Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36730274›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Did you donate? Talking about donations predicts compliance with solicitations for donations.

Joris Melchior Schröder, Eva-Maria Merz, Bianca Suanet, Pamala Wiepking

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joris Melchior SchröderDepartment of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6207-0990
Eva-Maria MerzDepartment of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bianca SuanetDepartment of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pamala WiepkingDepartment of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5813-8366

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many forms of prosocial behaviour are highly institutionalized. They are facilitated by organizations that broker between donors and recipients. A highly effective tool that organizations use to elicit prosocial behaviour are solicitations for donations (e.g., of blood, time, or money). Using register and survey data on blood donations in the Netherlands, we examine to what extent compliance with these solicitations is predicted by being recruited via word of mouth (WOM) and talking about donations. Our model predicts that donors that are one unit higher on our measure of talking about donations (range = 1-4) have a 2.9 percentage points higher compliance with solicitations for donations. In addition, this association is stronger for novice donors. Our study demonstrates the social embedding of the donors' decision-making processes about compliance. For practice, our results imply that organizations may increase their contributors' communication about donations to increase the effectiveness of their solicitations.

Indexed as

Blood DonationTissue DonorsBlood DonorsCommunicationHumansNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID36730274
PMCPMC9894400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.