The Effect of Temporal Orientation and Recognizability of Recipients for Presenting Donation Messages

기부수혜자의 인식가능성과 캠페인 메시지에서 나타난 시간 지향성이 기부의도에 미치는 영향 - 공감의 매개된 조절효과를 중심으로

  • Heo, Dakyeong (College of Business Administration, University of Seoul) ;
  • Kim, Soomin (College of Business Administration, University of Seoul) ;
  • Shin, Dongwoo (College of Business Administration, University of Seoul)
  • Received : 2020.04.26
  • Accepted : 2021.06.20
  • Published : 2021.06.28


As many CSR activities grow steadily, how charitable giving messages affect donation attitude is received attention. In the current research, temporal orientation and donation recipients is presented an effective variables to judge a organization activities. This article based on CLT theory, we establish the experimental condition focused on interaction effects between two variables: time orientation in charitable activities outcomes(near future: a week vs. far future: a year); and based on the recognizability of recipients(a individual child vs. collective group). Result from study, charitable activities outcomes generated in near future orientation(far future orientation) increase donation attitude and affective when messages are used in a specific(general group) context. Furthermore, empathy of CSR organization is a mediator on donation attitude and affective. We expect that these findings have important implication for charitable giving strategy.

다양한 기관의 사회적 활동에 대한 효과는 기부수혜자들을 표현하는 정보의 특징과 수혜시점의 시간지향성의 상호작용을 통해 소비자들에게 전달되며, 이는 주체기관의 사회적 활동에 대해 공감하는 정도에 의해 사회적 지원활동의 평가에 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 기부수혜시점의 시간지향성과(단기지향성 vs. 장기지향성) 수혜자 인식가능성(개인 vs. 집단) 상호작용을 중심으로 기부 메시지를 구성하였고, 이를 실험을 통해 검정하였다. 기부수혜시점의 시간지향성이 가까운 미래이고 수혜자가 특정된 개인인 경우, 긍정적인 태도와 감정으로 메시지를 평가하였다. 이에 기부수혜시점의 시간지향성이 먼 미래이고 수혜자가 집단으로 표현된 경우 기부태도와 기부감정에 긍정적 효과를 보였다. 또한 매개된 조절효과 검정 결과 주체기관에 대한 공감은 수혜자 인식가능성의 조절효과를 기부 태도, 긍정적 감정에 부분적으로 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 기부에서의 주체기관의 지원활동에 대한 시간지향성과 수혜자 인식가능성의 영향을 이해하는 새로운 시각을 제시함으로써 효과적인 사회적 활동 메시지 전략을 수립할 수 있는 실무적 시사점을 제공하고 있다.


  1. J. Y. Ahn & Y. S. Sung(2019). Donation toward in-groups vs. out-groups: The effects of self-construal and advertising message type. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 20(4), 423-444. DOI: 10.21074/kjlcap.2017.18.4.587
  2. Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195-220. DOI: 10.2501/s0265048710201129
  3. Baek, T. H., & Reid, L. N. (2013). The interplay of mood and regulatory focus in influencing altruistic behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 635-646. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20634
  4. Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of advertising, 36(4), 19-33. DOI: 10.2753/joa0091-3367360402
  5. Dickert, S. (2008). Two routes to the perception of need: The role of affective vs. deliberative information processing in prosocial behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, DOI: 10.1037/e722292011-026
  6. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). ""One of us"": Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 150-157. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.006
  7. Slovic, P. (2010). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. In Emotions and risky technologies. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8647-1_3
  8. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005
  9. White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.73.4.109
  10. Bennett, R., & Kottasz, R. (2000). Emergency fund-raising for disaster relief. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 9(5), 352-360. DOI: 10.1108/09653560010361393
  11. Zagefka, H., Noor, M., & Brown, R. (2013). Familiarity breeds compassion: Knowledge of disaster areas and willingness to donate money to disaster victims. Applied Psychology, 62(4), 640-654. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00501.x
  12. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005
  13. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological review, 103(2), 336-355. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.336
  14. Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(2), 181. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.181
  15. Wilhelm, M. O., & Bekkers, R. (2010). Helping behavior, dispositional empathic concern, and the principle of care. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 11-32. DOI: 10.1177/0190272510361435
  16. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 302. DOI:10.2307/ 2392481
  17. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143-149. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009
  18. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421. DOI:10.1037/0033- 295x.110.3.403
  19. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440-463. DOI: 10.1037/a0018963
  20. Trope, Y. (2004). Theory in social psychology: Seeing the forest and the trees. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 193-200. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_13
  21. Bilgin, B., & Brenner, L. (2008). Temporal distance moderates description dependence of subjective probability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 890-895. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.005
  22. J. H. Kim, T. H. Kim& I. H. Park(2010). Effective persuasion message type depending on when people get the results of preventive behavior: Based on construal Level theory. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 11(3), 451-474. DOI: 10.21074/kjlcap.2010.11.3.451
  23. Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., &Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 562-572. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.10.005
  24. Stern, S. (1994). Two dynamic discrete choice estimation problems and simulation method solutions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 695-702. DOI: 10.2307/2109771
  25. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Encouraging words concerning the evidence for altruism. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 159-168. DOI: 10.1207/s15327965pli0202_17
  26. Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., &Ross, W. T. (2014). I'm Moral, but I Won't Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678-696. DOI: 10.1086/677226
  27. De Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 279-300. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625
  28. Loewenstein, G., &Small, D. A. (2007). The Scarecrow and the Tin Man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 112-126. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112
  29. D. H. Lim(2013). A Study on the Influence of Empathy and Empathy for Social Enterprises on Long-Term Relationship Orientation, Busan National University, a master's degree thesis.
  30. D. H. Yun & S. W. Eum(2014). A study on the Social Contribution Activities of Social Enterprises which can bring out Customer's Empathic Response-Focusing on Familiarity and Authenticity. Management & Information Systems Review, 33(5), 131-153. DOI: 10.29214/damis. 2014.33.5.008
  31. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of experimental social psychology, 38(6), 523-534. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00535-8
  32. Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 96-108. DOI: 10.1086/314311
  33. Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2004). The effect of distractions while tasting a food sample: The interplay of informational and affective components in subsequent choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 599-608. DOI: 10.1086/425095
  34. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy1. Journal of personality, 40(4), 525-543. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x
  35. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
  36. K. I. Shin(1994). The relationship between the cognitive, emotional and expressive elements of empathy. Research Assistant at Busan National University Student Life Research Institute, 29(1), 1-37.
  37. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(6), 852-863. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
  38. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. DOI:10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173
  39. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781410606266
  40. Hong, J., &Lee, A. Y. (2010). Feeling mixed but not torn: The moderating role of construal level in mixed emotions appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 456-472. DOI: 10.1086/653492
  41. Dhar, R., &Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100. DOI: 10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70014-1
  42. S. W. Yoo (2019). A Study on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Trust, Distrust and Reputation. Journal of Digital Convergence, 17(3), 93-106. DOI: 10.4324/9781351104845-3
  43. S. G. Kim. (2016). The Study on the CSR -Focused on LG Electronics-. Journal of Digital Convergence, 14(6), 69-83. DOI: 10.14400/jdc.2016.14.6.69