Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2017)

Exploring Slacktivism; Does The Social Observability of Online Charity Participation Act as a Mediator of Future Behavioural Intentions?

Submitted
October 26, 2016
Published
2017-07-20

Abstract

This study investigates whether the social observability of online charitable participation influences future interactions with the same charity. The rise of ‘slacktivism’ contributes to the significance of this study. ‘Slactivism’ comprises low-risk, low-cost, online activities, used to raise awareness, produce change, or primarily grant satisfaction to the person engaged in the activity. Contrasting views exist about slacktivism and the effectiveness of online activities such as social-media campaigns; as to whether they yield committed supporters or are merely a method used to enhance the participants’ social self-image. This study is unique in that it links together ideas about slacktivism and impression management.   The study revealed that consumers are wising up to charity campaigns on social-media, with many questioning their effectiveness. The perception of others is important although most consumers are reluctant to admit it about themselves: social pressure plays a large role in the participation of slacktivism.  

References

  1. REFERENCES.
  2. Andreoni, J., 1989. Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. Journal Of Political Economy [online], 97 (6), 1447-1458.
  3. Aquino, K. and Reed, A. I., 2002. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology [online], 83 (6), 1423-1440.
  4. Ariely, D., Bracha, A. and Meier, S., 2009. Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially. The American Economic Review [online], 99 (1), 544-555.
  5. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. A. and Fitzsimons, G. M., 2002. Can You See the Real Me? Activation and Expression of the “True Self†on the Internet. Journal Of Social Issues [online], 58 (1), 33-48.
  6. Battaglia, M.P., 2008. Nonprobability Sampling. In: Lavrakas, P.J., and Smarr, J., eds. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. London: Sage, 523-526.
  7. Baumeister, R., Hutton, D. and Tice, D., 1989. Cognitive processes during deliberate self-presentation: How self-presenters alter and misinterpret the behavior of their interaction partners. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology [online], 25 (1), 59-78.
  8. BBC., 2012. Uganda rebel Joseph Kony target of viral campaign video [online]. London: BBC. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17295078 [Accessed 26 April 2016].
  9. Bell, J. and Waters, S., 2014. Doing your research project. 6th edition. Maidenhead: McGraw–Hill.
  10. Bénabou, R. and Tirole, J. 2006. Incentives and pro-social behavior. American Economic Review [online], 96 (5), 1652–1678.
  11. Bennett, R., 2003. Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal Of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing [online], 8 (1), 12-29.
  12. Böhm, R. and Regner, T., 2013. Charitable giving among females and males: an empirical test of the competitive altruism hypothesis. Journal Of Bioeconomics [online], 15 (3), 251-267.
  13. Boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N. B., 2007. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication [online], 13 (1), 210-230.
  14. Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology [online], 3 (2), 77-101.
  15. Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2013. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.
  16. Brewer, M. B. and Gardner, W., 1996. Who is this ‘We’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [online], 71 (1), 83–93.
  17. Bryman, A., 2007. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research [online], 1 (1), 8–22.
  18. Castillo, M., Petrie, R. and Wardell, C., 2014. Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation. Journal Of Public Economics [online], 114, 29-35.
  19. Christensen, H. S., 2011. Political activities on the internet: Slacktivism or Political Participation by other means? First Monday [online], 16 (2).
  20. Corbetta, P., 2003. Social research: theory, methods and techniques. London: SAGE.
  21. Creswell, J. W., 2015. A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research [online] California: Sage.
  22. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. and Hanson, W., 2003. Advanced mixed methods research design. In: Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A., Eds. Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. California: Sage. 209-240.
  23. Drury, J. and Reicher, S., 2005. Explaining enduring empowerment: a comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal Of Social Psychology [online], 35 (1), 35-58.
  24. Ellison, N., Heino, R. and Gibbs, J., 2006. Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication [online], 11 (2), 415-441.
  25. Fatkin, J. and Lansdown, T. C., 2015. Prosocial-media in action. Computers In Human Behavior [online], 48, 581-586.
  26. Festinger, L., 1957. A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  27. Finkelstein, M. A., 2010. Individualism/collectivism: Implications for the volunteer process. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal [online], 38 (4), 445–452.
  28. Goffman, E., 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
  29. Gonzales, A. L. and Hancock, J. T., 2008. Identity shift in computer-mediated environments. Media Psychology [online], 11 (2), 167-185.
  30. Gorard, S. and Taylor, C., 2004. Combining methods in educational and social research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  31. Grubb, E. L. and Grathwohl, H. L., 1967. Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach. Journal of Marketing [online], (4), 22-27.
  32. Halupka, M., 2014. Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy And Internet [online], 6 (2), 115-132.
  33. Howe, K. R., 1998. Against the quantitative –qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher [online], 17, 10-16.
  34. Johnson, R. B. and Turner, L., 2003. Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. P 297-320. In: Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A., eds. Foundations of mixed methods research. California: Sage.
  35. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. and Turner, L., 2007. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal Of Mixed Methods Research [online], 1 (2), 112-133.
  36. Jones, C., 2015. Slacktivism and the social benefits of social video: Sharing a video to 'help' a cause. First Monday [online], 20 (5), 1-1.
  37. Jones, E. E. and Pittman, T. S., 1982. Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self [online], 1, 231-262.
  38. Kataria, M. and Regner, T., 2015. Honestly, why are you donating money to charity? An experimental study about self-awareness in status-seeking behavior. Theory And Decision [online], 79 (3), 493-515.
  39. Kristofferson, K., White, K. and Peloza, J., 2014. The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action. Journal Of Consumer Research [online], 40 (6), 1149-1166.
  40. Leary, M. R. and Kowalski, R. M., 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin [online], 107 (1), 34-47.
  41. Lee, Y. H. and Hsieh, G., 2013. Does slacktivism hurt activism? The effects of moral balancing and consistency in online activism [online]. In: CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives, Conference Proceedings - The 31st Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris 1 January 2013. Available from: https://faculty.washington.edu/garyhs/docs/lee-chi2013-slacktivism.pdf [Accessed 23 April 2016].
  42. Mano, R. S., 2014. Social-media, social causes, giving behavior and money contributions. Computers In Human Behavior [online], 31, 287-293.
  43. Mintel, 2014. Charitable Giving - UK - November 2014 [online]. London: Mintel Group.
  44. Morgan, D. L., 2007. Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Research Methods [online]. 1 (1), 48-76.
  45. Morgan, L. M., 2014. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach [online]. California: Sage.
  46. Morozov, E., 2009. The Brave New World Of Slacktivism. Foreign Policy [online]. 19 May 2009. Available from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/Policy [Accessed 17 February 2016].
  47. Obar, J. A., Zube, P. and Lampe, C., 2012. Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social-Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action. Journal of Information Policy [online], 2, 1–25.
  48. Piferi, R., Jobe, R. and Jones, W., 2006. Giving to others during national tragedy: the effects of altruistic and egoistic motivations on long-term giving. Journal Of Social & Personal Relationships [online], 23 (1), 171-184.
  49. Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., Pirolli, P. and Glaisyer, T., 2011. From slacktivism to activism: Participatory culture in the age of social-media [online]. In: CHI EA 2011 - 29th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1 January 2011. 819-822. Available from: http://yardi.people.si.umich.edu/pubs/Yardi_CHI11_SIG.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2016].
  50. Saxton, G. D. and Wang, L., 2014. The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving Through Social-Media. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly [online], 43 (5), 850-868.
  51. Schiller, A., 2015. Philanthropy as Political Liquidation. Society [online], 52 (6), 580-584.
  52. Schumann, S. and Klein, O., 2015. Substitute or stepping stone? Assessing the impact of low-threshold online collective actions on offline participation. European Journal Of Social Psychology [online], 45 (3), 308-322.
  53. Shang, J., Reed, A. and Croson, R., 2008. Identity Congruency Effects on Donations. Journal Of Marketing Research [online], 45 (3), 351-361.
  54. Sim, J., Goyle, A., McKedy, W., Eidelman, S. and Correll, J., 2014. How social identity shapes the working self-concept. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology [online], 55, 271-277.
  55. Sirgy, M. J., 1982. Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal Of Consumer Research [online], 9 (3), 287-300.
  56. Sirkim. M. R., 1999. Statistics for the Social Sciences. 2nd edition. California: Sage.
  57. Smith, B. G. and Gallicano, T. D., 2015. Terms of engagement: Analyzing public engagement with organizations through social-media. Computers In Human Behavior [online], 53, 82-90.
  58. Stets, J. E. and Carter, M. J., 2011. The Moral Self: Applying Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly [online], 74 (2), 192-215.
  59. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C., 1986. Psychology of Intergroup Relations [online]. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  60. Tajfel, H., 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review Of Psychology [online], 33, 1-39.
  61. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 1998. Mixed methodology: combining the qualitative and quantitative approaches. California: Sage.
  62. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research [online]. London: Sage.
  63. Taylor, A., 2013. Givers deserve their 'helper's high'. Third Sector [online], (780), 20.
  64. Tice, D., 1992. Self-concept shift and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [online], 63 (3), 435–451.
  65. Tonin, M. and Vlassopoulos, M., 2013. Experimental evidence of self-image concerns as motivation for giving. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization [online], 90, 19-27.
  66. Underwood, J. D., Kerlin, L. and Farrington-Flint, L., 2011. The lies we tell and what they say about us: Using behavioural characteristics to explain Facebook activity. Computers In Human Behavior [online], 27, 1621-1626.
  67. Veblen, T. B., 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class [online]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  68. Vissers, S. and Stolle, D., 2014. Spill-Over Effects Between Facebook and On/Offline Political Participation? Evidence from a Two-Wave Panel Study. Journal Of Information Technology & Politics [online], 11 (3), 259-275.
  69. White, K. and Peloza, J., 2009. Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal Of Marketing [online], 73 (4), 109-124.
  70. Wright, N. D., Claiborne, C. B. and Sirgy, M. J., 1992. The Effects of Product Symbolism on Consumer Self-Concept. Advances In Consumer Research [online], 19 (1), 311-318.