1 Master’s Thesis
A comparison between guilt and shame appeals in human rights nonprofit communication, as moderated by the efficacy concept.
Aglaia Kontelli University of Amsterdam
2 Abstract
According to previous research, there are two crucial elements that make a charitable effective in increasing prosocial behavior: emotional negative appeal and efficacy (the
estimation of an action’s efficiency and feasibility held by the individual). The first aim of the
present study was to compare the effectiveness of two different negative emotions, namely guilt and shame on charitable behavior, in the context of human rights nonprofit
communication. Previous research suggests that a guilty person is more likely to engage in such behaviors than one that feels shame. Therefore, it was hypothesized that guilt will be more effective in increasing charitable behavior compared to shame. Contrariwise to this hypothesis, the analysis yielded no significant differences between the two emotions on charitable behavior. The next aim, was to examine the role of efficacy. Based on theory, the present study suggested that, response efficacy corresponds to behaviors and reactions caused by guilt whereas self-efficacy corresponds to behaviors and reactions caused by shame. Thus, it was hypothesized that guilt and shame would be more effective on charitable behavior if combined with either response or self-efficacy respectively. However, the results yielded no significant differences and thus the interaction effect of efficacy was not proved. The
hypotheses of this study were examined in a 2x2 between subjects, experimental design which was designed on Qualtrics and launched on Amazone’s Mechanical Turk (Mturk).
Key words: guilt, shame, nonprofit communication, response efficacy, self-efficacy, human rights.
Introduction
In 2014 only, the world faced numerous crimes against humanity. For example, hundreds of executions against civilians committed by extremist organizations in Syria and Iraq, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the al-Qaeda. The aforementioned
3 groups have been held responsible for human rights abuses by the United Nations (Throne, 2006) and declared as terrorist groups by the United Nations, The European Union, the United States, numerous other countries and establishments (The US department of state, 2014; Throne, 2006). The U.N commission (2014), based on interviews with habitants of areas controlled by ISIS, stated that “civilians were subjected to a “rule of terror” under the group, including massacres, beheadings, sexual enslavement and forced pregnancy” and
accused ISIS for human rights violations and crimes against humanity (english.alarabiya, 2014). Furthermore, the rights of the most vulnerable societal groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, the poor, the children, prisoners, LGBTs (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) and women are being violated daily all around the world. In Europe, according to the European Union agency for fundamental rights (FRA), 25 percent of LGBT people have received threats or even physical attacks during the past five years (The European Union agency for fundamental rights, 2012). Whilst, racist violence is prevalent in Europe mainly against illegal immigrants, Muslims, Roma and refugees/asylum seekers (The European Union agency for fundamental rights, 2005).
Nonprofit organizations like "Amnesty International" and "Human Rights Watch" are conducting research and also advocacy in an attempt to prevent those violations. However, despite the huge expenditures in advertising research from the corporate field, charity marketing and nonprofit advertising receive much less attention, probably because of their nonprofit nature, contrariwise to the very profitable sector of advertising. Organizations that design and distribute cause-related campaigns for the protection of human rights and the preventions of their violation are highly depended on charity donations, member
subscriptions and volunteers to continue their activism (Iyer, Kashyap, & Diamond, 2012). Furthermore, cause-related campaigning for non-profit organizations is a challenge in terms of persuasive communication, as it intends to motivate individuals to donate by activating
4 their philanthropic and altruistic feelings without instantly receiving any material benefits for themselves. For example, an advertisement that recommends a new product to the consumer, points out the benefits that he or she will enjoy after the purchase of this specific product. On the contrary, in the field of charity persuasive communication, the "goods" that the individual will possibly receive after participating in a cause (either by donation or by any other means of action), are psychological rather than practical. For this reason activating the public’s participation in charitable causes might be difficult for the practitioners of cause-related campaigning.
Considering the challenges of cause-related charity campaigning, this paper aims to further investigate persuasion techniques in the nonprofit domain that can lead to an effective charity appeal. More specifically, negative emotion appeals such guilt and shame are
frequently used in social marketing (Hibbert, Smith, Davies, &Ireland, 2007) and proved to be effective in increasing prosocial behavior (Duhachek, 2012; Dearing et al., 2005; Basil et al., 2005; Brennan et al.2010; Huhmann and Brotherton 1997; Iyer , Kashyap & Diamond, 2012; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010; Ohtsubo, & Watanabe,2013). Moreover, guilt is among the most popular emotions used in charity appeals: Huhman and Botherton (1997) estimated that the 5% of all appeals in magazines were guilt appeals. Shame is also frequently used to motivate people to adapt a new social behavior such as reduce alcohol use while driving (Grasmick, Bursik, &Arneklev, 1993). Therefore, shame can be effective in evoking prosocial behavior as well.
Even though those two emotions have found to be effective in social campaigning in general, and also, are both frequently used in charitable and cause-related non-profit
marketing, to the authors knowledge there are not enough scientific studies linking guilt and shame to the specific sector of human rights non-profit communication. Furthermore, despite the fact that those emotions have been studied separately, there are not many scholars who
5 are comparing them in terms of prosocial behavior. For those reasons, the aim of the present study is to link and compare the effectiveness of guilt and shame appeals in the human rights domain of persuasive campaigning.
Moreover, according to Iyer, Kashyap, and Diamond (2012) the path that leads to a successful charitable communication is not based exclusively on emotion appeals. Another crucial element that affects the consumer’s choice is whether the individual believes that his or her actions will be both effective in achieving the initial goal and feasible (Witte, 1992). This concept is known as “perceived efficacy” and consists of the two sub concepts of response efficacy and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Witte, 1992; Basil, Ridgway, & Basil, 2008; Bekkers, & Wiepking, 2010). The first describes the belief of the individual that his or her actions will be effective, whereas the second occurs when the individual holds the belief that the actions which are about to be performed are feasible for him or her (Bandura, 1986; Witte, 1992). Along with the negative emotion appeal this paper aims, by building on the aforementioned studies and theories, to further investigate the efficacy concept. What is more, the present study will attempt a separation of the two sub concepts of efficacy (response and self-efficacy) by combining guilt appeal with response-efficacy and shame with self-efficacy.
Theoretical framework
Guilt and shame
Guilt and shame are both negative emotions. They are frequently used to encourage the adaption of a new behavior based on the arousal of negative emotions and the effort of the individual to alleviate them (Duhachek, Agrawal, &Han, 2012). Some scholars argue that those two emotions are interconnected because feeling guilty about something can be a precondition of feeling ashamed. More specifically if a person feels that he or she has done
6 something wrong or that does not do his or her best to help the others, then if this feeling is exposed in public the person consequently will feel also shame (Brennan, & Binney, 2010).
However, despite their appearing similarities those two emotions are quite different in terms of the psychological mechanisms that trigger: the emotional state that they cause, and consequently, the actions that people engage in, to overcome those two unpleasant emotions (Dearing, Stuewig, & Tangney, 2005). People tend to feel guilty when they realize that some their past actions may violate their ethical principles, social norms and morals (Lindsay-Hartz, De Rivera, & Mascolo, 1995; Basil et al, 2008). Guilt is frequently described as a problem-focused emotion, meaning that the guilty individual focuses on the unpleasant event and he or she will take action to alter the source that evokes the guiltiness and soften the stressful environment (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Duhachek, et al., 2012). Therefore, guilt is associated with feelings of high self-esteem, because the individual holds the belief that he or she has is able, if act accordingly, to alter the situation that causes the negative emotions and alleviate the guiltiness (Duhachek et al., 2012; Dearing, Stuewig & Tangney, 2005). What is more, once the guilty person recognize that he or she has acted inappropriately, one will be motivated to correct the unpleasant situation by taking actions that can fix the “damage” (Duhachek et al., 2012). Therefore, the guilty person is not only
high self-esteemed but also active and willing to change the stressful environment. Guilt can either appear after or before a specific action. The present study examines guilt that follows an action, named “anticipatory” (Basil et al., 2008). The reason why, is that in the context of
charity appeals the feeling of guilt is expected to appear if the individual ignores the
suggested action that could possibly change the unfavorable situation, for example when the individual choose not to donate money for a specific human rights cause (Basil et al., 2008). There are many forms of consumer guilt, however, having in mind that this study examines how guilt can work in a cause-related persuasive communication, the most suitable forms for
7 this domain are social responsibility and existential guilt (Basil. et al, 2008). In general those two forms describe the feeling of guilt that arouses when an individual knows that he or she is in an advantaged situation compared to other people (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994).
Contrariwise to guilt, people who are experiencing shame are experiencing a holistic negative view about themselves after performing an action that it is considered inappropriate according to ethical norms and morals. The source of the negative emotions is one’s self
rather the event or a specific behavior (Dearing et al., 2005). Therefore, shame is highly connected with feelings of low self-esteem (Duhachek, 2012). Previous studies have shown that, feelings of shame are frequently immobilizing the individual rather than triggering him or her to be active like in the case of guiltiness (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995). People driven by shame are unlikely to try to correct their past actions because they are feeling worthless and powerless to do so (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek 2007). Thus, people who are experiencing shame are trying to soften this feeling by engaging into emotion- focused strategies rather than taking actions to change the stressful situation. This happens because of their low self-esteem and their belief that they are powerless to change the situation (De Hooge, Zeelenberg & Breugelmans, 2007).
In the context of charitable giving, both guilt and shame have found to be effective in increasing prosocial behavior and motivating individuals to adapt social behaviors
(Duhachek, 2012; Dearing et al., 2005; Basil et al., 2005; Brennan et al.2010; Huhmann and Brotherton 1997; Iyer , Kashyap & Diamond, 2012; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010; Ohtsubo, & Watanabe,2013). More specifically, Hibert et al., (2007) proved that feelings of guilt are increasing the likelihood of charitable donation. Furthermore, according to the framework of charitable giving (Iyer et al., 2012), donating for a charitable cause is highly depended on emotional appeals of guilt. This happens because individuals envisage donating as procedure of expressing their regret for something and thus relieving their feelings of guilt (Tangney
8 1995). Iyer et al. (2012) argues that “Any message that touches upon guilt can be successfully used to prompt one to give”. The present paper does not examine every form of guilt because
it aims link guilt feelings with charitable giving in the human rights nonprofit campaigning. Therefore this study uses “existential guilt” which according to Hibbert, Smith, Davies, &
Ireland, (2007) “ is experienced when one feels better off, or more fortunate than others, resulting in feelings of empathy (e.g., when seeing a homeless person)”. This latter type of guilt is similar to what Burnett and Lunsford (1994) refer to as social-responsibility guilt, whereby “guilt may result from not living up to one’s social obligations”. Considering the
nature of human rights campaigns, existential guilt is the form most expected to be evoked after the exposure. This is because nonprofit campaigning usually presents groups of people that are being in a disadvantaged position compared to the majority. Therefore, the person exposed to the communication will try to alleviate the negative emotions by taking action, or will avoid the feelings of guilty by donating instantly.
In previous research, shame has found to be effective in increasing charitable donation as well (Ohtsubo et al., 2013). In some cases it has been argued that its effects are stronger than those of guilt especially if the actions that caused the feeling of shame are revealed to person's closest individuals such as friends and family (Brennan, &Binney, 2010). However, shame appeals are more likely to cause reactive behaviors such as the person claiming that is his or her own right to do act in the way they think is the best (Brennan, &Binney ,2010). Whilst both feeling of guilt and shame have found to be successful in increasing charitable donation, studies have shown that people with higher self-esteem are more likely to donate for a charitable cause (Sargeant, Ford, & West, 2000). Furthermore, individuals who are described as more social and active are also more likely to donate (Bekkers, 2007). As mentioned before, a crucial difference between guilt and shame is the self-image of the person. Guilty people are connected with high self-esteem whereas,
9 ashamed people with low. Furthermore, shame evokes feelings of worthlessness to the
individual (Duhachek et al., 2012). Taken the aforementioned into account, the first hypothesis of the present study can be formulated as such:
H1: Guilt appeals are more influential in increasing charitable behavior compared to shame appeals in the context of human rights nonprofit campaigning.
The moderating effect of response and self-efficacy
The concept of response efficacy was introduced by Witte (1992) in his extended parallel process model (EPPM) and it is defined as the belief that the individual holds on whether the suggested behavior can solve the problem or not. In the domain of charitable giving it can be translated as, the perception of the individual that their donation will actually be worthy and that it will make a difference in the cause that they are donating for (Bekkers et al., 2010). The second form is self-efficacy, which describes the perception that the individual holds on whether or not he or she is qualified to perform the behavior (Bandura, 1986). In charitable giving, along with the emotional appeal, efficacy has been highlighted as one of the basic elements for increasing action and inducing prosocial behavior like donating money to charitable causes (Iyer, Kashyap, & Diamond, 2012; Bekkers et al., 2010; Bandura, 1986). Furthermore, campaigns that are aiming to increase charitable behavior are often targeting the efficacy of the public with phrases similar to “10 cents per day can save a life” (Basil et al.2008). Basil et al. (2008) explained the efficiency of the efficacy concept in charitable giving by comparing the EPPM of fear (Witte, 1992) with guilt appeals on charitable donation. The two appeals indeed share various similarities. First, (a) they both evoke unpleasant emotions in order to achieve the desirable result; second they aim in (b) encouraging the performance of a specific behavior, (c) which is usually quite simple and,(d) they can both lead to the opposite negative result of a maladaptive response (unsuccessful
10 appeal) (Russel, 1980; Basil et al., 2008). Basil et al., (2008), in their study proved that
efficacy increases adaptive responses and in turn donation intention. Just like in the EPPM (Witte, 1992) where high efficacy leads in an adaptive response. Thus, efficacy works the same way in the domain of charitable giving and is equally important also in this context.
As aforementioned, there are two forms of efficacy: self and response (Bandura, 1982; Witte, 1992). Those two forms represent some specific characteristics that in turn correspond in the psychological responses and behaviors evoked by guilt or shame. This study aims to further investigate whether there is a link between the psychological responses caused by guilt and shame and the two different forms of efficacy, response and self. As explained before, people who feel guilty have a higher self-esteem that those who feel shame (Duhachek et al., 2012). In this case, the form of efficacy that corresponds better to this specific physiological trait is response. That is because people with high self-esteem are willing to engage into actions that will soften their guiltiness by changing the stressful environment or fixing the problem (Duhachek et al., 2012; Dearing, Stuewig & Tangney, 2005). Response efficacy in the context of charitable donation is the perception that making a contribution can make a change (Bekkers et al., 2010). Taking the above theories into
account, it can be hypothesized that the guilty person is more likely to donate when perceived response efficacy is high. This is because the required actions are perceived to be effective and thus the individual thinks that the performance of the behavior will alleviate the guilt feeling. Thus, the first moderation hypothesis can be formulated as such:
H2a: Guilt appeals lead to higher charitable behavior than shame appeals if combined with a response - efficacy message, compared to a self-efficacy.
On the other hand, the physiological responses and behaviors caused by shame, differ from those of guilt (Duhachek et al., 2012). The ashamed person has low self-esteem and in some cases perceives itself as powerless (Duhachek et al., 2012). The concept of self-efficacy
11 is defined as the belief that a person holds on whether he or she has the ability to perform the behavior (Bandura, 1982). In that case, it can be hypothesized that a high level of
self-efficacy can possible make the individual overcome the obstacles of low self confidence that shame evoked. That is because a high feeling of self-efficacy would mean that the person has a strong belief that he or she is able to perform the behavior and thus the perception of being powerless will be decreased. Therefore, the second moderation hypothesis can be formulated as such:
H2b: Shame appeals lead to higher charitable behavior than guilt appeals if combined with a self-efficacy message, compared to a response efficacy message.
Conceptual model Method Pretest Donation Guilt vs Shame Response vs Self efficacy
12 Design, participants and procedure. Prior to the main study, a pretest was
conducted in order to select the stimuli materials that are most effectively inducing the desired manipulations. It was created on Qualtrics and launched on Amazone’s Mechanical Turk (Mturk) online labor market. The sample was two hundred and fifteen participants (N=215). The users of Mturk are located mostly in the U.S and they are workers because this platform is a labor market (Ipeirotis, 2009). The age ranged from 19 up to 99 years old and 47.1 percent were females.
The participants were assigned randomly in one out of the four conditions where emotions and efficacy were manipulated via three posters in each condition. Each one of posters represented a different human rights issue. More specifically, in the first two
conditions, the participants were exposed to posters which were inducing guilt. However, in the first condition the emotion was combined with a statement designed to increase response efficacy whereas, in the second the statement was inducing self-efficacy. Likewise, in the third and fourth condition, the participants were exposed to shame evoking posters combined with response or self-efficacy respectively. After the exposure, each respondent was asked to complete a series of questions that were used to formulate the different measures of this study. Following, they were asked about some demographic information. Once all questions were completed, the respondents were debriefed and brought back to their initial emotional state by completing a question about their most important asset. A chance of winning a 10 dollar gift after filling in the survey, was offered as an incentive for participation and to measure behavior.
Stimuli materials
The stimuli materials for this study were designed to induce guilt and shame and the two forms of efficacy in the context of human rights. To achieve the induction of the
13 aforementioned variables, three sets of posters were designed and pretested in each condition before the final choice. The posters were designed to represent an original campaign of Amnesty International, one of the biggest and well known organizations for the protection of human rights worldwide. The three different sets represented a different category of human rights; whilst the rest of the elements were kept similar in order to eliminate possible undesirable influences on the results (colors, wording, format, similar pictures, and layout). The first represented prisoners’ rights, the second, LGBT’s rights and the last, women’s rights (see appendix A for pictures of the posters). However, the third set had a higher overall mean score in the target variables and therefore it was used for the main study.
Measurements
Emotions. This variables were judged on a 7 point Likert scale (not at all-very much). The emotions measured along with guilt and shame were anger, sadness, disgust, and fear. Furthermore, in a second closed question, they were asked to choose just one emotion to describe their emotional state the choices given were: guilt, shame, anger, and fear.
Response efficacy. Response efficacy was measured on a 7 point Likert scale. The question designed for measuring this variable was: “How confident are you that Amnesty
international will be able to achieve the statements made in the poster?”
Self-efficacy. The participants were given 5 statements and they were asked to rate them according to their personal thoughts on a 7 point Likert scale. Some examples of the items are: “I am fully capable of signing this petition”, “I do not feel I am qualified for the task of signing this petition”, “My past experiences increase my confidence that I will be able
to successfully sign this petition”). The 5 statements were used to construct the scale of self-efficacy. Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom & Brown (2005) reported a high reliability score for this
14 scale in their two studies (α = .95, and α = .97). In the present study, the reliability analysis
yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .61.
Poster credibility. The credibility of the posters was judged based on 3 items measured on a 7 point Likert scale (Unbelievable –believable, uninformative –informative etc.). To measure the credibility, a scale was created out of those three items. In previous studies (Bruner et al., 2001), the reliability of the scale has found to be high (α = .86). The scale revealed the same reliability score for the present study as well.
Last, several demographics variables were measured (gender, age, and political position).
Main study
Design, participants and procedure. The hypotheses were examined through a 2x2 experimental between-subjects design, which was designed on Qualtics. The sample was two hundred and two participants (N=202) who were recruited via Amazone’s Mechanical Turk (Mturk) online labor market. The profile of Mturk users has been described in the pretest method section and it applies to the main study as well. The age range was from 17 up to 71 years. 41.6 percent were females. The procedure followed in the main study was identical to the procedure of the pretest but in this experiment only one poster per condition was used instead of three.
Stimuli materials
For the emotional manipulation, the individuals was first exposed to a real-life case of human rights violation of a disadvantaged group through the phrase “In Iran, women are imprisoned when they ask for equality” in both conditions (guilt and shame). For the
existential guilt conditions, the participant was presented with a solution that could possible fix the aforementioned situation with the phrase “Imagine ignoring this petition and not
15 taking the responsibility to help a person in need”. Whilst, for the shame condition the phrase was “Imagine ignoring this petition and still claiming to be a considerate person”. Last, for both emotions the participants were asked to actively think about their emotional state in case of not taking action with the phrase “How would that make you feel?”
The phrase that was used for the manipulating response efficacy was: “Amnesty International has a long history of success, prisoners of conscience are released and governments are persuaded to change their laws and practices.” Through this sentence the
organization is presented as effective and thus the person feels that his or her actions can make a change. The posters in the self-efficacy conditions contained the phrase: “With only one signature you can help Amnesty International to release prisoners of conscience and persuade governments to change their laws and practices”. Moreover in the self-efficacy
condition only the website of the petition was written on the poster. This way the individual feels that he or she is able to perform the recommended action, which in this case was to sign the petition. All posters were designed according to the style of Amnesty International
campaigns with black, white and yellow colors and the logo of the organization on the bottom right corner of the poster. The posters can be found in appendix A.
Measurements
Along with the measurements of the pretest, in the main study, there were more variables measured.
Behavior. The participants were asked to indicate, how much money they will donate to Amnesty International for the protection of women’s rights in case they win the 10 dollar
incentive. This was an open type question and they could fill in an amount from 0 up to 10 dollars.
16 Behavioral intention. Four items measured on a 7 point Likert scale (Unlikely -likely, impossible -possible etc.) as an answer to the question “If you came across this poster, would you sign this petition?” Concerning the reliability of the scale created out of the four items, according to Bruner, Hensel &James (2001) “Reported internal consistencies have tended to be very good and have ranged from .80 to .99”. In the present study the reliability of the scale was high as well (α = .95).
Other measurements. The participants answered questions for their attitude towards the poster by rating 8 items on a 7 point Likert scale (boring – exciting, good –bad,
uninformative –informative). The scale’s reliability is high (α = .90) as reported by De Pelsmacker, Geuens & Anckaert (2002). In the present study the analysis revealed a chronbach’s apha of α = .92. Moreover, attitude towards the organization Amnesty International was measured on a 3 item 7 point Likert scale (α = .89) as reported by Dean (2002) and in the present study the reliability analysis yielded a high chronbach’s a (α = .95).
Results Pretest
As it can be seen in Table 1, the results of a multivariate analysis of variance yielded no significant differences between the conditions in either of the sets for the targeted
variables (FGuilt(3, 210) = .89, p = n.s, η2= .01 FShame(3, 210) = .40, p = n.s, η2= .00,
FR.efficacy(3, 210) = 1.21, p = n.s, η2= .0, FSefficacy(3, 210) = 1.31, p = n.s, η2 = 1.3). The results for the two other sets can be found in appendix B.
Table 1. MANOVA for pretest: Women’s rights set Condition
17 Note. Means per row with different letters differ significantly with p < 0.05 in Tukey Post Hoc tests; Bold means targeted variable.
Main study
The first aim of this study was to examine whether a guilt appeal will have a bigger influence on charitable behavior compared to shame appeal. A multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to compare the two appeals and answer to the aforementioned hypothesis. The multivariate result was not significant for emotion, Pillai’s Trace = .00, F (2,202) = .08, p = n.s, which indicates no significant differences between the two emotions (guilt and shame) on charitable behavior. Moreover, the univariate F tests for both emotions on charitable behavior were also not significant, F(1,202)= .02, p = n.s for guilt, and F (1,202)= .00, p = .n.s, for shame. Thus, guilt and shame were not significantly different in their influence on charitable behavior.
DVs M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Guilt 2.58 (1.93)a 2.84 (2.03)a 3.06 (2.07)a 2.50 (1.74)a .89 n.s .013 Shame 2.98 (2.10)a 2.96 (2.00)a 3.06 (1.88)a 2.92 (2.13)a .40 n.s .001 Anger 5.98 (1.39)a 5.75 (1.58)a 5.90 (1.34)a 5.54 (1.72)a .86 n.s .013 Sadness 5.52 (1.52)a 5.43 (1.65)a 5.15 (1.81)a 5.08 (2.12)a .73 n.s .011 Disgust Fear 5.12 (2.11)a 2.65 (2.07)a 5.00 (2.15)a 2.78 (2.12)a 5.12 (1.96)a 2.75 (2.08)a 4.77 (2.19)a 2.29 (1.69)a .31 .67 n.s n.s .005 .010 Response ef. Poster credibility 4.37 (1.98)a 6.26 (.97)a 3.90 (1.93)a 6.12 (1.17)a 4.40 (1.57)a 6.05 (1.24)a 3.90 (1.77)a 5.92 (1.35)a 1.21 .72 n.s n.s .018 .011
18 The second aim of the present study was to examine efficacy as moderator to the initial relationship of emotion (guilt and shame) on charitable behavior. More specifically, according to the hypothesis formulated: guilt appeals would be more effective in increasing charitable behavior than shame appeals, when combined with response efficacy compared to self-efficacy. Likewise, for shame appeals the hypothesis was that they would increase charitable behavior more than guilt appeals, when combined with self-efficacy compared to response efficacy. The interaction between emotion (guilt and shame) and efficacy (response and guilt) on charitable behavior, was tested with a Multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). However, the results yielded no significant interaction effects (F(1,202) = 1.07, p= n.s).
Discussion
Comparison between guilt and shame
The primary goal of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of two different negative emotions on prosocial behavior in the context of human rights nonprofit communication. The emotions compared were guilt and shame. The results indicated that, there is no significant difference between them. H1 was not confirmed, meaning that the two emotional appeals (guilt and shame) did not evoke different levels of charitable behavior. This is not in line with the theory that the present study was based on. People with higher self-esteem are generally more active and they have proven to engage more in charitable donation that people with lower self-esteem (Sargeant, Ford, & West, 2000; Bekkers, 2007). According to previous research people who are experiencing guilt are characterized as high self-esteemed and more active whereas, those who are experiencing shame are the opposite in terms of self-confidence and mobilization (Duhachek et al., 2012; Baumeister et al., 1995).
19 A possible explanation of the rejection of H1is that the two emotions are not easily distinguishable from each other. More specifically, scientific research has
distinguished guilt from shame and has assigned each emotion with different characteristics which evoke different reactions, thoughts and behaviors (Duhachek et al., 2012; Baumeister et al., 1995). On the other hand, those two emotions share a lot of similarities as well
(Brennan, & Binney, 2010). Thus, they are hard to distinguish from one another, especially when it comes to an individual that doesn’t have any experience with scientific psychology or
literature explaining the differences between them. For example, they are both negative emotions which are triggered when one thinks that has done something that shouldn’t be done because it is violating social and ethic norms and morals (Lindsay-Hartz, De Rivera, & Mascolo, 1995; Basil et al, 2008; Dearing et al., 2005). The difference is that the guilty person focuses on the event itself whereas the ashamed one on themselves (Lindsay-Hartz, De Rivera, & Mascolo, 1995; Basil et al, 2008; Dearing et al., 2005). It has to be kept in mind that those are very specific details that cannot be known without any knowledge in
psychology. Therefore, it is possible that when the participants were asked to indicate their emotional state, even if according to the manipulation should feel guilt or shame, they might have indicated guilt instead of shame or the opposite. This is a limitation of this study and the results shall be interpreted along with it: the posters that were used in the experiment were not successful in achieving the desirable induction of the two manipulated variables
(emotions and efficacy). Due to limited time and resources it was not feasible to create and test more posters. Even though the posters that were used for manipulating the four
conditions, were designed according to scientific literature on the emotions of guilt and shame, it must be taken into account that each individual may experience differently those emotions. Therefore, it would be interesting in a future study, to examine in more detail the differences between guilt and shame and how people are experiencing and perceiving them
20 before proceeding to the design of the manipulation. An effective way to do so is, instead of creating the manipulation by using scientific literature, to use focus groups. Through this method, people can further elaborate, discuss and understand the nature of those two emotions and the reactions and the psychological traits that they evoke. Thus, focus groups can possible lead to a creation of a more credible manipulation of those two not easily distinguishable emotions.
The role of efficacy
The role of efficacy has proven to be quite influential on charitable behavior because it enhances adaptive responses and consequently prosocial behavior (Basil et al., 2008). Furthermore, it has been highlighted from previous studies as one of the crucial elements that enhance charitable behavior (Bekkers et al, 2010). Efficacy, as aforementioned, consists of two sub-forms: first, response efficacy, which describes the belief that an action is efficient in achieving the desirable outcome (Witte, 1992) and it can be linked to the problem- focused nature of guilt (Folkman et al., 1986; Duhachek, et al., 2012). Second, self-efficacy which describes the belief that the action is feasible (Bandura, 1982) and it can be linked to the emotion-focused nature of shame (De Hooge et al., 2007). This study aimed to investigate whether the aforementioned linkage can be scientifically proven. However, no significant differences were proven for the interaction effect between emotion and efficacy on charitable behavior. A first possible explanation for these results is, as aforementioned, that the
emotional manipulations were not successful. This indicates that the desirable linkages between the two forms of efficacy with the two emotions was not successful as well.
Nonetheless, there is one more aspect that must be taken into account when interpreting the results of the present study. Quite a few participants in their comments expressed skepticism and distrust towards the purposes claimed on the posters. This fact is an
21 indicator of a general disbelief towards nonprofit marketing. Moreover, the credibility results of the pretest were quite high meaning that people perceived them as original posters of Amnesty International. Consumer’s skepticism towards charities and cause related marketing has been discussed in previous studies as reason of reactance towards this type of persuasive communication (Webb & Mohr, 1998; Kim & Lee, 2009). This is very crucial in the present study, especially in the case of guilt. This is because the main motive of the guilty person to engage in prosocial behavior is its belief that the actions suggested will alleviate the negative emotion (Duhachek, Agrawal, &Han, 2012). If people are expressing distrust for the
effectiveness of the recommended actions, then they do not believe that the wanted result is feasible through donation and thus efficacy was not successful. Thus, in this case, it can be argued that it is not the design of the manipulation itself the reason of the insignificant
results. For this reason, in a future similar study it would be interesting to examine the role of consumer’s skepticism in the suggested model of this paper.
Conclusion
Concluding, the present study building on previous research on frameworks of charitable donation suggested a comparison between guilt and shame as moderated by efficacy in the context of human rights campaigning. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that a separation of the two sub-forms of efficacy and a linkage of those with guilt and shame would be more effective on charitable donation rather than a holistic use of the efficacy concept. However, the results were not significant and thus valid conclusions or market implications cannot be drawn. Nonetheless, the experiment revealed some key points to be taken into account in further scientific research on this topic. First, it suggests that for an effective manipulation of guilt and shame there are many factors that shall be explored. The most important one is the possible difficulty of the individuals to identify which one of the
22 two emotions is experiencing. Moreover, along with the emotional appeal and the efficacy concept there are more aspects that need further investigation in order to construct a valid model of charitable behavior. The present study identified and suggested consumer’s skepticism.
23 References
Arumi, A. M., Wooden, R., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Duffett, A., & Ott, A. (2005). The charitable impulse. New York: Public Agenda
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1-23.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1–2), 173 – 198
Bekkers, R. (2007). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. In Survey Research Methods (Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 139-144). University of Groningen.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly.
Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing. Journal of business Research, 63(2), 140-146.
Bruner, G. C., Hensel, P. J., & James, K. E. (2001). Marketing scales handbook. Chicago: American Marketing Association
Burnett, M. S., & Lunsford, D. A. (1994). Conceptualizing guilt in the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11(3), 33-43.
Dean, D. H. (2002). Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship: Measuring the effects on corporate community relations. Journal of Advertising, 77-87.
24 Dearing, R. L., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. P. (2005). On the importance of distinguishing
shame from guilt: Relations to problematic alcohol and drug use. Addictive behaviors, 30(7), 1392-1404.
De Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2007). Moral sentiments and cooperation: Differential influences of shame and guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 1025-1042.
Duhachek, A., Agrawal, N., & Han, D. (2012). Guilt versus shame: Coping, fluency, and framing in the effectiveness of responsible drinking messages. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 928-941.
english.alarabiya, (2014). ISIS accused of crimes against humanity. [online] Available at: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/11/14/ISIS-commits-crimes-against-humanity-in-Syria.html [Accessed 5 Jan. 2015].
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(3), 571.
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 723-742.
Huhmann, Bruce A. and Timothy P. Brotherton. 1997. “A Content Analysis of Guilt Appeals in Popular Magazine Advertisements.” Journal of Advertising 26 (2): 35–45.
Ipeirotis, P. (2009). Turker demographics vs. Internet demographics. A Computer Scientist in a Business School.
Iyer, E. S., Kashyap, R. K., & Diamond, W. D. (2012). Charitable Giving: Even the Willing Need to be Persuaded. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 33(1), 115-127.
25 marketing: The effects of corporate social responsibility and donation size claim
objectivity. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 465-483.
Lindsay-Hartz, J., De Rivera, J., & Mascolo, M. F. (1995). Differentiating guilt and shame and their effects on motivation.
Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61-83.
Ohtsubo, Y., & Watanabe, E. (2013). Unintentional Unfair Behavior Promotes Charitable Donation. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 4(1), 1-4.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), 1161.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155-165.
Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and
behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386. Tangney, J. P. (1995). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and guilt. American
Behavioral Scientist.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual review of psychology, 58, 345.
The Us department of state. (2014). Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
The European Union agency for fundamental rights, (2005). Racist violence in 15 EU member states. [online] Available at:
26 Jan. 2015].
The European union agency for fundamental rights, (2012). EU LGBT survey. [online] Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu-lgbt-survey-technical-report_en.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2014].
Thorne, K. (2006). “Terrorist” lists–A brief overview of lists and their sanctions in the US,
UN, and Europe. Last modified June.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 226-238.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329-349.
27 Appendix A
29 Set 2: LGBT rights
31 Set 3: Women’s rights (used set)
33 Appendix B
MANOVA for pretest: prisoners’ rights set
Note. Means per row with different letters differ significantly with p < 0.05 in Tukey Post Hoc tests;
Bold means targeted variable.
Condition
DVs
Guilt &R.E Guilt & S.E Shame & R.E Shame & S.E F(3,228) p η2
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Guilt 2.94 (2.11)a 2.71 (1.93)a 3.10 (1.77)a 2.73 (2.03)a .45 n.s .007 Shame 3.08 (2.00)a 2.41 (1.63)a 3.13 (1.85)a 2.92 (2.01)a 1.55 n.s .022 Anger 5.04 (1.81)a 4.76 (1.79)a 5.13 (1.78)a 4.92 (1.64)a .42 n.s .006 Sadness 5.30 (1.48)a 5.02 (1.71)a 5.19 (1.79)a 4.94 (1.81)a .47 n.s .007
Disgust Fear 5.36 (1.57)a 2.91 (2.003)a 4.82 (1.84)a 2.96 (2.03)a 5.10 (1.81)a 2.94 (1.91)a 4.81 (1.91)a 2.50 (1.73)a 1.11 .67 n.s n.s .016 .010 Response ef. Poster credibility 4.15 (1.82)a 5.85 (1.08) 3.69 (1.84)a 5.76 (1.31)a 4.23 (1.65)a 5.88 (1.00)a 3.85 (1.81)a 5.71 (1.36)a 1.05 .23 n.s n.s .015 .004 Self-efficacy 5.26 ( .79)a 4.96 (1.03)a 5.14 ( .82)a 5.18 ( .88)a 1.02 n.s .015
34
MANOVA for pretest: LGBT’s rights set
Note. Means per row with different letters differ significantly with p < 0.05 in Tukey Post Hoc tests;
Bold means targeted variable.
Condition
DVs
Guilt &R.E Guilt & S.E Shame & R.E Shame & S.E F(3,228) p η2
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Guilt 2.58 (1.93)a 2.69 (2.05)a 2.54 (1.77)a 2.15 (1.52)a .84 n.s .012 Shame 3.23 (2.07)a 3.00 (2.11)a 3.27 (2.05)a 2.65 (1.97)a .97 n.s .014 Anger 5.58 (1.69)a 5.14 (1.96)a 5.27 (1.65)a 4.94 (1.94)a 1.15 n.s .017 Sadness 5.21 (1.86)a 4.80 (2.06)a 4.92 (1.83)a 4.60 (2.23)a .85 n.s .012
Disgust Fear 4.98 (2.08)a 2.51 (1.87)a 4.75 (2.15)a 2.55 (1.94)a 4.85 (2.00)a 2.27 (1.65)a 4.67 (2.16)a 2.00 (1.57)a .21 1.06 n.s n.s .003 .015 Response ef. Poster credibility 4.08 (1.97)a 6.09 (1.10)a 3.73 (1.82)a 5.56 (1.51)a 4.44 (3.79)a 5.83 (1.47)a 3.79 (1.96)a 5.62 (1.44)a 1.65 1.79 n.s n.s .024 .026
