ادراکات ارتباط و تبادل جمعی به عنوان ساختارهای جداگانه و نقش آنها در انگیزه های کمک مالی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|4917||2010||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10404 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 20, Issue 3, July 2010, Pages 282–294
Researchers have operationalized communal and exchange relationship perceptions as either mutually exclusive categories or opposite ends of a continuum. This research conceptualizes these relationships as distinct constructs that should be measured separately. We develop multi-item measures of communal and exchange relationship perceptions and find that they are actually positively correlated. We also examine the way communal and exchange relationship perceptions combine to influence intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivations to donate, a category stipulated in economics, but not in psychology. We find that both relationship perceptions influence consumer attitudes toward donating through a mix of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivations.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This research provides the first empirical test of communal and exchange relationship perceptions as separate, distinct constructs. We find that communal and exchange relationship perceptions are not mutually exclusive or polar opposites. Rather, it seems that consumers can perceive both communal and exchange components to a consumer–organization relationship. This is consistent with the conceptualization of a consumer–organization relationship as exchange-based at its core with communal components layered on top of the exchange relationship. We further find that the relationship between exchange and communal relationship perceptions and motivations to donate is not one-to-one, as had been previously assumed. Rather, consumers' relationships appear to be associated with a mix of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivations to donate that vary across donors, high potential non-donors, and non-donors to the organization. This suggests that the way in which communal and exchange relationships have been measured in the past is not accurately reflecting consumer–organization relationships. Measures of communal and exchange relationships should consider each construct separately, rather than setting them as opposite ends of a single continuum. Researchers should also not assume that consumers who perceive communal components to their relationships will necessarily respond negatively to extrinsic rewards, or that consumers who perceive exchange components to their relationships will not be willing to help organizations without an extrinsic reward. In addition, if consumers do not perceive exclusively communal or exchange relationships, and instead are motivated by a mix of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social motivations, then organizations do not need to be as concerned about violating the norms of the consumer–organization relationships. Rather, it will benefit organizations to be aware of both the communal and exchange components of their consumer relationships, and to offer donors a variety of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social rewards for their donation behavior. In addition, organizations may want to consider framing their rewards in a way that increases the salience of the motivations that they are trying to encourage. While providing new insights into consumer–organization relationships, this research has several limitations. While the findings were replicated across two different organizations, in order to find a research context in which consumers made both purchases and donations, both of the organizations were chosen from the same industry. Future research should examine the effects of communal and exchange relationship perceptions on consumer motivations and attitudes in additional industries, including for-profit organizations. In addition, both of the studies measure motivations and attitudes within the context of charitable donations. Future studies should examine motivations for other forms of helping behavior. For example, Posavac (2009) finds that university faculty are intrinsically motivated to engage in research and teaching activities, however, the same faculty are reluctant to engage in university service in the absence of extrinsic rewards. Perhaps if universities better understood the communal and exchange components of their relationships with their faculty, they would be able to more effectively motivate faculty members to engage in research, teaching, and service activities. The pattern of motivations found in this research further suggests that there may be differences in motivations to donate within perceived exchange and communal relationships. This suggests that communal and exchange relationships may be even more complex, or even that there may be different types of communal and exchange relationships. Future research should examine these relationship perceptions in more detail and consider the possibility of finding multiple forms of communal and exchange relationships. Finally, while this research focused on the effects of relationship perceptions on motivations to donate, we also uncovered a complex pattern of results when we examined the influence of these motivations on attitudes and willingness to donate. A possible explanation was put forth that the cue inherent in asking for self-reported donation behavior making either a donor or a customer identity salient for the respondents, thus leading to different motivating factors having more or less influence on the respondents' attitudes and willingness to donate. Further research should be conducted to provide a more direct test of this explanation and more deeply examine the motivational influences of communal and exchange relationship perceptions.