Influences of Identified Victim Images on Processing Fluency

References

• Albert, W., & Tedesco, D. (2010). Reliability of self-reported awareness measures based on eye tracking. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(2), 50–64.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreasen, A. R. (2012). Rethinking the relationship between social/nonprofit marketing and commercial marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 36–41. doi:10.1509/jppm.09.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aribarg, A., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2010). Raising the bar: Bias adustment of recognition tests in advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 387–400. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.3.387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baberini, M., Coleman, C.-L., Slovic, P., & Vastfjall, D. (2015). Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 118–128. doi:10.1080/15551393.2015.1061433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae, M. (2016). Effects of various types of cause-related marketing (CRM) ad appeals on consumers’ visual attention, perceptions, and purchase intentions. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(6), 810–834. doi:10.1080/10496491.2016.1214210
   Google Scholar
• Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. doi:10.1177/0146167297237008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bearden, W. O., Lichtenstein, D. R., & Teel, J. E. (1984). Comparison price, coupon, and brand effects on consumer reactions to retail newspaper advertisements. Journal of Retailing, 60(2), 11–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebko, C., Sciulli, L. M., & Bhagat, P. (2014). Using eye tracking to assess the impact of advertising appeals on donor behavior. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(4), 354–371. doi:10.1080/10495142.2014.965073
   Google Scholar
• Berger, S., Wagner, U., & Schwand, C. (2012). Assessing advertising effectiveness: The potential of goal-directed behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 29(6), 411–421. doi:10.1002/mar.2012.12.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: the past 25 Years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484–1525. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Overview of CDC’S Childhood lead. Atlanta, GA: Author Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/.
   Google Scholar
• Chae, B., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The future looks “right”: Effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223–238. doi:10.1086/669476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• CONE (2014). Cone communications social impact study: the next cause evolution. Retrieved from www.conecomm.com/research-blog/2013-cone-communications-social-impact-study.
   Google Scholar
• Dickert, S. (2008). Two routes to the perception of need: The role of affective vs. deliberative information processing in prosocial behavior. ( Dortor of Philosophy), University of Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Dickert, S., Sagara, N., & Slovic, P. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376. doi:10.1002/bdm.v24.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attentional mechanism in the generation of sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), 297–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. London, UK: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Eastwood, J. D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. M. (2001). Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(6), 1004–1013. doi:10.3758/BF03194519
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197–211. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, N., & Eggum, N. D. (2009). Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 71–84). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EPA. (2016a). Basic information about lead in drinking water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water
   Google Scholar
• EPA. (2016b). Basic information about lead in drinking water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water-health
   Google Scholar
• Escalas, J. E. (2007). Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 421–429. doi:10.1086/502810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It felt fluent, and I liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion, 13(2), 280–289. doi:10.1037/a0030115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedrich, J., & McGuire, A. (2010). Individual differences in reasoning style as a moderator of the identifiable victim effect. Social Influence, 5(3), 182–201. doi:10.1080/15534511003707352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genevsky, A., Vastfjall, D., Slovic, P., & Knutson, B. (2013). Neural underpinnings of the identifiable victim effect: Affect shifts preferences for giving. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 17188–17196. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2348-13.2013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guan, Z., Lee, S., Cuddihy, E., & Ramey, J. (2006). The validity of the stimulated retrospective think-aloud method as measured by eye tracking. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, D. L, & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336-355. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1992). Primitive emotional contagion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion and social behavior (pp. 151–177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149–160. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacoby, L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attribution. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc. pp. 145-177.
   Google Scholar
• Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the “identifiable victim effect”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235–257. doi:10.1023/A:1007740225484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keene, O. N. (1995). The log transformation is special. Statistics in Medicine, 14(8), 811–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157–167. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 112–126. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P, & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 247. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., Oliveira-Souza, R. D., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic netwroks guide decisions about charitable donation. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences doi:10.1073/pnas.0604475103
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen. (October 12 2015). The sustainability imprerative. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/the-sustainability-imperative.html
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. H., & Escalas, J. E. (2010). Easier is not always better: The moderating role of processing type on preference fluency. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 295–305. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ochsner, K. N., & Phelps, E. (2007). Emerging perspectives on emotion-cognition interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 317–318. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrault, E. K., Silk, K. J., Sheff, S., Ahn, J., Hoffman, A., & Totzkay, D. (2015). Testing the identifiable victim effect with both animal and human victims in anti-littering messages. Communication Research Reports, 32(4), 294–303. doi:10.1080/08824096.2015.1089857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrine, R. M., & Heather, S. (2000). Effects of picture and even-a-penny-will-help appeals on anonymous donations to charity. Psychological Reports, 86(2), 551–559. doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461. doi:10.1086/323732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Application to advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside (Eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology (pp. 3–23). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 36–50. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.36.27794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48–60. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.48
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, L., Zhong, N., Lu, S., & Li, M. (2013). Decision prediction using visual patterns. Fundamenta Informaticae, 127(1), 545–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Railton, P. (2015). Dual-process models of the mind and the identifiable victim effect. In I. G. Cohen, N. Daniels, & N. Eyal (Eds.), Identified versus statistical lives: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 24–42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. doi:10.1080/17470210902816461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber, R., Wurtz, P., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(1), 47–60. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00049-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In P. V. Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 289-308.
   Google Scholar
• Sciulli, L. M., Bhagat, P. S., & Bebko, C. P. (2012). Eye tracking analysis: Engegement levels and donor tendencies using print advertisements with emotional appeals. Innovative Marketing Volume, 8(2), 91–98.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. A., & Nielsen, J. H. (2013). What the blind eye sees: Incidental change detection as a source of perceptual fluency. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1202–1218. doi:10.1086/667852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, S. J., Beike, D. R., & Ryalls, K. R. (1999). Dual-processing accounts of inconsistencies in response to general versus specific cases. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 203–230). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2012). Understanding online donor behavior: The role of donor characteristics, percepitons of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks understanding online donor behavior. International Journal of Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(3), 219–230. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1425
   Google Scholar
• Slovic, P, Finucane, M. L, Peters, E, & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal Of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A. (2011). Sympathy biases and sympathy appeals: Reducing social distance to boost charitable contributions. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 149–160). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16. doi:10.1023/A:1022299422219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. A., & Verrochi, M. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20618940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2002). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 421–440). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics, C. F. C. (2016). Quick facts about nonprofits. Retrieved from http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Storme, M., Myszkowski, N., Davila, A., & Bournois, F. (2015). How subjective processing fluency predicts attitudes toward visual advertisements and purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(6), 432–440. doi:10.1108/JCM-10-2014-1187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira, T., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Emotion-induced engagement in Internet video advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 144–159. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trust, N. P. (2016). Charitable giving statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/
   Google Scholar
• Watson, T. (2006). Consumer philanthropy: Nonprofits spend billions to reach consumers. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-watson/consumer-philanthropy-non_b_36261.html
   Google Scholar
• Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Reber, R., & Fazendeiro, T. A. (2003). Cognitive and affective consequences of visual fluency: When seeing is easy on the mind. In L. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective (pp. 75–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 496–501. doi:10.1038/nrn1411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wurtz, P., Reber, R., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2008). The feeling of fluent perception: A single experience from multiple asynchronous sources. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 171–184. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117-123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar