked about how they feel about whether they are charitable compared to other people.

The fourth section was the demographic section in which participants were required to complete queries about their demographic data, including their gender, age, ethnicity, first language, and their current learning institution.

Last but not least, the last section included the questions that would determine the individual perception of the participants on the amount pledged. Participants were asked whether the amounts of money that Michael’s Facebook friends pledged in their comments for donation to the charity was; low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). To conclude the study, the participants were debriefed about their valued contribution to the study and the insights into normative social influence and its relation to the main hypothesis of the study.

The study included several dependent variables; however, the main focus was to evaluate whether the amount of money or time that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to the charity affects the amount of money or time that participants are prepared to contribute towards a similar cause practically. The participants ranked in the high dollar condition were hypothesized that they will be more generous with their contributions and would be keen on the contributions of other donors than participants in the low dollar condition. On the other hand, the participants in the middle dollar condition falling in the average values. We initially predicted that participants’ in the high dollar condition were willing to contribute higher the amount of money as well as time to the charity. They would also consider that other participant would do the same by contributing more amounts of money or time than participants in the low dollar condition, with middle dollar condition participants willing to donate an average amount of both money and time. A prediction that individuals in the high dollar condition were more likely to perceive the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring as well as less mean and selfish than the participants in the low dollar condition, the middle dollar condition contributors were likely to offer average amounts for donation.

Results

In consideration that the amount of money contributed as our dependent variable and condition (high, medium, and low) as the independent variable, a chi-square test was done, and its results confirmed that the effect was significant, X2(20) = 65.178, p < .000. The majority of the participants (100%) in the high condition were willing to donate 35 dollars. Most participants (75%) in the middle condition were also willing to give 25 dollars while the majority of the participants (75%), in the low condition, were willing to donate 15 dollars. These findings indicate that the amounts of money that the participants are willing to donate depends on the set condition that they fall into.

The main analysis consisted of a One-Way ANOVA test which indicated significant differences among the independent variable, the condition (high, middle, or low) and the dependent variable, donation amount (money), the statistics for the test were F(2, 144) = 11.82, p =.000. Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis at five percent level of Significance that participants in the high dollar condition will be more generous in their individual donations and are keen on the donations of other donors than the participants in the low dollar condition, with participants in the middle dollar condition being likely to donate average amounts of money to the charity the test results were: high condition (Mean = 28.68, SD = 14.55), middle condition (Mean= 22.56, SD= 10.08) and low condition (Mean = 16.57, SD = 13.62). These results further revealed that the amount of money that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to contribute to the charity influences the amount of money that the other partakers were willing to contribute towards the same cause.

Furthermore, the second objective was to determine the amount of time that the participants were willing to donate under each condition. One-Way ANOVA test was evaluated using the three conditions (high, middle, or low) as the independent variable, and the donation amount (time) as the dependent variable. The results indicated that the association exists between the condition category of the participant and donation amount (time) was significantly supported by the statistics, F (2, 144) = 5.44, p = .005. The prediction that participants in the high dollar condition are willing to donate more time to the charity (Mean = 7.74, SD = 5.05), and the assumption that the other participants would in a similar way contribute more money than participants in the low dollar condition (Mean = 5.49, SD = 3.15), the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate average amount of time (Mean = 7.90, SD = 3.66). Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was significant, subsequent Tukey post hoc test confirmed the results.

Discussion

The initial prediction was that individuals who were placed on the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time to the charity. Similarly, they believe that their counterparts will donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition category. On the other hand, we predicted that the middle dollar condition participants were prepared to donate an average amount of money as well as time. Furthermore, we predicted that the participants in the high dollar condition were likely to rate the other contributors as more warm, generous, and caring and less mean and self-interested as compared to the participants’ in the low dollar condition, with the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate more average amounts of money and time towards the charity.

Based on the outcomes of the study, the amounts of money or time that the donors are willing to donate will depend on the condition category that they fall in. The individuals’ in the high dollar condition are willing to donate more money and time towards the charity, and the other participants will in a similar manner donate less amount of money and time in the low dollar condition with the middle dollar condition participants deliberated to donate an average amount of money and time towards the same charity. In conclusion, the outcomes of the analysis portrayed that indeed the social psychology concept of normative social impacts on the expected amount of money and time donated by Facebook friends thus setting a norm with regards to the amounts that are deemed to be appropriate for other individuals to contribute.

References

Bateson, M., Callow, L., Holmes, J. R., Roche, M. L. R., & Nettle, D. (2013). Do images of ‘watching eyes’ induce behavior that is more pro-social or more normative? A field experiment on littering. PloS one, 8(12), e82055.

Croson, R., Handy, F., & Shang, J. (2009). Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(4), 467-489.

Heiser, R. S. (2006). Normative influences in donation decisions. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 15(1-2), 127-149.

Kim, H., Lee, E. J., & Hur, W. M. (2012). The normative social influence on eco-friendly consumer behavior: The moderating effect of environmental marketing claims. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(1), 4-18.

Krupka, E. L., & Croson, R. T. (2016). The differential impact of social norms cues on charitable contributions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 149-158.

Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 110.

Schwitzgebel, E., & Rust, J. (2014). The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior. Philosophical Psychology, 27(3), 293-327.

Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386.

Spangenberg, E. R., Sprott, D. E., Knuff, D. C., Smith, R. J., Obermiller, C., & Greenwald, A. G. (2012). Process evidence for the question–behavior effect: Influencing socially normative behaviors. Social Influence, 7(3), 211-228.

Van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Current psychology, 30(4), 355-374.

Weyant, J. M. (1984). Applying Social Psychology to Induce Charitable Donations 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 441-447.

Wiesenthal, D. L., Austrom, D., & Silverman, I. (1983). Diffusion of responsibility in charitable donations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 17-27.

Wilson, K. J. (2015). Motivations to donate to charity using normative social behavior theory. Western Illinois University.

Appendix

A – Demographics

Statistics
	Gender	Age	Race
N	Valid	147	147	147
	Missing	0	0	0
Mean	1.4830	24.5850	2.3810
Median	1.0000	22.0000	2.0000
Mode	1.00	22.00	2.00
Std. Deviation	.50142	8.72082	1.46340
Minimum	1.00	3.00	1.00
Maximum	2.00	72.00	6.00

Gender
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Male	76	51.7	51.7	51.7
	Female	71	48.3	48.3	100.0
	Total	147	100.0	100.0

Race
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Caucasian	41	27.9	27.9	27.9
	Hispanic	70	47.6	47.6	75.5
	Native Indian	2	1.4	1.4	76.9
	African American	17	11.6	11.6	88.4
	Asian American	7	4.8	4.8	93.2
	Other	10	6.8	6.8	100.0
	Total	147	100.0	100.0

Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi-Square

Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) * Part II: Donation Amount (Money) Crosstabulation
	Part II: Donation Amount (Money)	Total
	.00	5.00	10.00	15.00	20.00	25.00	30.00	35.00	40.00	45.00	50.00
	High	Count	4	1	6	1	4	5	8	6	8	7	3	53
		% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money)	30.8%	10.0%	28.6%	12.5%	20.0%	25.0%	40.0%	75.0%	57.1%	100.0%	50.0%	36.1%
	Middle	Count	2	2	4	1	8	15	8	0	2	0	1	43
		% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money)	15.4%	20.0%	19.0%	12.5%	40.0%	75.0%	40.0%	0.0%	14.3%	0.0%	16.7%	29.3%
	Low	Count	7	7	11	6	8	0	4	2	4	0	2	51
		% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money)	53.8%	70.0%	52.4%	75.0%	40.0%	0.0%	20.0%	25.0%	28.6%	0.0%	33.3%	34.7%
Total	Count	13	10	21	8	20	20	20	8	14	7	6	147
	% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money)	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	65.178a	20	.000
Likelihood Ratio	71.132	20	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	19.626	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	147
a. 20 cells (60.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.76.

Appendix C – ANOVA Donation Amount (Money)

Descriptive
Part II: Donation Amount (Money)
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean	Minimum	Maximum
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
High	53	28.6792	14.54935	1.99851	24.6689	32.6895	.00	50.00
Middle	43	22.5581	10.08134	1.53739	19.4556	25.6607	.00	50.00
Low	51	16.5686	13.61948	1.90711	12.7381	20.3992	.00	50.00
Total	147	22.6871	13.93812	1.14960	20.4151	24.9591	.00	50.00

ANOVA
Part II: Donation Amount (Money)
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	3812.944	2	1906.472	11.182	.000
Within Groups	24550.662	144	170.491
Total	28363.605	146

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money)
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L)	(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
High	Middle	6.12111	2.67987	.061	-.2254	12.4676
	Low	12.11062*	2.56120	.000	6.0452	18.1761
Middle	High	-6.12111	2.67987	.061	-12.4676	.2254
	Low	5.98951	2.70330	.072	-.4124	12.3915
Low	High	-12.11062*	2.56120	.000	-18.1761	-6.0452
	Middle	-5.98951	2.70330	.072	-12.3915	.4124
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION

Appendix D – ANOVA Donation Amount (Time)

Descriptives
Part II: Donation Amount (Time)
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean	Minimum	Maximum
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
High	53	7.7358	5.05413	.69424	6.3428	9.1289	.00	20.00
Middle	43	7.9070	3.65679	.55765	6.7816	9.0324	.00	15.00
Low	51	5.4902	3.14562	.44047	4.6055	6.3749	.00	15.00
Total	147	7.0068	4.19147	.34571	6.3236	7.6900	.00	20.00

ANOVA
Part II: Donation Amount (Time)
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	180.318	2	90.159	5.444	.005
Within Groups	2384.675	144	16.560
Total	2564.993	146

Post Hoc Tests

Part II: Donation Amount (Time)
Tukey HSDa,b
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L)	N	Subset for alpha = 0.05
		1	2
Low	51	5.4902
High	53		7.7358
Middle	43		7.9070
Sig.		1.000	.977
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 48.597.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.