IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v203y2024ics0040162524001458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compliance-gaining in metaverse: A moderated parallel mediation model testing the interaction between legitimization of paltry favors technique and victim identification

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Gain
  • Park, YounJung
  • Lee, Seyoung

Abstract

Artificial intelligence and metaverse are gaining attention for revolutionizing the fundraising environment to overcome space, labor, and time shortages. However, the discussion on the use of virtual agents in the metaverse is still limited. To fill the gap, this study examined a moderated parallel mediation model, which tests the interaction between the legitimization of paltry favors (LPF) technique (i.e., “Even a penny will help.”) and victim identification (i.e., presenting personal information about an individual victim), and the mediating roles of self-image concern and guilt. Four metaverse environments were created in the fundraising context (standard message vs. LPF message × identified victim vs. unidentified victim), and an online survey was conducted with 644 American adults. The results revealed that the LPF message yielded a greater willingness to donate (WTD) than the standard message. The results also supported the mediating role of self-image concern in the relationship between the LPF message and WTD. However, guilt's mediating role was not supported. The results further revealed that victim identification moderated the direct relationship between the LPF message and WTD and the indirect relationship through self-image concern and guilt. The results provide suggestions for charitable organizations and virtual environment designers.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Gain & Park, YounJung & Lee, Seyoung, 2024. "Compliance-gaining in metaverse: A moderated parallel mediation model testing the interaction between legitimization of paltry favors technique and victim identification," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:203:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524001458
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162524001458
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123349?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. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    2. Tine Hjernø Lesner & Ole Dahl Rasmussen, 2014. "The identifiable victim effect in charitable giving: evidence from a natural field experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(36), pages 4409-4430, December.
    3. Zaheer Allam & Ayyoob Sharifi & Simon Elias Bibri & David Sydney Jones & John Krogstie, 2022. "The Metaverse as a Virtual Form of Smart Cities: Opportunities and Challenges for Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability in Urban Futures," Post-Print hal-03997438, HAL.
    4. Gain Park & Myungok Chris Yim & Jiyun Chung & Seyoung Lee, 2023. "Effect of AI chatbot empathy and identity disclosure on willingness to donate: the mediation of humanness and social presence," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(12), pages 1998-2010, September.
    5. Kandaurova, Maria & Lee, Seung Hwan (Mark), 2019. "The effects of Virtual Reality (VR) on charitable giving: The role of empathy, guilt, responsibility, and social exclusion," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 571-580.
    6. Saeri, Alexander K. & Slattery, Peter & Lee, Joannie & Houlden, Thomas & Farr, Neil & Gelber, Romy L. & Stone, Jake & Huuskes, Lee & Timmons, Shane & Windle, Kai & Spajic, Luke & Freeman, Luke & Moss,, 2022. "What works to increase charitable donations? A meta-review with meta-meta-analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115157, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Martin Adam & Michael Wessel & Alexander Benlian, 2021. "AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 427-445, June.
    8. Chen Yan & Li Xin & MacKie-Mason Jeffrey K, 2005. "Online Fund-Raising Mechanisms: A Field Experiment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, December.
    9. Arpaci, Ibrahim & Karatas, Kasim & Kusci, Ismail & Al-Emran, Mostafa, 2022. "Understanding the social sustainability of the Metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and big five personality traits: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    10. 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.
    11. K. Sudhir & Subroto Roy & Mathew Cherian, 2016. "Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving? The Effects of Advertising Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 849-869, November.
    12. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    13. K. Sudhir & Subroto Roy & Mathew Cherian, 2014. "Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving" The Effects of Advertising Content," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1940, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2016.
    14. Moon, Youngme, 2000. "Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 323-339, March.
    15. Park, Gain & Chung, Jiyun & Lee, Seyoung, 2024. "Scope and limits of AI fundraisers: Moderated serial multiple mediation model between artificial emotions and willingness to donate via humanness and empathy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    16. Ian MacQuillin & Adrian Sargeant, 2019. "Fundraising Ethics: A Rights-Balancing Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 239-250, November.
    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. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    2. Kopalle, Praveen K. & Krishna, Aradhna & Rajan, Uday & Wang, Yu, 2022. "How does regulatory monitoring of cause marketing affect firm behavior and donations to charity?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 947-966.
    3. Shijie Lu & Dai Yao & Xingyu Chen & Rajdeep Grewal, 2021. "Do Larger Audiences Generate Greater Revenues Under Pay What You Want? Evidence from a Live Streaming Platform," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 964-984, September.
    4. Ike Silver & Deborah A. Small, 2024. "Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is: A Field Experiment Encouraging Donors to Share About Charity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 392-406, March.
    5. Kee, Jennifer & Segovia, Michelle S. & Saboury, Piruz & Palma, Marco A., 2022. "Appealing to generosity to reduce food calorie intake: A natural field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Abhishek Bhati & Ruth K. Hansen, 2020. "A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    7. Kurt P. Munz & Minah H. Jung & Adam L. Alter, 2020. "Name Similarity Encourages Generosity: A Field Experiment in Email Personalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1071-1091, November.
    8. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. Jochimsen, Beate, 2019. "Christmas lights in Berlin: New empirical evidence for the private provision of a public good," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 19-04, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    10. Anindya Ghose & Beibei Li & Meghanath Macha & Chenshuo Sun & Natasha Ying Zhang Foutz, 2020. "Trading Privacy for the Greater Social Good: How Did America React During COVID-19?," Papers 2006.05859, arXiv.org.
    11. Arbel, Yuval & Bar-El, Ronen & Schwarz, Mordechai E. & Tobol, Yossef, 2019. "To What Do People Contribute? Ongoing Operations vs. Sustainable Supplies," IZA Discussion Papers 12180, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Andreas Lange & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Charitable Memberships, Volunteering, and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-Scale Online Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Céline Nauges & Dale Whittington, 2019. "Social Norms Information Treatments in the Municipal Water Supply Sector: Some New Insights on Benefits and Costs," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-40, July.
    14. Karlan, Dean & List, John A., 2020. "How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people's donations to fund public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2010. "Is a Donor in Hand Better Than Two in the Bush? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 958-983, June.
    16. repec:rdg:wpaper:em-dp2012-03 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    18. Emeric Henry & Charles Louis-Sidois, 2020. "Voting and Contributing When the Group Is Watching," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 246-276, August.
    19. Huck, Steffen & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 351-362, June.
    20. Michele Fioretti, 2022. "Caring or Pretending to Care? Social Impact, Firms' Objectives, and Welfare (former title: Social Responsibility and Firm's Objectives)," SciencePo Working papers hal-03393065, HAL.
    21. Leonardo Bursztyn & Michael Callen & Bruno Ferman & Saad Gulzar & Ali Hasanain & Noam Yuchtman, 2014. "Identifying Ideology: Experimental Evidence on Anti-Americanism in Pakistan," NBER Working Papers 20153, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:tefoso:v:203:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524001458. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.