利己乎？利他乎？
- 人格如何透過動機影響親社會推薦行為的情感反應

動機是親社會行為研究的核心議題，分辨和如何關顧捐助者慈善行為的利己動機和利他動機是非營利行銷的策略性考量，而捐助者經驗分享與推薦是慈善行銷的利器。研究顯示人格與情感和動機有密切關係。而另一些研究顯示試圖將利己動機和利他動機誘因混和使用在行銷策略中，將產生反效果。因此，對捐助者人格、動機與情感的深入了解，並透視上述反效果現象的深層原因對非營利組織至關重要。本實證研究透過結構方程模型建立親社會推薦行為模式，透過中介效果分析發現利己動機與利他動機的作用與不同的人格有關，同時也影響不同的情感反應。具體而言，利他動機的中介效果發揮在社會型人格和意義實現快樂情感之間，而利己動機在領導型人格和自我肯定情感中間產生顯著的中介作用，此結果提供了混搭兩種動機負面效果背後的原因，且透過調節的中介檢驗，顯示在不同調節狀況下均呈現一致的現象。除此以外，透過此模型，本研究檢視了重要的人口變數和親社會行為變數對上述模型的調節作用，描繪出不同的條件如何使親社會推薦行為模式中的人格、動機與情感關係發生不同的變化。結果發現包含文化、世代、性別、教育程度、婚姻狀態、是否有宗教信仰、是否為志工、捐款型態等均對於以意義實現快樂情感或自我肯定情感的模型有影響。以文化差異為例，台灣在社會型人格對利他動機、利他動機對自我肯定、和領導型人格對利己動機的影響皆比馬來西亞大，而馬來西亞利己動機對自我肯定情感的影響則比台灣大。此資訊提供非營利組織在募款行銷，捐助者招募與關係發展等策略豐富的情報，同時對於進一步相關研究提供參考。最後，為了測試利己動機和利他動機同時運用將產生反效果是否為普遍現象，經過檢測調節的中介效果，發現本研究主要模型的發現並未有基本改變，即本研究從親社會推薦模型的中介分析發現混和利他和利己動機產生的反效果陷阱的深層原因是一普遍現象。利己乎？利他乎？非營利組織需要更細膩的了解捐助者親社會行為的動機，洞悉捐助者的人格特性，了解捐助者慈善行為的情感反應，在動盪且不確定的年代打造穩定且持續性的服務資源與捐助者關係。

關鍵字

人格；動機；情感；親社會推薦行為；非營利組織行銷

並列摘要

Motivation is the core issue in prosocial behavior studies. Distinguishing and adequately taking care of egoistic and altruistic motivations that drive prosocial behavior for charity supporters are strategic considerations for non-profit organizations. Research shows that there is a substantial nexus between motivation and personality. Studies have proved the adverse effect if non-profit marketers blend egoistic and altruistic motivation into one marketing program. Therefore, a deep understanding of the relationship among supporters’ motivation, personality, and affection is critical for non-profit marketers. To better discern why the backfire phenomenon, as described above, is even more essential for effective non-profit marketing. The present study results by structural equation modeling and mediation analysis show that the functions of egoistic and altruistic motivations depend on different personalities and result in different corresponding affections. Specifically, altruistic motivation plays effectiveness in people of social personality with the result of eudaimonic affection. In contrast, egoistic motivation kicks in for people of Leadership personalities and leads to self-affirmation affection. The finding provides meaningful clues into how the adverse effect happens when putting the two motivations together carelessly. Furthermore, the study tested the moderation effects through group comparisons by important demographic and prosocial behavior variables, which resulted in abundant information for non-profit marketers’ strategy considerations. The moderation effect testing results show that culture, generation, education, gender, marriage status, religion, volunteering, and donation type affect both Eudaimonic and Self-affirmation affections models. Take cultural difference as an example, the influence of both social personality to altruistic motivation, altruistic motivation to self-affirmation, and leadership personality to egoistic motivation of Taiwan are stronger than those influences of Malaysia. The research set a milestone for further related research. Lastly, to check whether the revelation of the models in explaining the reverse effect by blending altruistic and egoistic motivations in marketing programs is a general conclusion, the research conducted moderated mediation testing and found the findings remains. Egoistic or Altruistic ? the conclusions of this study suggest that NPO should exquisitely discern the motivation of donors’ prosocial behavior and distinguish their personalities as well as how people feel through prosocial behaviors as the source of psychological well-being to ground a stable and sustainable source of the resources and supporters in this challenging era.

並列關鍵字

Motivation ； Personality ； Affection ； Prosocial Referral Behavior ； Non-Profit Marketing

參考文獻

1.Adamus, M., (2017). Reasons for Doing Good: Beharioural Explanations of Prosociality in Economics, Economics Sociology, 10(1), 122-134.

Google Scholar

2.Agler, R. De Boeck, P. (2017). On the interpretation and use of mediation: multiple perspectives on mediation analysis, Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1984.

Google Scholar

3.Agudelo, C. A. R. Cortes-Gómez, A. M. (2021). Sustainable behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and religiosity in Colombia. A first empirical assessment, Environmental Challenges, 4, 10088.

Google Scholar

4.Ahmed, A. M. Salas, O. (2008). In the back of your mind: Subliminal influences of religious concepts on prosocial behavior, rapport nr.: Working Papers in Economics 331.

Google Scholar

5.Aknin, L. B., Broesch, T., Hamlin, J. K., Van de Vondervoort J. W. (2015). Prosocial behavior leads to happiness in a small-scale rural society, Journal of experimental psychology: General, 144(4), 788.

Google Scholar

主題瀏覽