Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Short Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Avnet T, Higgins ET (2006) How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. J Mark Res 43:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boroditsky L (2011) How language shapes thought. Sci Am 304(2):62–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cesario J, Higgins ET, Scholer AA (2008) Regulatory fit and persuasion: basic principles and remaining questions. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 2:444–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 93–118

    Google Scholar 

  • De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313:684–687

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 48:1156–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot AJ, Covington MV (2001) Approach and avoidance motivation. Educ Psychol Rev 13:73–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florack A, Scarabis M (2006) How advertising claims affect brand preferences and category–brand associations: the role of regulatory fit. Psychol Mark 23(9):741–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster J (2012) GLOMOsys: the how and why of global and local processing. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 21:15–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster J, Dannenberg L (2010) GLOMOsys: a systems account of global versus local processing. Psychol Inq 21:175–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 48:416–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster J, Higgins ET (2005) How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychol Sci 16:631–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 94:579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen ML, Fennis BM, Pruyn ATH, Vohs KD (2011) When fit fosters favoring: the role of private self-focus. J Exp Soc Psychol 47:202–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman RS, Förster J (2010) Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychol Bull 136:875–893

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466:29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins ET (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. Am Psychol 52:1280–1300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins ET (2005) Value from regulatory fit. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 14:209–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger TF (2008) Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. J Mem Lang 59:434–446

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York

  • Kahneman D, Frederick S (2007) Frames and brains: elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends Cogn Sci 11:45–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:1342–1355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AY, Aaker JL (2004) Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 86:205–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J (1990) The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Mark Res 27:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge CK, Kahneman D (2010) Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends Cogn Sci 14:435–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee S, Srinivasan N (2013) Attention in preferential choice. Prog Brain Res 202:117–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee S, Srinivasan N, Manjaly JA, Kumar N (2013) Attentional tuning and prosocial decisions: how global versus local processing influences monetary donations. Working paper

  • Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn Psychol 9:353–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nenkov GY (2012) It’s all in the mindset: effects of varying psychological distance in persuasive messages. Mark Lett 23:615–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:1015–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman DK, Mann T, Updegraff JA (2006) Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: understanding the congruency effect. Motiv Emot 30:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 4:37

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers and Devpriya Kumar for helping us with statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

    Sumitava Mukherjee & Jaison A. Manjaly

  2. Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, India

    Narayanan Srinivasan

Authors
  1. Sumitava Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Narayanan Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaison A. Manjaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narayanan Srinivasan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mukherjee, S., Srinivasan, N. & Manjaly, J.A. Global processing fosters donations toward charity appeals framed in an approach orientation. Cogn Process 15, 391–396 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-014-0602-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-014-0602-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation