What is the role of information processing in the
willingness to donate?
What is the role of information processing in the
willingness to donate?
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master Thesis – MSc. Marketing Management
Completion date: January 13, 2020
Author:
Fleur Halsema
Petrus Campersingel 169a
9713 AJ Groningen
Tel: +31 6 11501425
fleurhalsema@hotmail.com
S3529010
First supervisor: Dr. Martijn Keizer
Abstract
Communication is a commonly discussed topic within the charity industry and is used to attract new incidental donors. Therefore, the type and content of message is a very important aspect. The content of a persuasive message can stimulate a certain information process, which affects the decision to donate or not. Information processes can be divided into two sub-categories; affective and deliberative information processing. As stated by several previous studies, affective information processing leads to a higher willingness to donate than deliberative information processes since emotions caused by the message will lead to affective cues and will be used to make a decision instead of rational thinking. The purpose of this study was to find out what the effect of the type of information processing is on the donating behavior of participants, by framing a message in a way that it stimulates a certain information processing. Secondly, to see the effect of a simplified version of these persuasive messages. Results show that affective information processing results into a higher willingness to donate and a higher amount, and deliberative information processing results into a lower willingness to donate and a lower amount people are willing to give. However, simplicity does not have an effect on the donating behavior neither on the relationship between information processing and donating behavior. The findings of this study have some interesting theoretical and practical implications. However, for future research, it is advised to also look into the behavior of potential structural donors.
Preface
When writing my Master Thesis, I discovered my specific interest in the psychological side of marketing, which explains the process of decision making, ways to stimulate a certain behavior or decision and how this can be used in practice. Combining this with my interest in the charity industry, I can come to the conclusion that I enjoyed writing this Master Thesis.
Table of content
ABSTRACT ... 3 PREFACE ... 4 INTRODUCTION ... 7 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 9 CHARITIES ... 9 DONATING BEHAVIOR... 9 ALTRUISM ... 10 DECISION MAKING ... 11 INFORMATION PROCESSING ... 11AFFECTIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING ... 12
DELIBERATIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING ... 13
SIMPLIFIED PERSUASIVE MESSAGES ... 14
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 16
METHOD ... 17
PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN ... 17
PROCEDURE ... 18
MATERIALS ... 19
Independent variable: Information processing ... 19
Dependent variable: donating behavior ... 19
Moderator: simplified persuasive message ... 20
Manipulation check ... 20 Control variables ... 21 ANALYSIS PLAN ... 21 RESULTS ... 23 DESCRIPTIVE... 23 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ... 24 HYPOTHESIS 1 ... 25 HYPOTHESIS 2&3 ... 25 HYPOTHESIS 4 ... 26 HYPOTHESIS 5&6 ... 27 CONTROL VARIABLES ... 28 Gender ... 28 Age ... 28 Education/income ... 28 OVERVIEW FINDINGS ... 29 DISCUSSION ... 30
INFORMATION PROCESSING AND DONATING BEHAVIOR ... 30
SIMPLIFIED PERSUASIVE MESSAGE AND DONATING BEHAVIOR ... 31
MODERATION EFFECT OF SIMPLIFIED PERSUASIVE MESSAGE ... 32
IMPACT OF THE LEVEL OF ALTRUISM ... 32
ANALYSES WITH CONTROL VARIABLES ... 33
APPENDIX ... 39
APPENDIX 1– PERSUASIVE MESSAGES SURVEY ... 39
APPENDIX 2– MESSAGES PRE-TEST INFORMATION PROCESSING ... 45
APPENDIX 3– MESSAGES PRE-TEST SIMPLICITY ... 47
Introduction
According to Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving (2017), in the Netherlands a total of more than 5.7 billion euro has been given to charity in 2015. In 2016, Dutch citizens gave voluntarily 0.85% of the GDP. Approximately 36% of them did local volunteer work in 2016. Companies offered approximately 2 billion euro to charity in 2015. And finally, 72 funds have contributed 219 million euro to charities.
However, all of this sound very good, but the number of donors for charity have decreased significantly over the past years (CBF, 2017). An important question now is: how can charities increase the number of donors again with the use of effective advertisements?
There are several reasons why people decide not to donate to charity, but one of them might be that the communication used by charities becomes outdated and has to be developed, otherwise a lack of understanding about the cause of the charities will arise.
Research of O’Neil (2008) found out that communications which helped potential donors to understand the overall mission of the organization, raised the willingness to donate to a charity. The importance of communication seems quite self-evident, but the way of communicating is a highly debated subject. The communication used by charities should contain the information needed to convince the public but should also be readable and understandable by the public. However, there are groups of people who have difficulties reading the persuasive messages of charities with as a result that the message is ineffective. The question that arises then is; will simplifying the persuasive messages of charities enhance the donating behavior?
Written messages should be “noticed, read, understood, believed and remembered” in order to be effective (Ley, 1988). Simplifying the messages should enhance all of these factors and probably result in a behavior change (Hoffmann & Worrall, 2004). This behavior change might be the decision to donate to charity, therefore it is an interesting factor to consider when setting up an advertising strategy.
Furthermore, when reading a message, all information will be processed in order to form a decision or opinion based on that, meaning that the information that people read will be processed in a certain way which affect their feeling towards a charity. This will result into the decisions people take. But what if the information process is manipulated in a way that enhances the donating behavior?
Literature review
The literature review will give an overview of the research areas, which will be discussed before continuing to this research. The first subject is the general view of charities, within the second subject, the donating behavior will be discussed. Followed by what possible effect the different information processes have on the main relationship. The final subject explains the impact of simplifying the message.
Charities
The non-governmental organizations (NGO) sector is one of the most diverse industries. According to Bartram, Hoye and Cavanagh (2014) the NGO-sector contains an enormous range of companies, such as community service organizations, religious organizations and as well profit organizations. A non-profit organization (NPO), also known as a charity, can be defined as, “any non-non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level” (NGO, 2019).
Back in the days, charities were not as present as they are now. At this moment, there are over 700 non-profit organizations in the Netherlands and together they raise over 5.7 billion euro (Bekkers, 2017). Overall, the Netherlands is ahead of other countries when it comes to donating, since they are number 6 on the list of “most likely country to donate to charity” (McCarthy, 2017).
However, as mentioned before, at the moment there is a negative trend in fundraising area (Uffelen, van, 2019). Due to trust issues, caused by negative news about charities, and an increase in importance about transparency, it has become very hard to attract new donors and increase the total number of donations again (WWAV, 2019).
Donating behavior
explained by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). This model explains what factors influence the intention to behave in a certain way. One’s attitude, the subjective norm and the perceived behavioral control creates a conscious intention and then behavior. These three have to be positive and aligned. One’s attitude consist of the belief (perceived likelihood) that engaging in the behaviour will result in positive or negative consequences. The subjective norm means how relevant others expect us to behave. Finally, the perceived behavioral control consists of having the ability, resources, or willpower to engage in the behavior. These three affect the intention to engage in a certain behavior. This is in line with Sheeran (2002) who explains intentions as “explicit decisions to act in a certain way, and they concentrate on a person’s motivation towards a goal in terms of direction and intensity”. When applying this knowledge to a donating setting, the attitude should be changed in order to make people believe that their donation will have a positive effect on the cause of the charity.
The three factors above are all factors which affect indirectly a certain behavior. According to Noor, Isa, Irpan, Bahroom, Salleh and Ridzuan (2015), all these factors can be categorized into extrinsic and intrinsic determinants. Whereas extrinsic determinants are mainly demographics such as age, gender, education and level of income, and intrinsic determinants are more the underlying psychographic factors which affect the decision to donate to charity, for example altruism.
Altruism
As mentioned above, the level of altruism is one of the intrinsic factors which determine the donating behavior. Altruism can be described as “a form of unconditional kindness without the expectation of a return (Fehr & Gachter, 2000), where an individual provides help and achieves a sense of satisfaction from the action” (Kollock, 1999). The level of altruism depends on one’s personality, where the higher the level of altruism the more they are willing to help others without wanting something in return. This likely results into a higher willingness to donate to charity after reading a charitable message.
However, although the level of altruism is high, it also depends on several factors if people will engage in pro-social behavior, such as donating (Bekkers & Wiepking, A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving, 2011). Research of Bekkers and Wiepking stated that the effect of altruism varies with the awareness of need, the information, behavior of peers and the sector of the charity. However, they also stated that the higher the level of altruism the higher the probability is that people will donate to charity. Therefore, the next hypothesis is formulated.
Decision making
Several researches have been executed about the effectiveness of fundraising messages and what the most effective way is to increase the incidental donations.
Das et al (2008) also conducted a research about fundraising. They particularly focused on three aspects; the message framing, if it was positively or negatively framed, evidence, if the message was statistical or anecdotal framed, and goal attainment, what the contributions of others is. They found out that especially message framing and evidence worked together in affecting the perceived value of the charity goal. Moreover, one particularly important conclusion derived from this research, namely: participants reported more positive attitudes towards anecdotal messages, messages that stimulates feelings, than toward abstract messages, messages that stimulate rational thinking. This assumes that there is a different outcome regarding the attitude towards a charity message for the two types of messages. And when taking it a step further, it will be very interesting to not only look at the positive or negative effect both messages have on people’s attitude towards charity but also if it will result into a behavior change in a way that they decide to donate. Results of Das et al (2008) assume that these two messages will be processed in different ways, which will eventually lead to the decision to donate to a charity.
If charities become able to manipulate the type of information process by framing the message, the donating behavior will likely be influenced. In this way charities take the more psychological route and will be able to affect the decision making of donors instead of only given information.
Information processing
As mentioned above, manipulation is sometimes used to influence the way information is processed and eventually stimulate a certain behavior. This manipulation is done with the use of framing the message. When framing messages, consumer perceptions, judgement and decisions will be influenced. There are two types of information processes; affective information processing and deliberative information processing, and they can be stimulated with certain content in the message (Li & Ling, 2015).
Affective information processing
As mentioned above, affective information processing means using the emotions evoked from a certain stimulus which affect the decision-making process. An example of this is the research of Dickert, Sagara and Slovic (2011), who used a priming task to activate the affective process, where participants had to write how they felt about a specific object or person in order to prime participants to access their feelings. In this way, participants were stimulated to use the affective information process and as a result, participants experienced a greater empathy and higher donations.
When stimulating the affective process in charitable contexts, messages mostly include a personal story about one in need, designed to make it more personal, which increase the empathy and eventually enhance the intention to donate to a charity. When creating these personal stories, it is advised to write vivid and concrete information since that will increase persuasion compared to abstract propositions, which will stimulate the deliberative process (Frey & Eagly, 1993). Furthermore, vivid stories will produce powerful feelings in the mind and will be easier to remember and therefore more effective. Moreover, research of Sherman et al (1999) suggests that affective messages result in one to be more emotionally engaged with the cause, which in terms leads to less resistance to donate and a higher willingness to do
Research of Das et al (2008), found out that the anecdotes, which uses pathos, “the power of a person, situation, piece of writing, or work of art to cause feelings of sadness, especially because people feel sympathy” (Dictionary Cambridge University, 2019), increases intuitive processing using heuristics, in which people rely on heuristic cues in order to process the information quick rather than fully processing it. Participants of this study were experiencing a feeling of responsibility when reading the message and felt the urge to act, meaning the amount of donations increased.
This is in line with the study of Dickert, Sagara and Slovic (2011). They conducted two studies about the two information processing modes and how they would affect the decision to donate (study 1) and how much they would like to spend (study 2). Additionally, they examined the feeling raised from the decision to donate. The outcome of the study was that when people had to focus on their feelings, and thus deliberative thinking was limited, people developed more empathic feelings towards the charity and that resulted in higher donations. Considering all the literature above, the next hypothesis is formulated.
Deliberative information processing
When framing the message to stimulate deliberative information processing, mostly statistics are present in the message. According to Small, Loewenstein and Slovic (2007) “when thinking deliberatively, people fail to generate sympathy toward statistical victims”. A result of this can be that the overall willingness to donate is lower when using a message that triggers deliberative information processing. Also, the feelings experienced with the statistics are very low and made people process the information in a deliberative way instead of the affective way. Mostly people are thinking slower since they want to know what the consequences of their action will be instead of basing a decision on affective cues.
This is in line with the research of Small, Loewenstein and Slovic (2007), who also assumes that rational thinking weakens the willingness to donate. This might be because if people think too much, or too deliberative about the victims, they feel less urge to act since they will decide based upon well thought arguments instead decisions motivated by empathy. Furthermore, when spending money to a charity, people often want to know exactly how their money is spent. This is even enhanced when deliberative thinking is stimulated.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, Dickert, Sagara and Slovic studied the effect of both information processes on the donating behavior. They found out that people who received the deliberative prime were less willing to donate compared to the people with the affective prime (study 1). A reason for this might be that deliberative processing makes use of rational thinking, which means that they take more time to deliberatively think about all the options possible and then decide where to allocate their resources on. According to the research of Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, and Steller (1990), deliberative mind-sets take time to evaluate and select a goal from among many alternatives
For example, a charity mentions in his fundraising message that for a donation of €70, the charity can buy a professional scale for in a hospital (UNICEF, 2019). When thinking in a deliberative way, people might think that it is a lot of money for a scale and people become suspicious and loose trust in the charity. This example results into less willingness to donate to that charity when thinking deliberative.
Considering all of the above, the next hypothesis is formulated.
Simplified persuasive messages
The design of a charitable message has also become a highly discussed issue, there are many options in designing this message. As mentioned before, it is very important to uncover factors that contribute to the effectiveness of fundraising messages (Das, Kerkhof, & Kuiper, 2008).
According to Das et al (2008), there are several components which should be met in order to capture attention and motivate giving; “clear and touching headlines, body copy, vivid case stories, and statistical evidence of a public issue”. Moreover, research of Hoffmann and Worrall (2004) found out that appropriate readability levels of message will increase the level of understanding. Readability is the ease with which a reader can understand a written text. When the readability score is high, the message will be understood, and this could result into a change in the behavior. The readability score can be increased by simplifying the message which will result in a more accessible and comprehensible text (Crossley, Allen, & McNamara, 2011).
Furthermore, several studies showed that almost everyone prefers simple messages over very complex materials and that the level of understanding is also higher for simple than for complex messages (Fitzpatrick, n.d.). When the message is understood, the cause and urge of the charity will be delivered even better to the potential donor. Combining this with the study of New Philanthropy Capital (Booth, 2013), who highlighted a possible reason why people would not donate to charity, namely; the lack of information about the charity and its impact. According to their results, if the information is complete and, even more important, understandable, the donations are higher.
Another reason why a simplified message would lead to more incidental donations is that when a message is simplified, the message becomes more appealing (Davis, Holcombe, Berkel, Pramanik, & Divers, 1998). And when a message is more appealing, the potential donor becomes more positive, and likeability of the charity will increase. This will, in terms, results in a positive effect on their donating behavior. Therefore, the next hypothesis is formulated.
H4: A simplified message has a positive effect on the persuasiveness to donate to charity.
feelings arise from reading the message will be significantly higher than a persuasive message which is very difficult to read. Moreover, when having a simplified version of the persuasive framed message, it is likely that affective cues will be used to make a decision since the simplified message seems to be more understandable, the message will be delivered better and people will make decision based on the emotions arise from it. This aligns with the research of Brown (2003), who stated that the stronger feelings or emotions result in stronger and more impulsive actions, such as donating. This means that a simpler affective message, which leads to more and stronger emotions compared to the non-simplified affective message, will lead to more donations.
Furthermore, research of Davis et al (1998) indicates that when a message is simplified, the message becomes more appealing to the reader, and it will enhance a positive feeling towards the charity. So, when an affective message is simplified, the message will evoke even a stronger positive feeling towards the charity and likely, the willingness to donate to charity will increase as well. Therefore, the next hypothesis is formulated.
H5: Simplified persuasive message will enhance the relationship between the affective information processing simplified persuasive message and the willingness to donate.
As mentioned before, deliberative information processing will expect to have a negative effect on the donating behavior (Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007). Combining this with the study of Hoffmann and Worrall (2004), who suggests that the simpler the message, the more the message is understood, we can assume that people become aware of the persuasion intend of the charity when thinking deliberative. This is explained by the persuasion knowledge theory (Friestad & Wright, 1994), which state that people become aversive if they become aware of the persuasion intend, and as stated by Frans, Smit and Verlegh, they activate a defense system towards the message and thus charity (2015). Therefore, a deliberative prime will enhance the rational thinking and when a message is simple and therefore well understood, people know they are convinced to donate money and they react negative to the message.
Therefore, the next hypothesis is formulated.
Conceptual model
A conceptual model is meant to give a clear overview of the important areas, which will be explored in the research. To give a clear context of the relationship between the key objective of this research and the conceptual model, an explanation will be given.
It is expected that affective information processing will have a positive effect on the donation behavior, in a way that when people process the information using the affective way, they have a higher willingness to donate and a higher amount of money. Furthermore, it is expected that deliberative information processing will have a negative effect on the donating behavior, in a way that people are less willing to donate and also donate less when processing information in a deliberative way. These two relationships can both be moderated by simplifying the persuasive message. It is expected that simplifying the persuasive message will enhance the relationship between affective information processing and donating behavior and also enhance the relationship between deliberative information processing and donating behavior.
Method
The purpose of this study is to find out what the effect is of the different types of information processing on the donating behavior of the participants, while also testing the moderating effect of the simplified persuasive version on the relationship between the types of information processing and the donating behavior. To give a clear overview of the execution of this study, the following aspects will be discussed: participants and design, procedure, materials and the analysis plan.
Participants and design
In order to test the proposed hypotheses mentioned in the literature review, a 2 (simplification: yes/no) x 3 (information processing: affective, deliberative, neutral) between-subjects factorial design is used. In this design, it means that there are 6 conditions, including one control group. This control group is used to test what the effects are of the other conditions on the dependent variable, in this case the control group received the normal message and no framing technique was used in order to stimulate the neutral information process, please see figure 2. The two variables were both manipulated to see the effect of these conditions on the donating behavior. The assignment of participants to conditions is done with the use of random assignment, since this approach provides unpredictability and is not discoverable ahead of time (Dettori, 2010).
Readability of persuasive message
Infor m at ion p roc ess ing
Group 1 (control group):
Neutral information processing x normal message
Group 2:
Neutral information processing x simplified message
Group 3:
Affective information processing x normal message
Group 4:
Affective information processing x simplified message
Group 5:
Deliberative information processing x normal message
Group 6:
Deliberative information processing x simplified message
Procedure
As mentioned before, an online survey was used to collect the data needed for this research. Since the data was distributed via the social media platforms of the researcher, the survey was in Dutch instead of English. This is because most friends and followers of the researcher speak Dutch as native language and therefore the message displayed in the survey was understandable by the participants and no other variables affected the readability, such as level of English reading. The survey was created in Qualtrics. In order to conduct the least influenced data, the survey was divided into two sub-surveys. This was to prevent that answers were influenced by the questions asked. The participants were informed that two surveys were combined because it was more efficient. Furthermore, the introduction explained that both surveys were from different students with different study backgrounds. This made sure that participants do not link both studies with each other. Moreover, in the introduction participants were told that the survey is anonymous and that all data retrieved from the survey will be treated confidentially. After this introduction, participants started with the first study where respondents were asked to rate 14 statements about altruism, on a 0 to 4 scale (Rushton, Witt, & Boleman, 2009). This item was showed in the beginning of the survey because the charity message might influence the feeling of altruism if it was showed first. For that, it is also the reason that the purpose of the study was not mentioned in the introduction.
Demographic questions were asked after the altruism questions. These questions include their gender, age, education and income. These variables might influence the dependent variable and are therefore seen as control variables.
After the first part and study about altruism and demographics, a new introduction was showed with the explanation of the second study and respondents were shown a message from a, made-up, charity, which was adapted to one of the 6 conditions, please see appendix 1 for all the messages. Thereafter, the likelihood and probability to donate was asked where participant had to answer these questions on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from “Definitely not” tot “Definitely”. This in order to test the willingness to donate. After that, the amount of money they are willing to donate to the charity was asked with the use of an open question in which they could indicate how much money to spend.
The manipulation check was followed after the main part of the survey. These manipulation checks were asked in order to test if the messages showed to the participants accurately reflect the concepts they represent. The questions asked here were: “Did you experience an emotional feeling?” or “Did you experience a rational feeling?” and “How difficult was it to read the message?” and were answered on a 6-point Likert Scale.
Materials
Independent variable: Information processing
The independent variable, information processing, is tested with the use of manipulation. As mentioned before, three levels of information process were used to measure the effect on the donating behavior.
For manipulating the information process, the message was converted into one very emotional message (affective information processing) and one very analytical message (deliberative information processing) to make sure the participants will process their information via the affective or deliberative way. For the affective condition, sentences with an emotional appeal were used, for example: “Together with others, UNICEF wants to give every child the opportunity to be a child”. Contradictory, for the deliberative condition, analytics were used to stimulate the deliberative information process, an example is: “Because of the work UNICEF is doing, already 50% less infant mortality since 1990” (UNICEF, 2019).
A pre-test was conducted to test if the manipulated message had the expected effect on the route of information processing. In this test, both conditions were shown to the participants, see appendix 2 for the two conditions, and they had to state what feelings came up for both conditions and to what extent they experienced emotions or rational feelings. Results showed that for the affective condition, participants came up with words as: “motivating”, “pity” and “unfair”, and 70% experienced emotions during reading the message. For the deliberative condition, participants came up with words as: “cold”, “analytical” and “unemotional”, and 80% experienced a rational feeling during reading the message.
Dependent variable: donating behavior
The donating behavior is divided into two sub-dependent variables, namely the willingness to donate and the amount of money people are willing to donate.
As mentioned above, the willingness to donate was tested by using two questions, namely the likelihood and probability to donate. All these questions were answered with the use of a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “Definitely not” to “Definitely”. After all data was retrieved, the three questions were converted into one variable which will be called the “willingness to donate” (M=2.785, SD = 0.978).
value is below 0.05, meaning that the data for this variable is not normally distributed. Therefore, non-parametric tests should be used to analyze the data.
Moderator: simplified persuasive message
The moderator, simplifying the persuasive message, is manipulated in order to test the effect on the relationship between the independent variable, information processing, on the dependent variable; donating behavior. This is manipulated by using a normal persuasive message of a made-up charity and the simplified version of the message, where every participant was assigned to one of the two conditions. A pre-test was used to check if there is enough variance between the two versions in order to see a clear effect on the donating behavior, see appendix 3. In that pre-test both conditions were shown to the participants and they had to explain the difference they experienced between both conditions, and for both conditions, they had to rate the easiness to read on a scale of 1, very easy and 5, very hard. Results showed some words participants used to describe the difference were: “word choice” and “design” and for the simple condition, participants experienced it as rather simple (M=1.89), and for the non-simplified condition, participants experienced it as moderately hard (M=3.56).
Manipulation check
Every participant was assigned to one of the six conditions in combination with the type of information processing. After the questions about the donating behavior, a manipulation check was asked in order to check whether the message have the effect what is proposed to. For the information processing manipulation these questions were: “During reading the advertisement, I experienced an emotional feeling” and “During reading the advertisement, I experienced a rational feeling”. For the manipulation of simplicity, the question was: “I experienced this advertisement as simple”.
However, looking at the descriptive statistics, it can be said that there is a difference, although it is small, between the conditions in answering the manipulation check for the deliberative condition, meaning that participants who were assigned to the deliberative condition perceived the message more rational (M=3.14) than the neutral (M=2.83) and affective condition (M=2.98). Therefore, there has been decided to continue using this variable.
Control variables
Demographics
According to Kottasz (2004), demographic variables affect how charities are perceived and how much money will be donated to the cause. Mainly age, gender, income level and education will affect the donating behavior positively. For example in terms of gender, research of Schnepf found out that women will donate more often, however men will donate more to one cause (2007). In order to test this in this research, demographic questions were incorporated in the survey, see appendix 4.
Altruism
The level of altruism was measured with the use of the Self-Report Altruism Scale (Rushton, Witt, & Boleman, 2009). This scale assesses intentions related to altruistic behaviors and the sum of all rating together gives the level of altruism, the higher the score the greater altruism. It consists of 14 statements which have to be rated on a scale from 0=never to 4=very often, such as “I would delay an
elevator and hold the door for someone I did not know” and “I would allow someone I did not know to go in front of me in line” (M= 41.356, SD=6.745).
Analysis plan
After determining all the variables and how to measure them, the analysis plan was established in order to give an overview of which statistical analyses were used to test the hypotheses.
Hypothesis Analysis Variables used H1: The level of altruism has a positive
effect on the willingness to donate.
Regression analysis
IV: Level of Altruism DV: Donating behavior H2: Affective information processing will
lead to higher willingness to donate and a higher amount of donation compared to the neutral information processing.
ANOVA and Chi Square
IV: Affective information processing DV: Donating behavior
H3: Deliberative information processing will lead to lower willingness to donate and lower amount of donation compared to the neutral information processing.
ANOVA and Chi Square
IV: Deliberative information process DV: Donating behavior
H4: A simplified message has a positive effect on the persuasiveness to donate to charity.
Independent sample t-test & Chi Square
IV: Simplified persuasive message DV: Donating behavior
H5: Simplified persuasive message will enhance the relationship between the affective information processing simplified persuasive message and the willingness to donate.
Univariate ANOVA IV: Affective information processing Moderator: Simplified persuasive message
DV: Willingness to donate
H6: Simplified persuasive message will weaken the relationship between the deliberative information processing simplified persuasive message and the willingness to donate.
Univariate ANOVA IV: Deliberative information processing
Moderator: Simplified persuasive message
DV: Willingness to donate
Results
In the upcoming chapter the results of the distributed survey will be highlighted. At first, a brief description of the descriptive statistics will be given. After that, the reliability analysis of the dependent variable is explained. Next, the findings of all hypotheses will be discussed, including all the statistical test which were performed. At last, the findings of the effect of the covariables on the dependent variable will be discussed.
Descriptive
As mentioned before, the survey is distributed via social media and WhatsApp. The survey was conducted by 158 respondents of which 9 respondents were deleted from the data file for various reasons, such as: outlying answers (6), unlogical answers (1) 1 and monotonous answers (2). Leaving with a data set of 149 respondents, which is used to analyze the data using several statistical tests. Of the total respondents, 73.8% was women and 26.2% was men, which is a significant difference. Most of them finished their HBO (43,6%) and the average age of the respondent is 36 (M=35.59,
SD=16.177).
Readability of persuasive message Non-simplified Simplified Infor m at ion p roc ess ing Ne ut ra l Advertisement 1 = 23 respondents - Mage = 37.61 - Mostly women: 87% - Mwillingness to donate = 2.56 Advertisement 2 = 24 respondents - Mage = 36.50 - Mostly women: 70.8% - Mwillingness to donate = 2.91 A ff ec ti ve Advertisement 3 = 26 respondents - Mage = 39.42 - Mostly women: 73.1% - Mwillingness to donate = 3.23 Advertisement 4 = 25 respondents - Mage = 30.00 - Mostly women: 80% - Mwillingness to donate = 2.82 D el ib er at iv e Advertisement 5 = 25 respondents - Mage = 35.00 - Mostly women: 60% - Mwillingness to donate = 2.46 Advertisement 6 = 26 respondents - Mage = 35.08 - Mostly women: 73.1% - Mwillingness to donate = 2.69
Figure 4. Descriptives per condition
Reliability analysis
Before conducting all the statistical test in order to check for the hypotheses, a reliability analysis is conducted in order to test the internal consistency of the dependent variable. This is done with the use of Cronbach’s alpha. The data of two questions in the survey, likelihood and probability of donating, were combined to generate a new variable, the dependent variable “willingness to donate”. This variable is checked on internal consistency with the use of Cronbach’s alpha. Results show that the consistency of the variable is sufficient (α = 0.911) meaning that the questions “likelihood” and “probability” could be combined.
Hypothesis 1
H1: The level of altruism has a positive effect on the willingness to donate.
In order to test the first hypothesis, a regression analysis is conducted to see whether or not the level of altruism of respondents influences their willingness to donate. A regression analysis is performed in which the level of altruism regressed on willingness to donate. The regression analysis was marginally significant, R2=0.022, F (1,147) = 3.285, p = .072. Meaning that the level of altruism of people appears to positively influence their willingness to donate, B = 0.021, t = 1.812, p = 0.072.
Hypothesis 2 & 3
H2: Affective information processing will lead to higher willingness to donate and a higher amount of donation compared to the neutral information processing.
H3: Deliberative information processing will lead to lower willingness to donate and lower amount of donation compared to the neutral information processing.
Hypotheses two and three are combined since both independent variables focusses on a type of information processing and their effect on the donating behavior, and this is both tested with the same statistical test; therefore, these hypotheses will be discussed together.
To test if the willingness to donate and the amount of donation differs for affective or deliberative information processing compared to neutral information processing, two statistical tests are used. Firstly, a one-way ANOVA is used with type of information processing on willingness to donate. A Levene’s test of equality is conducted and results show that equal variances are assumed since the test is not significant (p = > 0.05).
For the amount of money what people are willing to give to a charity, another statistical test is used since, as mentioned before, the data is not normally distributed. So, in order to analyze whether the amount of money participants are willing to give differs for the different information processing types, a Chi-Square test is used with information processing on amount of money. This Chi-Square test was significant, Chi-Square (2) = 6.336, p = 0.042. This means that different types of information processing do differ in the amount of money people are willing to give. After performing a post-hoc test to discover which group differ from each other, there can be stated that affective information processing differs significantly from the deliberative information processing (p = 0.036). Looking to the descriptive statistics, it can be stated that affective information processing results into a higher amount of money donated (M = 4.73, SD = 7.23) and deliberative information processing into a lower amount (M = 2.25, SD = 4.80) compared to neutral information processing (M = 3.82, SD = 6.72). However, although there is such a difference between affective and deliberative information processing, which is very interesting, it cannot be concluded that they differ significantly from the neutral condition. Therefore, hypotheses 2 and 3 cannot be confirmed.
Hypothesis 4
H4: A simplified message has a positive effect on the persuasiveness to donate to charity
When testing if a simplified message has a positive effect on the willingness to donate to charity, an independent sample t-test is used with the dummy variable message simplified or not, and the willingness to donate. The outcome of this independent sample t-test is was not significant, t (147) = 0.101, p = 0.919. This means that the average willingness to donate of people who received the non-simplified message (M = 2.793, SD = 0.969) does not differ from the average willingness to donate of people who received the simplified version (M = 2.777, SD = 0.994). So, simplifying the message does not have an effect on the willingness to donate.
Hypothesis 5 & 6
H5: Simplified persuasive message will enhance the relationship between the affective information processing simplified persuasive message and the donating behavior.
H6: Simplified persuasive message will enhance the relationship between the deliberative information processing simplified persuasive message and the donating behavior.
Hypotheses 5 and 6 are combined since all variables are the same in these hypotheses, however different types of information processing are used to create these hypotheses. Therefore, the same statistical test is used, and will the results be stated together.
In order to test if a simplified version of the persuasive message will enhance the effect of information processing on the donating behavior, a univariate ANOVA was conducted which examined the effect of simplicity and information processing on donating behavior. A Levene’s test of equality is conducted and results show that equal variances are assumed since the test is not significant (p = > 0.05).
Results show that there is no statistically significant interaction between simplicity of the persuasive message and information processing on donating behavior, F (2, 143) = 1.546, p = 0.217. This means that simplifying the message does not enhance the donating behavior in both types of information processing. More interesting, as can be seen in figure 6, simplifying the message appears to even weaken the willingness to donate. However, this cannot be proven.
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3
neutral affective deliberative
Control variables
Gender
In order to analyze whether or not the average willingness to donate of men is different from the average willingness to donate of women, an independent samples t-test with gender on willingness to donate is used. The independent samples t-test is not significant, t (147) = -1.458, p = 0.147. So, the average willingness to donate of men (M = 2.590, SD = 0.986) does not differ from the average willingness to donate of women (M = 2.855, SD = 0.971). However, there seems to be a certain direction towards a higher willingness to donate of women than of men.
Furthermore, a univariate ANCOVA was conducted to determine a statistically significant difference between information processing and simplicity on willingness to donate controlling for gender. There can be stated that there is no significant effect of information processing and simplicity on willingness to donate after controlling for gender, F (1, 139) = 2.004, p = 0.159.
Age
When testing if the age of people will influence the willingness to donate, a regression analysis is used in which age regressed on willingness to donate. The regression analysis was not significant, R2 = 0.002, F (1, 147) = 0.321, p = 0.572. The age of people does not influence their willingness to donate, B = 0.003, t = 0.567, p = 0.572.
Also, for age a univariate ANCOVA is conducted and it can be concluded that there is no significant effect of information processing and simplicity on willingness to donate after controlling for age, F (1, 139) = 0.014, p = 0.906.
Education/income
To see if the willingness to donate differs per level of education, a one-way ANOVA is used of education level on willingness to donate. This test was not significant, F (6, 142) = 1.418, p = 0.212). This means that the level of education does not influence their willingness to donate.
When applying the same test but then use the variable disposable income on willingness to donate, results shown that also this variable has no significant effect on the willingness to donate, F (5, 143) = 0.292, p = 0.913. Therefore, it can be concluded that also the disposable income level does not influence the willingness to donate.
simplicity on willingness to donate controlling for disposable income. There can be stated that there is no significant effect of information processing and simplicity on willingness to donate after controlling for income, F (1, 139) = 0.015, p = 0.904.
Overview findings
In figure 7, an overview is given of all the findings from this research.
Hypotheses Description Finding
H1 The level of altruism has a positive effect on the willingness to donate.
Supported
H2 Affective information processing will lead to higher willingness to donate and a higher amount of donation compared to the neutral information processing.
Not supported
H3 Deliberative information processing will lead to lower willingness to donate and lower amount of donation compared to the neutral information processing.
Not supported
H4 A simplified message has a positive effect on the persuasiveness to donate to charity
Not supported
H5 Simplified persuasive message will enhance the relationship between the affective information processing simplified persuasive message and the donating behavior.
Not supported
H6 Simplified persuasive message will enhance the relationship between the deliberative information processing simplified persuasive message and the donating behavior.
Not supported
Discussion
In this chapter all the retrieved results will be discussed by using previous research in order to check if the findings contribute to the findings of other researches, or if they are contradictory to them. Firstly, the effect of information processing, the neutral, affective and deliberative way, on donating behavior will be discussed (H2 & H3). After that, the direct effect of a simplified version of the persuasive message on donating behavior is highlighted (H4). Thirdly, the moderation effect of the simplified version is discussed (H5 & H6). Finally, the impact of level of altruism on the donation behavior will be highlighted (H1). After the main analyses, the effect of the demographics will be discussed. Thereafter, the practical implications, the limitations and recommendations are given to highlight what can be used in practice of this research and what has restrained the research and how could that be improved in future research.
The aim of this research was to test the effect of the type of information processing on the donating behavior, in which donating behavior was divided into willingness to donate and the amount of money people were willing to give. Moreover, this research was also conducted to see what the effect of a simplified version of the persuasive message was on the donating behavior and how it influenced the relationship between the information processing type and the donating behavior.
Information processing and donating behavior
As stated in the beginning of this research, there are two defined ways of processing information, namely the affective and deliberative way, which will both have an effect on the donating behavior (Dickert, Sagara, & Slovic, 2011). As stated in the results section, hypotheses 2 and 3 both focusses on a type of information processing and their effect on the donating behavior, therefore these hypotheses will be discussed together.
The results of this research stated that affective information processing appears to have a positive effect on the willingness to donate and has even a strong clear positive effect on the amount of donation, compared to neutral and deliberative information processing. This is partly in line with the research of Das et al (2008) found out that when using pathos, something that evokes feelings such as sadness or sympathy (Dictionary Cambridge University, 2019), also identified as emotions, people tend to process information more intuitive rather than rational. The use of these pathos will stimulate affective information processing (Kret & Bocanegra, 2016), and when doing so, people use cues to make decisions which leads to higher willingness to donate and a higher amount of money they want to give, as stated by Das et al (2008).
deliberative information processing appears to have a lower willingness to pay than neutral or affective information processing. This is in line with the results of Small, Loewenstein and Slovic (2007), who argued that when framing a message in a way that information will be processed deliberatively, people fail to generate sympathy toward victims, which will push away any motivation to donate to charity and their willingness to donate will be lower than not using deliberative information processing. Furthermore, as our results stated, the amount of donations also differs per type of information processing, where the average amount is lower for deliberative processing compared to neutral and affective information processing. This can be explained by the research of Dickert, Sagara and Slovic (2011), who stated as well that the height of the donation is lower for deliberative processing and they argue that that might be because of rational thinking when processing information deliberatively. This means that people consciously consider all options and then decide based upon well thought arguments instead of decisions motivated by empathy, which results into a lower average amount.
Simplified persuasive message and donating behavior
The study of New Philanthropy Capital (Booth, 2013) argued that people would not donate to a charity because of unclear information about the charity and its impact. A way to solve this is, according to Crossley, Allen and McNamara (2011), by increasing the readability score of the message since then the message will be well understood and becomes clear, this can be done by simplifying the fundraising message. So, according to these researches, simplifying the message would results into an increase in willingness to donate. However, this is not the case in this particular research, since simplifying the research does not influence the willingness to donate nor the amount of money people are willing to give.
Moderation effect of simplified persuasive message
The moderation effect of the simplified persuasive message on the relationship between the three types of information processing and the donating behavior tested in this research, resulted in clearly no existing effect.
This result is not in line with the research of Hoffmann and Worrall (2004), who stated that a simplified message resulted in a better readability score and therefore the message will be understood more. This suggests that a simplified version of the framed message to stimulate affective information processing will be understood more, delivered better and people will use affective cues even more to make decisions. This is also stated by Davis et al (1998), who found out that a simplified message becomes more appealing to the reader and they create a positive feeling towards the organization of the message. This also suggests that a simplified version enhances the positive effect of affective information processing on the donating behavior.
Having a simplified version of a message framed to stimulate deliberative thinking should result into an even lower willingness to donate since when a message is more understood, it will stimulate rational thinking even more (Hoffmann & Worrall, 2004) and rational, or deliberative, thinking results into a decrease in people’s willingness to donate (Small, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007). Furthermore, according to the persuasion knowledge theory (Friestad & Wright, 1994), when people become aware of the persuasion intend, they activate a defense system towards the charity and their willingness to donate also decreases even more. Moreover, this awareness is created by the simplified message since the message is more understood than the non-simplified version. This suggests that a simplified version of the persuasive message, which stimulates deliberative thinking, will even weaken the donating behavior more than the direct relation of deliberative information processing on donating behavior.
However, this is not the case in this research since there is not enough evidence to conclude that a simplified version of the message stimulates the donating behavior.
Impact of the level of altruism
Altruism can be described as the willingness to help others without benefits for one’s own (Dictionary Cambridge University, 2019). The level of it can be tested with the use of a scale which indicates one’s willingness. Altruism is an intrinsic factor, based on one’s personality, which determines the donating behavior.
the higher the level of altruism, the more they are willing to help others without wanting something in return, the more they are also willing to donate to charity after reading a charitable message.
Analyses with control variables
According to Kottasz (2004), demographics will influence the donating behavior in a way that age, gender, level of income and level of education all have a direct effect on the willingness to donate. However, results of this research showed that there is not enough evidence to conclude that age, gender or income have an effect on the behavior of people in terms of willingness to donate. Nevertheless, the level of education does have an effect on the willingness to donate in way that the higher the level of education is, the less willing they become to give to charity. Meaning that people with a lower education have a higher willingness to donate. This is the complete opposite of the results of the research of Schnepf (2007), who stated that the higher the education level, the higher the willingness to donate.
Practical implications
Furthermore, from this result it can be concluded that simplifying a message is not recommended if a charity wants to increase its incidental donations. Since simplifying the message will likely not affect the donating behavior, charities can allocate their resources probably better on another activity which does have an effect on the donating behavior.
Theoretical contributions
One of the theoretical contributions of this research is the extended literature of simplicity in the non-profit sector. There have been not so many researches about the simplicity of message in this setting. This research contributes to this knowledge gap in a way that it provides evidence about simplifying a charity message and how this would affect the donating behavior of people. Results revealed that simplifying a persuasive message would have a positive effect on the willingness to donate in certain situations, but not all.
Also the combination of the framed message, which stimulates a certain type of information processing, and the simplicity contributes to the existing literature in a way that both variables have been tested separately before but never in a combined setting where both variables were manipulated in order to define the donation behavior of certain people. This research showed that the moderating effect of simplicity actually weakens all the effects of the type of information processing on the willingness to donate. Therefore, it is good to take the factor “simplicity” into consideration when conducting a future research.
Limitations and recommendations
Although this research contributed to both literature and in practice, it had some limitations which could be improved for future research.
The first limitation was the setting of the advertisement. Since this setting was hypothetical and respondents knowing the data will be observed and used for a certain research, people tend to give other answers, which they presume as the correct answer. Although the writer tried to avoid any biases, this social desirability bias might have played a role in this case. Furthermore, the behavior could have been completely different when the advertisement where displayed in a real setting and the behavior was observed by someone. Therefore, for future research, since the hypothetical setting might have affected the results, it is good to test the behavior also in a real setting.
survey, about how close the cause is to someone’s personal life. In this case, the researches can tackle any confounds regarding the donating behavior of one’s.
Another aspect that limited the results of this research was the unknown charity, in this case uninfluenced results could be measured in a way that other earlier retrieved information from another known charity would have influenced the results. However, information from a new charity is read more carefully since it is all new and people are more motivated to find out information, so rational appeals were most effective (Chandy, Tellis, MacInnis, & Thaivanich, 2001). This might have been affected the results as well and as a recommendation for future research, it is good to use both a known charity and an unknown charity to have completer results.
Conclusion
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes.
Bartram, T., Hoye, R., & Cavanagh, J. (2014). Special issue on human resource management in the NGO,
voluteer and not-for-profit sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Bekkers, R. (2017). Onderzoek Geven in Nederland 2017. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Filantropische Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight
Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Booth, R. (2013). Charitable giving survey finds donors put off by lack of information. Retrieved from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/14/charitable-giving-survey-donor-information
Brown, R. (2003). Emotions And Behavior: Exercises In Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Management Education.
Business Dictionary. (2016). Non-governmental organization definition. Retrieved from www.businessdictionary.com
Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving. (2017). Geven in Nederland 2017: 20 jaar cijfers en trends over gevend
Nederland. Amsterdam: CBF - Toezichthouder Goede Doelen.
Chandy, R., Tellis, G., MacInnis, D., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when: Advertising appeals in
evolving markets. Journal of Marketing Research.
Charity Commission. (2018). Trust in Charities. England and Wales: Populus.
Crossley, S., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison
of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language.
Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the Effectiveness of Fundraising Messages: The Impact
of Charity Goal Attainment, Message Framing, and Evidence on Persuasion. Journal of Applied
Communication Research.
Davis, T., Holcombe, R., Berkel, H., Pramanik, S., & Divers, S. (1998). Informed Consent for Clinical Trials:
a Comparative Study of Standard Versus Simplified Forms. Journal of the National Cancer
Institute.
Dettori, J. (2010). The random allocation process: two things you need to know . Evidence-based spine-care journal.
Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two‐stage model of
donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
Dictionary Cambridge University. (2019). Meaning of pathos in English. Retrieved from Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pathos
Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Fitzpatrick, S. (n.d.). Simplicity in the Phylosophy of Science. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fransen, M., Smit, E., & Verlegh, P. (2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an
integrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology.
Frey, K., & Eagly, A. (1993). Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion
Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research.
Hoffmann, T., & Worrall, L. (2004). Designing effective written health education materials:
Considerations for health professionals. Disability and Rehabilitation.
Hoolwerf, B., Sanders, R., & Verkaik, D. (2017). Research on Giving in the Netherlands. ERNOP.
Ivan, C. (2014). Emotion vs. deliberation in helping: a two-step model of donating decisions. Lunds University.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. In D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Khalaila, R. (2013). Religion, altruism, knowledge and attitudes toward organ donation: a survey among
a sample of Israeli college students. Med Law.
Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public goods in cyberspace. Communities in Cyberspace.
Kottasz, R. (2004). Differences in the Donor Behavior Characteristic of Young Affluent Males and
Females: Empirical Evidence From Britain. International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit
Organisations.
Kret, M., & Bocanegra, B. (2016). Editorial: Adaptive Hot Cognition: How Emotion Drives Information
Processing and Cognition Steers Affective Processing. Leiden: Front. Psychol.
Ley, P. (1988). Communicating with patients. London: Chapman and Hall.
Li, X., & Ling, W. (2015). How framing effect impact on decision making on internet shopping. Open Journal of Business and Management.
McCarthy, N. (2017). The Countries Most & Least Likely To Donate To Charity. Retrieved from Statista: www.statista.com
NGO. (2019). Definition of NGO's. Retrieved from www.ngo.org
Nijdam, E. (2016). Goede doelen missen emotioneel doel. Retrieved from MarketingTribune.nl
Noor, A., Isa, N., Irpan, H., Bahroom, H., Salleh, A., & Ridzuan, A. (2015). Characteristic Affecting
Charitbale Donations Behavior: Emperical Evidence from Malaysia. Procedia Economics and
Finance .
O'Neil, J. (2008). Linking public relations tactics to long-term success: An investigation of how
communications contribute to trust, satisfaction, and commitment in a nonprofit organization.
Journal of Promotion Management.
PaySimple. (n.d.). 5 Ways that Charities, 501(c)(3)s, and Nonprofit Organization can Increase Monthly
Donations. PaySimple.
Rushton, P., Witt, P., & Boleman, C. (2009). Adapted Self-Report Altruism Scale. Texas A&M University: CYFAR Life Skills Project, Youth Development Initiative.
Schnepf, G. (2007). Gender Differences in Charitable Giving. IZA.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European review of social psychology.
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. (2016). The Intention-Behavior Gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. Sherman, S., Beike, D., & Ryalss, K. (1999). Dual-processing accounts of inconsistencies in responses to
general versus specific cases. New York: Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology.
Small, D., 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.
Uffelen, van, X. (2019, september 23). Goede doelen verliezen steun trouwe donateurs. Retrieved from de Volkskrant: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/goede-doelen-verliezen-steun-trouwe-donateurs~b415b58ad/
UNICEF. (2019). HELP NU EN DONEER. Retrieved from UNICEF: www.unicef.nl
Venable, B., Rose, G., Bush, V., & Gilbert, F. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An
assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Appendix
Appendix 1 – persuasive messages survey
Appendix 2 – messages pre-test information processing
Appendix 3 – messages pre-test simplicity
Appendix 4 – survey
Persuasive messages affecting the donating behavior
Welkom,
Deze enquête bestaat uit twee verschillende enquêtes. De eerste enquête is van mijn
medestudent Esmee. Deze enquête gaat over persoonskenmerken. De tweede enquête is
uitgezet voor mijn master scriptie en gaat over het gedrag van eenieder na het lezen van een
advertentie. De twee enquêtes zijn samengevoegd zodat we allebei voldoende deelnemers
voor onze vragenlijst hebben. Het invullen van de twee enquêtes neemt ongeveer 7 minuten
in beslag en is volledig anoniem. De data zal worden beschouwd als vertrouwelijk en zal niet
worden gepubliceerd.
Succes!
Fleur
________________________________________________________________
