•  
  •  
 
ASEAN Marketing Journal

Abstract

Manuscript type: Research Article

Research Aims: to analyze the effect of donation collection method (allocation vs addition) and the level of materialism on attitude, total donation amount, program donation amount, and cost donation amount.

Design/methodology/approach: This study used a between-subjects design with randomization. Data was collected through questionnaires administered to participants 18 years old and above, who are Indonesian citizens, resulting in 208 participants (102 participants in the Addition condition and 106 participants in the Allocation condition), and analyzed by ANCOVA.

Research Findings: the result demonstrated only four hypotheses are supported that the significant role of the ADDITION donation collection method in shaping attitudes and increasing donation amount, in the form of intentions, and promoting higher donation behavior compared to ALLOCATION. Furthermore, materialism could enhance the donation amount only in ALLOCATION collection method.

Theoretical Contribution/Originality: Using the Choice Architecture Theory, Framing Theory, and Nudging this study develop framework to strengthen the explanation of the effect of donation collection method on donation amount, and minimize cost donation aversion. Refer to Prospect Theory, framing of donation collection method shows how framing changes risk preferences.

Practitioner/Policy Implication: If the foundation wants to collect donations for social activities that incur costs, the foundation can use a message design using the ADDITION method. This can increase positive responses in the form of a larger donation amount.

Research limitation/Implications: This study employed a quasi-experimental online intervention that limited control over external variables, used a manual online randomization process, focused on post-intervention, did not conduct a baseline study, and was cross-sectional. Future studies should consider conducting a baseline study, longitudinal studies, and using a survey platform for randomization.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-21. DOI:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Cagala,T., Rincke, J., & Amanda Tuset Cueva, A.T. (2023). What drives overhead aversion in charity? Evidence from field-experimental variation in fundraising costs, Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 993-1011.

Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the case for “Asymmetric Paternalism.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1211. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312889

Cao, X. (2015). Framing charitable appeals: the effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1536

Chang, C.-T., & Lee, Y.-K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00555.x

Charity Aid Foundation. (2024). World Giving Index 2024: Global Trends in Generosity. https://www.cafonline.org/insights/research/world-giving-index (Accessed 22th June, 2025)

Chugunova, M., Nicklisch, A. & Schnapp, K-U.(2025). The impact of timing and type of donation decision on charitable giving, Social Choice and Welfare, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01572-9

Cui, Y., Jiang, Z-Q., Wang, L., Zhou, W-X. (2025). Individualism/collectivism and charitable donations: An empirical analysis at the national, regional, and personal levels, Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 10(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmse.2024.10.005.

Diederich, A., Wyszynski, M., & Ritov, I. (2018). Moderators of framing effects in variations of the Asian Disease problem: Time constraint, need, and disease type. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 529–546.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500006574

Germani, A., Buratta, L., Delvecchio, E., & Mazzeschi, C. (2020). Emerging Adults and COVID-19: The Role of Individualism-Collectivism on Perceived Risks and

Psychological Maladjustment. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(10), 3497.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103497

Gneezy, U., Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346(6209), 632–635.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253932

Filantropi Indonesia. (2024a). Filantropi yang Terhubung, Berdampak, & Berkelanjutan. Laporan Tahunan 2024, Perhimpunan Filantropi Indonesia (PFI).

Filantropi Indonesia. (2024b). Indonesia Philanthropy Outlook: Progres, Tren, dan Agenda Prioritas untuk Pencapaian SDGs. Perhimpunan Filantropi Indonesia (PFI).

Goffman, E. (1975). Frame Analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Contemporary Sociology a Journal of Reviews, 4(6), 603.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2064022

Jegers, M. (2021). Donations and the Overhead Ratio Are Related Even When Donors Do Not Bother About Efficiency, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(1), 216-225.

https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211013894 (Original work published 2022)

Ha, QA., Pham, P.N.N. & Le, L.H. (2022). What facilitate people to do charity? The impact of brand anthropomorphism, brand familiarity and brand trust on charity support intention. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 19, 835–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-021-00331-1

Hung, C., Hager, M. A., & Tian, Y. (2022). Do Donors Penalize Nonprofits With Higher Non-Program Costs? A Meta-Analysis of Donor Overhead Aversion. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(6), 1587-1608. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221138260

Keser, C., & Späth, M. (2021). Charitable Giving: Framing and the role of information. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3884820

Lv, L., and Huang, M. (2024). Can Personalized Recommendations in Charity Advertising Boost Donation? The Role of Perceived Autonomy, Journal of Advertising, 53(1), 36-53, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2022.2109082

Nurmala, N., de Vries, J., de Leeuw, S. (2024). Exploring options to leverage partnership information for designing donation calls, Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 14(3), 262–284. DOI 10.1108/JHLSCM-03-2023-0017

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

Persson, A. (2018). Framing Social Interaction: Continuities and Cracks in Goffman’s Frame Analysis (1st ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315582931

Qu, H., & Daniel, J. L. (2020). Is “Overhead” A Tainted Word? A Survey Experiment Exploring Framing Effects of Nonprofit Overhead on Donor Decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959475

Scheufele, D. (1999), Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.1999.tb02784.x

Schubert, C. (2017). Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics, 132, 329–342.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.009

Stolte, J. F., & Fender, S. (2007). Framing Social Values: An Experimental Study of Culture and Cognition. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250707000107

Suk, K., & Mudita, T. (2021). Charitable Organizations’ Cost Disclosure Mitigates Overhead Aversion. Sustainability, 13(23),13425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313425

Suk, K., and Mudita, T. (2022). Effects of donation collection methods on donation amount: Nudging donation for the cause and overhead, Psychology & Marketing, December, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21781

Sussman, A. B., Sharma, E., & Alter, A. L. (2015). Framing charitable donations as exceptional expenses increases giving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000047

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Choice Reviews Online, 46(02), 46–0977. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-0977

Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2014). Choice Architecture. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2536504

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Wang, P. X., Wang, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2022). Gift or donation? Increase the effectiveness of charitable solicitation through framing charitable giving as a gift. Journal of Marketing, 87(1), 133–147.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221081506

Webb, D.J., Green, C.L. & Brashear, T.G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 299–309.https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282010

Wilson, A. L., Buckley, E., Buckley, J. D., & Bogomolova, S. (2016). Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming. Evidence from a systematic review. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 47–64. https://doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.009

Ye, Nan & Teng, Lefa & Yu, Ying & Wang, Yingyuan, (2015). "“What's in it for me?”: The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior," Journal of Business Research, 68(3), pages 480-486.

Download

Share

COinS