IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v317y2023ics0277953622008504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three-in-1,000 and dynamic norms: A mixed-method investigation of novel appeals for influencing organ donor registration

Author

Listed:
  • Siegel, Jason T.
  • McManus, Maria D.
  • Blazek, Danielle R.
  • Marshburn, Alexander

Abstract

The current research investigated two rarely used appeals for increasing organ donor registration–both with the potential to backfire. The three-in-1000 appeal explains that less than one percent of people will die in such a way that their organs can be donated. This appeal could heighten awareness that donor registration is needed, but it can also convey that registering is futile. The dynamic norms appeal emphasizes the increasing number of people who are becoming registered donors. This appeal could increase the perceived normative nature of registration, but doing so can also lead potential donors to conclude that enough people are already registered. In Studies 1 and 2, participants recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to either one of these appeals, and their attitudes toward donor registration and intentions to register as a donor were compared to participants in a no-message control group. Study 2 included a qualitative component where participants were asked to describe their perceptions as to why the message was or was not influential. In both experiments, intentions to register were higher for those in both messaging conditions compared to the control group. Positive attitudes toward organ donation were higher in the three-in-1000 condition compared to the control group for both studies. Those in the dynamic norms condition reported more positive attitudes than the control group in Study 1, but not Study 2. In both studies, there was scant evidence of the messages backfiring. In the qualitative component of Study 2, self-reported reasons for the influence of each method provided insight into how and why these appeals were influential, and indicated signs of underdetection for the dynamic norms message.

Suggested Citation

  • Siegel, Jason T. & McManus, Maria D. & Blazek, Danielle R. & Marshburn, Alexander, 2023. "Three-in-1,000 and dynamic norms: A mixed-method investigation of novel appeals for influencing organ donor registration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:317:y:2023:i:c:s0277953622008504
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622008504
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115544?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Sian K. & Dixon, Ann & Trevena, Lyndal & Nutbeam, Don & McCaffery, Kirsten J., 2009. "Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1805-1812, December.
    2. Cheung, C. -K. & Chan, C. -M., 2000. "Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 241-253, May.
    3. David H. Howard & Margaret M. Byrne, 2007. "Should We Promote Organ Donor Registries When So Few Registrants Will End Up Being Donors?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 243-249, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.
    2. Aus-Thai Project Team & C. Carr & Gillian Long & Floyd H. Bolitho, 2002. "Managing Economic Crisis: A Human Factors Approach," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 14(2), pages 277-309, September.
    3. Ruth Koops van ‘t Jagt & Shu Ling Tan & John Hoeks & Sophie Spoorenberg & Sijmen A. Reijneveld & Andrea F. de Winter & Sonia Lippke & Carel Jansen, 2019. "Using Photo Stories to Support Doctor-Patient Communication: Evaluating a Communicative Health Literacy Intervention for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Kontos, Emily Z. & Emmons, Karen M. & Puleo, Elaine & Viswanath, K., 2011. "Determinants and beliefs of health information mavens among a lower-socioeconomic position and minority population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 22-32, July.
    5. Tom Thomas & Eric Lamm, 2012. "Legitimacy and Organizational Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 191-203, October.
    6. Fiva, Jon H. & Hægeland, Torbjørn & Rønning, Marte & Syse, Astri, 2014. "Access to treatment and educational inequalities in cancer survival," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 98-111.
    7. Hsieh, Pi-Jung & Lai, Hui-Min, 2020. "Exploring people's intentions to use the health passbook in self-management: An extension of the technology acceptance and health behavior theoretical perspectives in health literacy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Fahad Riaz Choudhry & Long Chiau Ming & Khadeeja Munawar & Syed Tabish R. Zaidi & Rahul P. Patel & Tahir Mehmood Khan & Shandell Elmer, 2019. "Health Literacy Studies Conducted in Australia: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-32, March.
    9. Ana C. Martinez-Levy & Dario Rossi & Giulia Cartocci & Marco Mancini & Gianluca Flumeri & Arianna Trettel & Fabio Babiloni & Patrizia Cherubino, 2022. "Message framing, non-conscious perception and effectiveness in non-profit advertising. Contribution by neuromarketing research," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 19(1), pages 53-75, March.
    10. Marie-Anne Durand & Lewis Carpenter & Hayley Dolan & Paulina Bravo & Mala Mann & Frances Bunn & Glyn Elwyn, 2014. "Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Aimée Hartford Kvæl, Linda & Gautun, Heidi, 2023. "Social inequality in navigating the healthcare maze: Care trajectories from hospital to home via intermediate care for older people in Norway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    12. Bela Florenthal & Manar Awad, 2021. "A cross-cultural comparison of millennials’ engagement with and donation to nonprofits: a hybrid U&G and TAM framework," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(4), pages 629-657, December.
    13. Oosterhof, Liesbeth & Heuvelman, Ard & Peters, Oscar, 2009. "Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 148-157, May.
    14. Xuefeng Li & Li Deng & Han Yang & Hui Wang, 2020. "Effect of socioeconomic status on the healthcare-seeking behavior of migrant workers in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Osei-Frimpong, Kofi & McLean, Graeme & Wilson, Alan & Lemke, Fred, 2020. "Customer coproduction in healthcare service delivery: Examining the influencing effects of the social context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 82-93.
    16. Nisar, Tahir M. & Prabhakar, Guru & Bourlakis, Michael, 2022. "Unravelling influential individual level factors during a crowdfunding campaign: Insights from the ALS ice bucket challenge," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    17. Su Hyun Kim & Sonja Utz, 2018. "Association of health literacy with health information‐seeking preference in older people: A correlational, descriptive study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 355-360, September.
    18. Chan, Eugene Y. & Septianto, Felix, 2022. "Disgust predicts charitable giving: The role of empathy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 946-956.
    19. Joann Seo & Melody S. Goodman & Mary Politi & Melvin Blanchard & Kimberly A. Kaphingst, 2016. "Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 550-556, May.
    20. Hyun Hye Kim & EunKyoung Han, 2020. "The Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Identify Determinants of Donation Intention: Towards the Comparative Examination of Positive and Negative Reputations of Nonprofit Organizations CE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-19, November.

    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:eee:socmed:v:317:y:2023:i:c:s0277953622008504. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.