Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 4:16:3019-3033.
doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S415959. eCollection 2023.

Be Careful When Using Peer-Influence on Nudging Solicitation: Evidence of Potential Negative Effect from a Sample of Chinese University Students

Wuke Zhang  1 , Pengtao Jiang  2   3 , Ting Xu  1 , Yuchen Ye  1
Affiliations

Be Careful When Using Peer-Influence on Nudging Solicitation: Evidence of Potential Negative Effect from a Sample of Chinese University Students

Wuke Zhang et al. Psychol Res Behav Manag. .

Abstract

Purpose: Peer information is now commonly used in solicitation. However, scholars have long focused on testing its effectiveness on increasing the donation amount without paying attention to its potential negative effects on donors. Thus, the current study employs high vs low peer donation amount (HPDA vs LPDA) information to explore its effect on "how-much-to-donate" decisions and the corresponding neural and psychological reactions at the same time.

Participants and methods: Student samples from a Chinese university and behavioral experiments with the event-related potential (ERP) method were used in this study.

Results: The behavioral results are consistent with previous research in which HPDA was positively associated with higher donation levels. ERP results show the mechanisms behind decision-making can be summarized into a cognitive approach represented by cost-benefit analysis and an affective approach represented by reward perception. More surprisingly, in contrast to the behavioral results, LPDA elicits higher level of reward perception than HPDA.

Conclusion: The results indicate that although HPDA leads to higher levels of donation, donors do not show higher levels of reward anticipation at the neurological level, indicating the increment of donation may come at the cost of donors. Theoretical and practical implications are also discussed.

Keywords: ERP; average peer donation amount; event-related potential; online donation; solicitation; “how-much-to-donate” decision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Single trial of the experimental procedure.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Behavioral results of the participants’ donation amounts in peer donation amounts (high vs low): the black bar represents high peer donation amounts, whereas the grey bar represents the low peer donation amounts.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Grand-average P200, N200, P300 ERP waveforms in the three electrodes (Fz, FCz, and Cz): the red line represents high peer donation amounts, whereas the green line represents low peer donation amounts.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The result of Correlation analysis between the mean amplitude of P200 and the mean amplitude of P300: The horizontal axis is the average amplitude of P300 on the nine electrodes (F1, Fz, F2, FC1, FCz, FC2, C1, Cz, C2), and the vertical axis is the average amplitude of P200 on the nine electrodes (F1, Fz, F2, FC1, FCz, FC2, C1, Cz, C2).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Erceg N, Burghart M, Cottone A, et al. The effect of moral congruence of calls to action and salient social norms on online charitable donations: a protocol study. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1913. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01913 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Andreoni J. Toward a theory of charitable fund-raising. J Polit Econ. 1998;106(6):1186–1213. doi:10.1086/250044 - DOI
    1. Ye Y, Jiang P, Zhang W. The neural and psychological processes of peer-influenced online donation decision: an event-related potential study. original research. Front Psychol. 2022;13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899233 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith S, Windmeijer F, Wright E. Peer effects in charitable giving: evidence from the (running) field. Econ J. 2015;125(585):1053–1071. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12114 - DOI
    1. Andreoni J, Rao JM. The power of asking: how communication affects selfishness, empathy, and altruism. J Public Econ. 2011;95(7–8):513–520. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.12.008 - DOI