Effects of Culture, Gender, and Moral Obligations on Responses to Charity Advertising Across Masculine and Feminine Cultures

By Michelle R. Nelson, Frederic Brunel, Magne Supphellen, R. Manchanda. 2006

151 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c40cc04608dd146d07aa036ff12bb4686f6b65b2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior (2014, background): “Additionally, individuals in masculine cultures may have greater feelings of personal responsibility for others’ welfare (Nelson et al. 2006).”
A Review and Framework for Thinking about the Drivers of Prosocial Consumer Behavior (2020, background): “…factors that signal self-serving motives—such as payment for advocates of a cause or donating to charity to gain publicity or improve public image—can lead to negative reactions toward other people (Newman and Cain 2014; Barasch, Berman, and Small 2016) and toward firms (Chernev and Blair 2015).”
Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal (2013, background): “With regard to the relation between gender and willingness to donate, this research further accounts for previously observed differences between men's and women's donation patterns (e.g., Brunel & Nelson, 2000; Iredale et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2006; Thornton et al., 2006; Winterich et al., 2009)”
An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers' Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals (2008, background): “A fundamental characteristic of fund-raising appeals is whether they emphasize the benefits to the donor (self-benefit appeals) or to those who are served by the organization (other-benefit appeals; Brunel and Nelson 2000; Nelson et al. 2006).”
“I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours”: Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists (2014, background): “2000), and ego focused (Aaker and Williams 1998), whereas other-focused appeals (Aaker and Williams 1998; Nelson et al. 2006) have been referred to as collectivist (Han and Shavitt 1994), connected (Wang et al.”
Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising (2010, background): “Due to the norm of social responsibility, people are expected to help those who are disadvantaged (Nelson et al. 2006).”
The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations (2006, background): “Consistent with this reasoning, a few studies examined when a CSR activity may not achieve the intended effects (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Osterhus, 1997; Strahilevitz, 2003; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Osterhus (1997) suggested that trust in a company and its position toward the CSR activity affect successfu”
When public recognition for charitable giving backfires: The role of independent self-construal (2018, background): “…determinants of charitable behavior, such as power distance (Han, Lalwani and Duhachek 2017; Winterich and Zhang 2014), masculinity/femininity (Nelson et al. 2006), and uncertainty avoidance (Stojcic, Kewen, and Xiaopeng 2016), self-construal distinctively impacts how people perceive the…”