心理发展与教育 ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5): 569-575.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.05.08

• 认知与社会性发展 • 上一篇    下一篇


邱娟1, 江黛苔1, 段亚杰1, 姚驹2, 范春艳1, 刘伟1   

  1. 1. 上海师范大学教育学院, 上海 200234;
    2. 上海市泗泾实验学校, 上海 201601
  • 发布日期:2020-09-12
  • 通讯作者: 刘伟 E-mail:liuwei@shnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:

Factors Influencing College Students' Online Donation Behavior: Examining the Impact of the Donation Recipients Characteristics

QIU Juan1, JIANG Daitai1, DUAN Yajie1, YAO Ju2, FAN Chunyan1, LIU Wei1   

  1. 1. School of Education, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234;
    2. Shanghai Sijing Experimental School, Shanghai 201601
  • Published:2020-09-12

摘要: 以往关于捐助的心理学研究主要聚焦于现实环境中的捐助行为,以及捐助者自身特点对捐助的影响,网络环境、求助者特征对捐助影响的研究较少。本研究以大学生为被试,比较不同信息发布者情境中,网络与现实中捐助的意愿,并确定求助者的身份特征和求助信息特征对网络捐助的影响。结果发现,在捐助意愿和捐助金额方面,网络渠道高于现实渠道、熟人发布高于陌生人发布;当求助者与捐助者同为大学生时,捐助者对求助者的理性求助信息比情绪性求助信息有更强的捐助意愿和更多捐助金额。以上结果与大学生网络社会支持水平较高、处理网络信息能力较强有关。

关键词: 大学生, 捐助, 捐助意愿, 网络捐助

Abstract: Researchers tend to concentrate more on donations in the real world and the impact of donors' characteristics on donations. However, few studies have examined willingness to make online donations and the influence of donation recipients' characteristics on such donations. The current study attempted to compare donation willingness in online and real contexts. The effect of donation recipients' identity and help-seeking information characteristics on online donation was also studied. Findings revealed that the participants were more likely to donate online than in the actual environment, and they tended to do so in larger amounts. Further, they were more likely to help acquaintances who posted help-seeking information online than to strangers who did the same. Finally, compared with helping college students who posted emotional information, the student donors were more willing to spend more money to help those who posted rational information. College students' high level of online social support and excellent network information processing ability may have affected these results.

Key words: college student, donation, willingness to donate, online donation


  • B844
Basil, D., Ridgway, N., & Basil, M. D. (2010). Guilt appeals:the mediating effect of responsibility. Psychology and Marketing, 23(12), 1035-1054.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy:Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973.
Bennett, R. (2009). Impulsive donation decisions during online browsing of charity websites. Journal of Consumer Behaviour:An International Research Review, 8(2-3), 116-134.
Castillo, M., Petrie, R., & Wardell, C. (2014). Fundraising through online social networks:A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 114(C), 29-35.
Farrelly, D., & Bennett, M. (2018). Empathy leads to increased online charitable behaviour when time is the currency. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 28(1), 42-46.
Kanter, B., & Fine, A. (2010). The networked nonprofit:Connecting with social media to drive change. John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, B. A., & Farrell, C. R. (2003). Buddy, can you spare a dime? Homelesness, panhandling, and the public. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 299-324.
McDonough, M. H., Ullrich-French, S., Anderson-Butcher, D., Amorose, A. J., & Riley, A. (2013). Social responsibility among low-income youth in physical activity-based positive youth development programs:Scale development and associations with social relationships. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25 (4), 431-447.
Meer, J. (2014). Effects of the price of charitable giving:evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 103(C), 113-124.
Meiring, L., Subramoney, S., Thomas, K. G., Decety, J., & Fourie, M. M. (2014). Empathy and helping:effects of racial group membership and cognitive load. South African Journal of Psychology, 44(4), 426-438.
Nambisan, P. (2011). Information seeking and social support in online health communities:Impact on patients' perceived empathy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(3), 298-304.
Sanders, M. (2017). Social influences on charitable giving in the workplace. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66(C), 129-136.
Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Jay, E. (2007). The relational determinants of nonprofit web site fundraising effectiveness:An exploratory study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(2), 141-156.
Saxton, G. D., & Wang, L. (2014). The social network effect:The determinants of giving through social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 850-868.
Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2012). Understanding online donor behavior:the role of donor characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(3), 219-230.
Stebbins, E., & Hartman, R. L. (2013). Charity brand personality:can smaller charitable organizations leverage their brand's personality to influence giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(3), 203-215.
Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78(1), 66-74.
Wiepking, P., & James, R. N. (2013). Why are the oldest old less generous? Explanations for the unexpected age-related drop in charitable giving. Ageing and Society, 33(3), 486-510.
Willer, R., Wimer, C., & Owens, L. A. (2015). What drives the gender gap in charitable giving? Lower empathy leads men to give less to poverty relief. Social Science Research, 52, 83-98.
Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us:The impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 533-549.
陈娟, 李金旭. (2018). "利他"的捐助与"利己"的信息分享——"轻松筹"项目的参与动机研究. 新闻大学, 6, 91-100.
程乐华. (2002). 网络心理行为公开报告. 广州:广东经济出版社.
丁迈, 陈曦. (2009). 网络环境下的利他行为研究. 现代传播-中国传媒大学学报, 3, 35-37.
定险峰, 刘华山. (2011). 个体不幸情境下的慈善捐赠-共情的中介效应. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(6), 759-762.
国家语言文字委员会和国家标准局. (1992). 现代汉语字频统计表. 北京:语文出版社.
黄少华. (2008). 青少年网络人际信任及其影响因素研究. 宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版), 30(1), 152-156.
黄四林, 韩明跃, 宁彩芳, 林崇德. (2016). 大学生学校认同对责任感的影响:自尊的中介作用. 心理学报, 48(6), 684-692.
李京丽. (2016). 网络求助文本的话语研究——对"轻松筹"和"微爱通道"的三个案例分析. 新闻界, 11, 47-53.
林锦秀. (2012). 大学生对他人行为的责任推断与助人行为——群体关系与情感体验作用分析. 上海理工大学学报(社会科学版), 34(4), 304-309.
刘勤为, 徐庆春, 刘华山,刘勤学. (2016). 大学生网络社会支持与网络利他行为的关系:一个有调节的中介模型. 心理发展与教育, 32(4), 426-434.
马向阳, 徐富明, 吴修良, 潘靖, 李甜. (2012). 说服效应的理论模型、影响因素与应对策略. 心理科学进展, 20(5), 735-744.
任晓明, 高炜, 黄闪闪. (2012). 网络慈善捐助引发的思考. 毕节学院学报(综合版), 30(12), 81-85.
杨欣欣, 刘勤学, 周宗奎. (2017). 大学生网络社会支持对网络利他行为的影响:感恩和社会认同的作用. 心理发展与教育, 33(2), 183-190.
袁义达. (2007). 中国姓氏·三百大姓.上海:华东师范大学出版社.
赵欢欢, 张和云. (2013). 大学生网络交往动机与网络利他行为:网络人际信任的中介作用. 心理研究, 6(6), 92-96.
郑显亮. (2013). 现实利他行为与网络利他行为:网络社会支持的作用. 心理发展与教育, 29(1), 31-37.
周利, 段靓.(2015). 关于大学生对助人冷漠现象的看法调查及分析. 社会心理科学, 30(10), 31-35.
[1] 施国春, 赵东妍, 范会勇. 2004至2016年中国大学生身体自尊的变迁:一项横断历史研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 648-659.
[2] 李文福, 贾旭卿, 李功迎, 张庆林. 父母教养方式与大学生手机依赖:自我控制和感觉寻求的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 660-667.
[3] 魏华, 李倩, 周宗奎, 丁倩, 熊婕. 中庸思维与大学生网络成瘾:同伴冲突和性别的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 668-674.
[4] 窦芬, 李巧灵, 王书豪. 自我分化与大学生经验回避:羞怯的中介作用及其性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 517-524.
[5] 徐嘉, 谢宝国. 大学生的职业自我概念清晰度与抑郁的关系:性别与性别平等观的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 584-591.
[6] 洪幼娟, 林斐, 刘丽婷, 林宛儒, 连榕, 林荣茂. 受害者公正敏感性对生活满意度的影响:上行社会比较和妒忌的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 592-600.
[7] 高斌, 朱穗京, 吴晶玲. 大学生手机成瘾与学习投入的关系:自我控制的中介作用和核心自我评价的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 400-406.
[8] 杨秀娟, 范翠英, 周宗奎, 刘庆奇, 连帅磊. 正念与手机成瘾倾向的关系:无聊倾向和未来时间洞察力的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 419-428.
[9] 郑显亮, 谢方威, 丁亮, 王雪. 社会阶层与大学生网络利他行为:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(2): 182-189.
[10] 刘勤学, 张聚媛, 林悦. 大学生智能手机成瘾与抑制控制能力的关系:手机位置和认知负荷的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(2): 257-265.
[11] 杨文敏, 鲁嘉晨, 谭欣, 梁静远, 雷怡. 大学生主观童年创伤症状对抑郁的影响:抗挫折能力和外向性的多重中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(1): 128-136.
[12] 刘艳, 陈建文. 大学生自尊与社会适应的关系:积极核心图式与同伴依恋的链式中介效应分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(6): 694-699.
[13] 田录梅, 潘月, 董鑫月, 孔莲. 不同社交网站使用与大学生抑郁的关系:链式中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(6): 743-752.
[14] 林文毅, 杨怡, 余圣陶. 知识验证信念对于多文本阅读理解的影响机制:阅读策略的中介效应和主题知识的调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(6): 708-714.
[15] 张荣伟, 柯少菁, 连榕, 李丹. 人际交往能力与生命意义的关系:孤独感和年级的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(5): 576-583.
Full text



No Suggested Reading articles found!