IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i7p1304-d221955.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theory Content, Question-Behavior Effects, or Form of Delivery Effects for Intention to Become an Organ Donor? Two Randomized Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Doyle

    (Department of Health Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, D02 DH60 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Karen Morgan

    (Perdana University-Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland School of Medicine, Selangor, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Mary Mathew

    (Department of Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, Manipal 576104, India)

  • Princy Palatty

    (Department of Pharmacology, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore 575002, Karnataka, India)

  • Prashanti Kamat

    (Department of Pathology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, Manipal 576104, India)

  • Sally Doherty

    (RCSI Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain, Adliya, P.O. Box 15503, Bahrain)

  • Jody Quigley

    (Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

  • Josh Henderson

    (Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

  • Ronan O’Carroll

    (Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

Abstract

Eliciting different attitudes with survey questionnaires may impact on intention to donate organs. Previous research used varying numbers of questionnaire items, or different modes of intervention delivery, when comparing groups. We aimed to determine whether intention to donate organs differed among groups exposed to different theoretical content, but similar questionnaire length, in different countries. We tested the effect of excluding affective attitudinal items on intention to donate, using constant item numbers in two modes of intervention delivery. Study 1: A multi-country, interviewer-led, cross-sectional randomized trial recruited 1007 participants, who completed questionnaires as per group assignment: including all affective attitude items, affective attitude items replaced, negatively-worded affective attitude items replaced. Study 2 recruited a UK-representative, cross-sectional sample of 616 participants using an online methodology, randomly assigned to the same conditions. Multilevel models assessed effects of group membership on outcomes: intention to donate (primary), taking a donor card, following a web-link (secondary). In study 1, intention to donate did not differ among groups. Study 2 found a small, significantly higher intention to donate in the negatively-worded affective attitudes replaced group. Combining data yielded no group differences. No differences were seen for secondary outcomes. Ancillary analyses suggest significant interviewer effects. Contrary to previous research, theoretical content may be less relevant than number or valence of questionnaire items, or form of intervention delivery, for increasing intention to donate organs.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Doyle & Karen Morgan & Mary Mathew & Princy Palatty & Prashanti Kamat & Sally Doherty & Jody Quigley & Josh Henderson & Ronan O’Carroll, 2019. "Theory Content, Question-Behavior Effects, or Form of Delivery Effects for Intention to Become an Organ Donor? Two Randomized Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:7:p:1304-:d:221955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1304/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1304/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    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. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    2. Lange, Andreas, 2006. "Providing public goods in two steps," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 173-178, May.
    3. 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.
    4. ITO Koichiro & IDA Takanori & TANAKA Makoto, 2015. "The Persistence of Moral Suasion and Economic Incentives: Field experimental evidence from energy demand," Discussion papers 15014, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    6. repec:cep:stitep:/2012/563 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    9. 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.
    10. Athey, Susan & Karlan, Dean & Palikot, Emil & Yuan, Yuan, 2022. "Smiles in Profiles: Improving Fairness and Efficiency Using Estimates of User Preferences in Online Marketplaces," Research Papers 4071, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1047-1060, June.
    12. Levin, Tova & Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2023. "A Glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 644-658.
    13. Francesco Drago & Friederike Mengel & Christian Traxler, 2020. "Compliance Behavior in Networks: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 96-133, April.
    14. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    15. Gallier, Carlo & Goeschl, Timo & Kesternich, Martin & Lohse, Johannes & Reif, Christiane & Römer, Daniel, 2023. "Inter-charity competition under spatial differentiation: Sorting, crowding, and spillovers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 457-468.
    16. Reinstein, David, 2006. "Does One Contribution Come at the Expense of Another? Empirical Evidence on Substitution Between Charitable Donations," Economics Discussion Papers 2938, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    17. G�nther Fink & Margaret McConnell & Sebastian Vollmer, 2014. "Testing for heterogeneous treatment effects in experimental data: false discovery risks and correction procedures," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 44-57, January.
    18. 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).
    19. Brit Grosskopf & Graeme Pearce, 2020. "Do You Mind Me Paying Less? Measuring Other-Regarding Preferences in the Market for Taxis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5059-5074, November.
    20. Sautua, Santiago I., 2022. "Donation requests following a pay rise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    21. John List, 2007. "Experimenting with Fish has some Advantages," Artefactual Field Experiments 00387, The Field Experiments Website.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:7:p:1304-:d:221955. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.