Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37930993›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Exploring determinants of formation of cognitive anchors from altruistic messages: A fuzzy DEMATEL approach.

Chi-Horng Liao, Chu-Chia Hsu

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Chi-Horng LiaoDepartment of Communication Studies, Tzu Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1531-4817
Chu-Chia HsuBachelor Program in Digital Media and Technology, Tzu Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Altruistic communication by non-profit organizations plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' perceptions and beliefs about altruism. One of the indicators of effective communication is the anchoring of the messages. Therefore, understanding the underlying determinants of anchoring in altruistic communication is essential. Despite the importance of anchoring in the communication of altruism, extant research has not done much to examine the determinants of anchoring in altruistic communication. This paper investigates the determinants of anchoring in non-profit organizations' altruistic communication through the lens of the dual process theory. It applies the Fuzzy Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (F-DEMATEL) method to analyze the causal and effect factors. Data were gathered from 12 social communication experts based in Taiwan. Out of the 12 proposed determinants, three factors, namely consistency, cultural consideration, and emotional anchoring, were established as significant causal factors. Consistency had causal effects on five other factors, namely, the use of metaphors, the use of antinomies, thematic anchoring, understanding the cognitive ability of the audience, and crafting engaging information. Cultural consideration had causal effects on feedback, naming, use of antinomies, thematic anchoring, emotional anchoring, and repetition. Emotional anchoring had causal effects on thematic anchoring, use of antinomies, use of metaphors, consistency, naming, feedback, understanding the cognitive ability of the audience, and repetition. On the other hand, feedback, naming, and use of antinomies were established as significant effect factors. The study's findings offer crucial contributions to the social communication literature and provide important insights for social communication practitioners.

Indexed as

AltruismEmotionsCognitionCommunicationHumansTaiwan

Identifiers

PMID37930993
PMCPMC10627445

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.