Persuasive Charity Appeals for Less and More Controllable Health Causes: The Roles of Implicit Mindsets and Benefit Frames

Abstract

This research investigates whether donors' beliefs in changeability influence the persuasiveness of charity ads for less and more controllable health conditions. Across three studies and using different health conditions, we show that fixed-mindset consumers' beliefs about immutability lead them to donate more to less (vs. more) controllable causes. The results show that this effect is driven by their tendency to blame people with more controllable health conditions. Conversely, controllability does not influence consumers with growth mindsets, who believe in the changeability of health conditions. Moreover, we examine benefit framing as a potential persuasive factor encouraging donations of consumers with growth mindsets. Specifically, we find that in less controllable cases, consumers with growth mindsets are more persuaded to donate by other-benefit appeals (focusing on how donating enhances others' lives and makes others feel better); in more controllable conditions, they are more persuaded by self-benefit appeals (focusing on how donating enhances their own lives and makes them feel better). The perceived efficacy of donation drives this effect. Meanwhile, consumers with fixed mindsets are more willing to donate to less (vs. more) controllable causes regardless of benefit frames used in the charity ad. This research offers managerial implications for advertisers and marketers.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Meng-Hua Hsieh

Meng-Hua Hsieh (PhD, University of Washington) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg. Ozge Yucel-Aybat (PhD, City University of New York) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg.