IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jconsa/v57y2023i3p1352-1376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of severe imagery in advertising on charitable behavior and the moderating role of social closeness

Author

Listed:
  • Billy Sung
  • Felix Septianto
  • Michelle Stankovic

Abstract

The present paper systematically investigated the effectiveness of utilizing severe or disgusting, imagery, and the moderating effect of social closeness within non‐profit health charity advertising appeals. Across three experiments, we found an interaction effect, whereby donations increased when severe images were shown, but only when high social closeness was also highlighted. Conversely, severe imagery reduced donations in the low social closeness condition, when participants were not prompted to think of their family. Despite the popularity of using severe imagery within charity advertising, our findings suggest that severe images should be used with caution in health charity marketing. Investigating the underlying mechanisms, we found that empathy (disgust) underlies the increase (decrease) of donation when severe imagery was used in a high (low) social closeness condition. Furthermore, we ruled out anger and perceived responsibility as competing moderators for these effects to verify whether other positive and negative emotions had similar effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Billy Sung & Felix Septianto & Michelle Stankovic, 2023. "The effect of severe imagery in advertising on charitable behavior and the moderating role of social closeness," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 1352-1376, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jconsa:v:57:y:2023:i:3:p:1352-1376
    DOI: 10.1111/joca.12531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12531
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joca.12531?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chelsea Galoni & Gregory S Carpenter & Hayagreeva Rao & J Jeffrey Inman & JoAndrea Hoegg, 2020. "Disgusted and Afraid: Consumer Choices under the Threat of Contagious Disease," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(3), pages 373-392.
    2. Robert J. Fisher & Mark Vandenbosch & Kersi D. Antia, 2008. "An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers' Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 519-531, February.
    3. Dahl, Darren W. & Frankenberger, Kristina D. & Manchanda, Rajesh V., 2003. "Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising Content among University Students," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 268-280, September.
    4. Jennifer O’Loughlin Banks & Maria M. Raciti, 2018. "Perceived fear, empathy and financial donations to charitable services," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(5-6), pages 343-359, April.
    5. Brennan, Linda & Binney, Wayne, 2010. "Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 140-146, February.
    6. Deborah A. Small & Uri Simonsohn, 2008. "Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 532-542, December.
    7. Murooj Yousef & Timo Dietrich & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, 2021. "Social Advertising Effectiveness in Driving Action: A Study of Positive, Negative and Coactive Appeals on Social Media," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Cotte, June & Coulter, Robin A. & Moore, Melissa, 2005. "Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 361-368, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Han Wang & Chundong Zheng & Jiehang Song & Yanru Tang, 2024. "Rendering misery or selling hope? The mechanism of imagery contrast effect in charitable appeal," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 21(4), pages 1081-1098, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lancellotti, Matthew P. & Thomas, Sunil, 2018. "Men hate it, women love it: Guilty pleasure advertising messages," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 271-280.
    2. van Rijn, Jordan & Barham, Bradford & Sundaram-Stukel, Reka, 2017. "An experimental approach to comparing similarity- and guilt-based charitable appeals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 25-40.
    3. Kamatham, Sri Harsha & Pahwa, Parneet & Jiang, Juncai & Kumar, Nanda, 2021. "Effect of appeal content on fundraising success and donor behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 827-839.
    4. Cesare Amatulli & Matteo Angelis & Alessandro M. Peluso & Isabella Soscia & Gianluigi Guido, 2019. "The Effect of Negative Message Framing on Green Consumption: An Investigation of the Role of Shame," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 1111-1132, July.
    5. Tejaswi Patil & Zillur Rahman, 2023. "A bibliometric analysis of scientific literature on guilt in marketing," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 1385-1415, September.
    6. Yanyan Chen & Dirk C. Moosmayer, 2020. "When Guilt is Not Enough: Interdependent Self-Construal as Moderator of the Relationship Between Guilt and Ethical Consumption in a Confucian Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 551-572, January.
    7. Carmela Donato, 2021. "Disgust and preference for familiar brands," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2021(1), pages 5-23, June.
    8. van Rijn, Jordan & Quinones, Esteban J. & Barham, Bradford L., 2017. "An Experimental Test of Gender Differences in Charitable Giving: Empathy Is at the Heart of the Matter," Staff Paper Series 586, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Ronald Conlin & Steven Bauer, 2022. "Examining the impact of differing guilt advertising appeals among the Generation Z cohort," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 19(2), pages 289-308, June.
    10. Antonetti, Paolo & Baines, Paul & Jain, Shailendra, 2018. "The persuasiveness of guilt appeals over time: Pathways to delayed compliance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 14-25.
    11. Ioannis Kareklas & Darrel D. Muehling, 2014. "Addressing the Texting and Driving Epidemic: Mortality Salience Priming Effects on Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 223-250, June.
    12. Katina Kulow & Thomas Kramer, 2016. "In Pursuit of Good Karma: When Charitable Appeals to Do Right Go Wrong," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(2), pages 334-353.
    13. Moon Young Kang & Byungho Park & Sanghak Lee & Jaehwan Kim & Greg Allenby, 2016. "This paper examines the effect of message characteristics on donation behavior using an economic," Journal of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in Emerging Markets, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(4), pages 40-57.
    14. Perez, Dikla & Munichor, Nira & Buskila, Gadi, 2023. "Help yourself: Pictures of donation recipients engaged in physical self-help enhance donations on crowdfunding platforms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    15. Caroline Moraes & Finola Kerrigan & Roisin McCann, 2020. "Positive Shock: A Consumer Ethical Judgement Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(4), pages 735-751, September.
    16. Diogo Hildebrand & Rhonda Hadi & Sankar Sen, 2024. "Showcase the smiles or the tears? How elicited perspectives determine optimal charity appeal content," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 1805-1819, November.
    17. van Rijn, Jordan & Barham, Bradford & Sundaram-Stukel, Reka, 2016. "An Experimental Approach to Comparing Similarity- and Guilt-Based Charitable Appeals," Staff Paper Series 584, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Aristeidis Theotokis & Emmanouela Manganari, 2015. "The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Role of Guilt," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 423-437, October.
    19. Nguyen, Hoang Sinh & Laufer, Daniel & Krisjanous, Jayne, 2020. "The effectiveness of guilt and shame appeals on health communications: The moderating role of self-construal and personal cultural orientation," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 310-324.
    20. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jconsa:v:57:y:2023:i:3:p:1352-1376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-0078 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.