Cognitive Processing

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 391–396 | Cite as

Global processing fosters donations toward charity appeals framed in an approach orientation

  • Sumitava Mukherjee
  • Narayanan Srinivasan
  • Jaison A. Manjaly
Short Report

Abstract

People are often influenced by how persuasive appeals are framed. While decisions and preferences seem dependent on the effects of a fit between one’s regulatory focus and the motivational orientation of a message, specific cognitive mechanisms involved are not yet clear. This study investigated how perceptual processing styles (global vs local) linked with the scope of attention (broad vs narrow) influence decisions depending on motivation-dependent framing (approach vs avoidance). We found that a global processing style fits approach-oriented message appeals and fosters monetary allocation toward charities framed in eager motivational terms. We discuss implications of the findings on processing styles in relation to affective versus deliberate modes of processing and the need to address in detail the role of attentional scope-dependent processing styles in decision making.

Keywords

Global processing Local processing Scope of attention Framing Approach-avoidance Decision making Prosocial behavior Donations 

References

  1. Avnet T, Higgins ET (2006) How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. J Mark Res 43:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boroditsky L (2011) How language shapes thought. Sci Am 304(2):62–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cesario J, Higgins ET, Scholer AA (2008) Regulatory fit and persuasion: basic principles and remaining questions. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 2:444–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Martino B (2011) The effect of context on choice and value. In: Dolan RJ, Sharot T (eds) Neuroscience of preference and choice: cognitive and neural mechanisms. Academic Press, MA, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  5. De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313:684–687PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dijkstra KA, van der Pligt J, van Kleef GA, Kerstholt JH (2012) Deliberation versus intuition: global versus local processing in judgment and choice. J Exp Soc Psychol 48:1156–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot AJ, Covington MV (2001) Approach and avoidance motivation. Educ Psychol Rev 13:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Florack A, Scarabis M (2006) How advertising claims affect brand preferences and category–brand associations: the role of regulatory fit. Psychol Mark 23(9):741–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Förster J (2012) GLOMOsys: the how and why of global and local processing. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 21:15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Förster J, Dannenberg L (2010) GLOMOsys: a systems account of global versus local processing. Psychol Inq 21:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Förster J, Denzler M (2012) When any Worx looks typical to you: global relative to local processing increases prototypicality and liking. J Exp Soc Psychol 48:416–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Förster J, Higgins ET (2005) How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychol Sci 16:631–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Förster J, Friedman RS, Özelsel A, Denzler M (2006) Enactment of approach and avoidance behavior influences the scope of perceptual and conceptual attention. J Exp Soc Psychol 42:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Förster J, Liberman N, Kuschel S (2008) The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 94:579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fransen ML, Fennis BM, Pruyn ATH, Vohs KD (2011) When fit fosters favoring: the role of private self-focus. J Exp Soc Psychol 47:202–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman RS, Förster J (2010) Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychol Bull 136:875–893PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466:29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins ET (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. Am Psychol 52:1280–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins ET (2005) Value from regulatory fit. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 14:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaeger TF (2008) Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J Mem Lang 59:434–446PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeong ES, Shi Y, Baazova A, Chiu C, Nahai A, Moons WG, Taylor SE (2011) The relation of approach/avoidance motivation and message framing to the effectiveness of charitable appeals. Soc Influ 6:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman D, Frederick S (2007) Frames and brains: elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends Cogn Sci 11:45–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koenig AM, Cesario J, Molden DC, Kosloff S, Higgins ET (2009) Incidental experiences of regulatory fit and the processing of persuasive appeals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 35:1342–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee AY, Aaker JL (2004) Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 86:205–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J (1990) The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Mark Res 27:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morewedge CK, Kahneman D (2010) Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends Cogn Sci 14:435–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mukherjee S, Srinivasan N (2013) Attention in preferential choice. Prog Brain Res 202:117–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mukherjee S, Srinivasan N, Manjaly JA, Kumar N (2013) Attentional tuning and prosocial decisions: how global versus local processing influences monetary donations. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  30. Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn Psychol 9:353–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nenkov GY (2012) It’s all in the mindset: effects of varying psychological distance in persuasive messages. Mark Lett 23:615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scarabis M, Florack A, Gosejohann S (2006) When consumers follow their feelings: the impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers’ choice. Psychol Mark 23:1015–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherman DK, Mann T, Updegraff JA (2006) Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: understanding the congruency effect. Motiv Emot 30:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Srinivasan N, Mukherjee S, Mishra MV, Kesarwani S (2013) Evaluating the role of attention in the context of unconscious thought theory: differential impact of attentional scope and load on preference and memory. Front Psychol 4:37PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumitava Mukherjee
    • 1
  • Narayanan Srinivasan
    • 2
  • Jaison A. Manjaly
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology GandhinagarGandhinagarIndia
  2. 2.Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive SciencesUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations