11 research outputs found
ํ ๊ธฐ๋ถ์์ ์ฌํ์ ์ง์๊ฐ ๊ธฐ๋ถ์๋์ ๋ฏธ์น๋ ์ํฅ : ํ๊ฒ ๊ธฐ๋ถ์์ ์ฃผ๊ด์ ๊ณ์ธต์์, ์๋๋ถํ๋ฑ์ ์กฐ์ ํจ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ์ค์ฌ์ผ๋ก
ํ์๋
ผ๋ฌธ (๋ฐ์ฌ)-- ์์ธ๋ํ๊ต ๋ํ์ : ๊ฒฝ์ํ๊ณผ, 2015. 2. ์ด์ ์ฌ.ABSTRACT
When the Poor Widows Two Mites Effect Is Greater than Bill Gates Million Dollar Effect
Moon-Kyung Cha
Youjae Yi, PhD. advisor
College of Business Administration
The Graduate School of
Seoul National University
How can we explain the Poor Widows Two Mites Effect in the donation context? Previous research has focused on high status donor effect based on identification theory. However, those studies only investigated other donor effects in the face-to-face situation, without considering target donors own social status.
This study attempts to fill the gap between the theory and the phenomenon with Korean and U.S. on/off-line respondents from varied backgrounds. In this study, I explore the differential effects low status donor and high status donor has on donation behavior. For this purpose, this research has conducted 5 experiments.
The results are as follows:
First, this research tested the prediction of relatively stronger effect of low status donor, compared to high status donor in an experimental setting (Study 1). Second, other donor status affects target donors giving behavior through self-identification and self-reflection (Study 2). Third, other donor status and the target donor status jointly affects charitable giving through self-identification and self-reflection (Study 3). The results reveal previous donors of low status strongly affect charitable giving regardless of target donor status, while previous donors of high status had an impact on donations only when the target donor also held high status.
The results demonstrated the moderating role of income inequality (Study 4A, 4B). Other donors of lower status, relative to the target donor, has greater effect on giving behavior than higher status donor does, especially when the society is unequal. Conversely, this effect is weakened when the society is equal.
The research findings suggest many implications for marketers and researchers. Limitations and future research ideas are also discussed.ABSTRACT โ
ฐ
LIST OF TABLES โ
ด
LIST OF FIGURES โ
ต
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 5
2.1. Social Influence on Charitable Giving 5
2.2. Social Status and Giving 10
2.3. Other Donor Status Influence through Self-Identification and Self-Reflection 14
2.4. Income Inequality and Social Status Influence 23
CHAPTER 3: EMPIRCAL STUDIES 28
Overview 28
3.1. Study 1: Is It True?
Low Status Donor Effect on Charitable Giving 29
3.2. Study 2: How Does Other Donor Status Affects Target Donors Giving? Mediating Effect of Self-Identification and Self-Reflection 34
3.3. Study 3: Why Does Low Status Donor Have Greater Effect On Giving? The Joint Effect of Other Donor Status and Donor Status on Charitable Giving 40
3.4. Study 4A and 4B: When Is Status Gap Effect on Giving Intensified or Diluted? Moderating Effect of Income Inequality 52
CHAPTER 4: GENERAL DISCUSSION 67
4.1. Implications
4.1.1. Theoretical Implications
4.1.2. Practical implications 68
4.2. Limitations and Further Research 73
REFERENCES 77
ABSTRACT (KOREAN) 97
APPENDIX: Questionnaire 101Docto
A Comprehensive Study of Multilevel Constructs: Types, Issues and Research Proposal
๊ธฐ์
ํ๊ฒฝ์ ๋ณํ์ ํจ๊ป ์
๋ฌด์ ๋ณธ์ง ๋ํ ๊ณผ๊ฑฐ ๊ฐ์ธ ์์ค์ ๊ณผ์
์์ ํ์ ์ํ ์
๋ฌด๋ก ๋ณํํ๊ณ ์๋ค. ์ด์ ๋ฐ๋ผ ์ฐ๊ตฌ์๋ค์ ์ด์ ๋ํ ๋ฏธ์์ (micro)์ธ ๊ฐ์ธ์์ค์์ ๊ฑฐ์์ (macro)์ธ ์ง๋จ, ์กฐ์ง์ผ๋ก ์ฎ๊ฒจ๊ฐ๊ฒ ๋์๋ค. ์ต๊ทผ ๋ง์ ์ฐ๊ตฌ๋ค์์ ์ฌ์ฉ๋๋ ์ง๋จํจ๋ฅ๊ฐ, ์ง๋จ์ ์, ํ์ ๋ขฐ ๋ฑ์ ๋ณด๋ฉด ์ค์ ๊ฐ์ธ์์ค์ ํ์ ๋๋ ์ด๋ก ์์ ์ถ๋ฐํด ์ด๋ฅผ ๋ณด๋ค ์์์์ค์ ์ ์ฉํ ๊ฒ์์ ์ ์ ์๋ค.
๋ณธ ๋
ผ๋ฌธ์ ์ด์ฒ๋ผ ๊ฐ์ ๋ด์ฉ์ ํฌํจํ๊ณ ์๋ ๊ฐ๋
์ด ์ฌ๋ฌ ์์ค์์ ์ฌ์ฉ๋๋ ๊ฒฝ์ฐ๋ฅผ ๋ค์์ค๊ตฌ์ฑ๊ฐ๋
(multilevel constructs)์ด๋ผ ๋ช
๋ช
ํ๊ณ , ํจ๋ฅ๊ฐ๊ณผ ๊ฐ์ด ์ญ์ฌ๊ฐ ์ค๋ ๋ค์์ค๊ตฌ์ฑ๊ฐ๋
์์๋ถํฐ ์๋์ ์ผ๋ก ์ญ์ฌ๊ฐ ์งง์ ๋ค์์ค๊ตฌ์ฑ๊ฐ๋
๋ค์ ์ด๋ฅด๊ธฐ๊น์ง ๊ตญ๋ด์ธ ์ฐ๊ตฌ ์ฌ๋ก๋ค์ ์ดํด๋ณด๋ฉด์ ๋ค์์ค๊ตฌ์ฑ๊ฐ๋
์ ์ฌ์ฉํ๊ณ ์ ํ ๋ ๊ณ ๋ คํด์ผ ํ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ๋ก ์ ์ธ ์ค๋ฅ์ ์ด์๋ค์ ๋
ผ์ํจ์ผ๋ก์จ ๋ค์์ค๊ตฌ์ฑ ๊ฐ๋
์ ๋ํ ์ดํด์ ์ข
ํฉ์ ํ์ ์ ์ํ๊ณ ์ ํ๋ค.Although interest in the development and testing of multilevel theoretical models has increased, there have been relatively few efforts to provide a comprehensive discussion of multilevel constructs for organizational researchers in Korea. This paper tries to provide a comprehensive understanding of multilevel constructs by examining their meaning, types of composition model and issues related. We introduce some multilevel constructs such as efficacy (self-efficacy vs. group efficacy) with numerous research cases and methodological problems related (i.e., misspecification errors, aggregation biases). The issues we examine are central to the development of multilevel theories. We also provide several guidelines for theorists seeking to develop specific multilevel models