Byrne
Individual v. Group Dynamic Analysis
By
Patrick Byrne
Public Communication Capstone Project
Master’s of Arts Candidate
1
Byrne
Patrick Byrne
Public Communication Seminar
Professor Montgomery
May 3, 2011
Individual v. Group Dynamic Analysis
ABSTRACT:
Individual and group dynamics play roles in everyday life. As a society humans are
constantly confronted with others in need of help. It is the way people act and react towards the
helpless that changes lives.
Audiences often see humanitarian aid organizations on TV, pleading for assistance after
natural disasters. Examples of this have been seen recently with the devastation caused by
hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti. The aftermath of these disasters was seen by
millions and donations poured in from all over the world. These donations came in the form of
money, volunteerism, and even Red Cross blood donations. These contributions have helped the
affected areas rebuild, not only in the physical sense but in an emotional sense as well. It is that
emotional tug which connects humans to one another and leads people to give.
Individual and group dynamics will be examined in this study. The goal of the study is to
further evaluate the appeal of each approach. This study will prove that audiences are more likely
to provide aid to a request from an individual rather than a group’s request for aid.
The background of this study relates to Paul Slovic’s research in risk communication
when it comes to the audience’s willingness to contribute. This study will prove that an audience
will have a higher wiliness to contribute to humanitarian aid commercials framed by individuals
compared to group dynamics.
2
Byrne
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………pg. 2
Introduction……………………………………………………………….....pg.4
Literature Review……………………………………………………………pg. 5
Paul Slovic’s Research……………………………………………………….pg. 5
The Individual……………………………………………………………….pg. 7
Exemplar Base Model……………………………………………………….pg. 8
Impression Formation……………………………………………………….pg. 9
The Group…………………………………………………………………...pg. 10
Illusory Correlation Paradigm………………………………………………pg. 10
Method……………………………………………………………………...pg. 13
Operationalized Characteristics for Survey......…………………………….pg. 15
Survey………………………………………………………………………pg. 15-31
Results………………………………………………………………………pg. 31
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….pg. 32
Appendix…………………………………………………………………..pg. 34
References………………………………………………………………….pg. 55
3
Byrne
INTRODUCTION:
An audience has many mitigating factors to why they choose to contribute to a
humanitarian organization. This study tries to break down the barriers to understand why an
audience chooses to contribute to a cause that is framed by individuals or group dynamics.
Humanitarian aid organizations have a certain amount of money that is allocated to paid
advertising. If these organizations fully understand the reasons why some commercials are
successful in gaining donations, less money will have to be set aside for advertising. This
knowledge can be powerful for management of humanitarian aid organizations so they know
what commercials are the most receptive to specific audiences.
This study will help organizations understand how to frame a commercial in order to gain
the highest possible donation. Past research has shown that individuals compared to groups will
be more receptive to audiences and this study will build upon that research.
Kogut and Ritov (2005) have written about the identified victim effect on an individual
and a group. The authors break up the willingness to contribute factor into four groups. The
unidentified victim, identified victim, unidentified group and the identified group. These are the
subgroups that other researchers have identified as mitigating factors about how an audience
views individuals and group dynamics. Kogut and Ritov suggest that the identified victim has a
higher chance on gaining contributions from an audience compared to any other subgroup.
The exemplar based model of judgment plays a role into the decision making process of
the audience when deciding their willingness to contribute to a cause. The model suggests that an
audience will donate to a cause based on how they feel and not what is shown in the commercial.
The model goes on to suggest that social and motivational factors play into an audience’s past
memory. This will reflect the judgment they make when deciding what subgroup to donate to.
Understanding the dynamics of an audience will play a role in the amount of donations
contributed by an audience.
The primary research in this study contributes to Paul Slovic’s theory that audiences have
a higher willingness to contribute to identified individuals compared to groups. Slovic uses
experimental research in many studies to further understand this topic. Slovic compares the
analytic system of judgment to the experimental system for one of the mitigating factors to why
an audience chooses to donate to a particular cause. The survey research in this study compares
two humanitarian aid commercials using the organization of Save the Children. A humanitarian
4
Byrne
aid organization was used in this study so other organizations understand how to frame a
commercial in the most appealing way. One commercial is framed by an identified individual
and the other is framed by a group. The survey seeks to understand why participants choose to
donate to one commercial compared to the other. This study will prove that identified
individuals compared to groups will lead to higher donations by the audience in humanitarian aid
commercials.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Slovic (2004) analyzes risk communication. He breaks down risk into two main
components, the analytic system and the experiential system. The analytic system has its
background in the logical knowledge that we all have inside of us. This stems from our cultural
understanding of the world. He breaks down affect into emotions and feelings that are good and
bad. Specifically, have we experienced the feeling before, and do we have a stimulus and
reaction about that feeling to be good or bad. The reliance on feeling alone is called the affect
heuristic. In discussing risk it is important to understand that a person’s willingness to
contribute is reliant on how they interpret a situation. The analytic system of judgment plays a
large effect on an audience’s willingness to contribute to a cause. The reason for this effect is the
large amount of thought that goes into the decision to donate to a humanitarian aid organization.
The experiential system is based on our natural instinct. Over thousands of years of
human evolution this ability has been fine-tuned in order to make judgments quickly and easily.
Much like how the audience makes predispositions based on social judgments stemming from
their cultural understanding of the world. Slovic illustrates this in a cartoon where, one black
and one white male pass each other on the street. Immediately, a systematic analysis is being
performed, and risk-mitigating factors are being interpreted. The men search their minds to find
an emotional memory that they can reference to what they are experiencing on the street. If the
situation has enough mitigating factors for the men to attach themselves to there will not be a
feeling of perceived risk. If there are too many risk factors that the men can reference, the
situation is perceived to be risky. If this happens, something externally needs to be performed.
All of this interpretation will be “handled quickly and automatically” (Slovic, 2004, p.312) in the
beginning of a situation. This “reliance on affect and emotion is a quicker, easier, and more
efficient way to navigate in a complex, uncertain, and sometimes dangerous world” (Slovic,
2004, p.313). This immediate interpretation of a situation plays a mitigating role on an
5
Byrne
audience’s willingness to contribute, due to the audience’s past experiences or stereotypes
concerning humanitarian aid organizations. This evidence can show that if the commercial
presented to the audience is perceived to be too risky this will hinder the donation amount given
by the audience.
Kogut and Ritov (2005) have written about the identified victim effect on an individual
and a group. The authors break up the willingness to contribute factor into four groups. The
unidentified victim, identified victim, unidentified group and the identified group. In the study
personal information was given to the participants in which they viewed photographs of various
children. The authors hoped that participants would identify the children as individuals. The
authors argue the fact that emotion may not correlate with the willingness to contribute to the
victims. Regarding the group, the audience is less likely to adopt the victim’s perspective
because they do not have enough feeling of empathetic emotion towards them. The overarching
narrative about this article is the willingness to contribute by the audience to a single identified
victim, is higher than any other group examined. In Slovic’s article Small and Loewenstein
(2003a, 2003b) go on to agree with the response that the audience will be more generous towards
the identified victim than the statistical victim in the study (Kogut & Ritov, 2005). In regard to
this study; Kogut and Ritov’s research support the hypothesis of this paper that identified
individuals compared to groups will lead to higher donations by the audience.
Batson (1997) discusses how you feel v. how another feels in regard to empathy and
personal distress. There are different emotions that play into empathy and personal distress.
Understanding these differences can help one understand how individuals and groups are viewed
by others. Batson goes on to discuss that a person in need (imagined other) will produce an
increase feeling of empathy. When the image of the self is pondered by the subjects they would
produce an increased feeling of empathy and personal distress. The researcher concludes that
when the subjects are not in immediate physical pain the imagined other would be reported as
having primarily empathetic distress for the subject. If physical pain was associated with
empathetic emotion in a given situation, when the participants were told to imagine self, both
empathy and personal distress would be felt by the participants. When the participants were told
to stay objective in the experiment, and not think about the self, there was less feeling of
empathy for the subjects (Batson, 1997). This study helps explain how the participants can
differentiate between the group and the identified individual. Batson helps contribute to Kogut
6
Byrne
and Ritov’s research by indicating that empathy and personal distress will be felt by the audience
if they were told to imagine self compared to a group. This helps to indicate that a personal story
will guide the audience to have a deeper emotional connection with identified individuals by
creating a higher level of emotional arousal.
THE INDIVIUAL:
When it comes to the individual there are many aspects of their physical features that can
be analyzed. This will help explain why the person viewing the situation will want to contribute
or feel empathy for the specific individual. “One of the most fundamental principles of person
perception is that people often form their first impressions of others on the basis of their
immediately apparent features” (Stangor, 1992 p.1). From the first impression the audience
comes to social judgments about the individual based on a variety of physical attributes. These
attributes can include facial appearance, height, weight, clothing, style, race, and gender
(Stangor, 1992). The individual needs to consider the audience that is viewing them in order for
the audience to reach the perception the individual desires. If the audience is a highly educated,
and demographically diverse, then wearing clothing that fits into that specific audience would be
appropriate (possibly a shirt and tie, not a tee-shirt and shorts). This first impression of giving
details about the situation to the audience will help stimulate the analytic system of judgment
about how the audience interprets a situation (Slovic, 2004). The analytic system of judgment
will tie back to the audience’s first impression through the details that were given to the audience
about the individual story. Details of the individual story and a positive first impression will
help lead to higher donations from the audience.
There is some information that will not have an effect on the opinion of the audience.
For example, the shirt color of a subject may not be relevant, but if one does not have a shirt on
at all, the audience will take that into consideration. It is important to know your audience and
dress accordingly to accommodate that audience. By paying attention to certain features that
express the correct message, and disregarding others that are not informative, people can
positively connect with the audience. Only certain features are necessary for the audience to
know about because other features will be ignored by the audience (Stangor, 1992). The correct
information will help lead the audience to a behavioral change or motivation to change. In regard
to humanitarian aid organizations the bond between the individual and the audience is essential
to convey the correct message. The goal of this message is to gain the highest donation possible.
7
Byrne
Understanding the audience that the message is targeting will help the humanitarian aid
organization know how to frame the individual in a commercial. Framing the commercial
correctly can be achieved through research of the target audience.
Specific audiences need information that other audiences may not need to achieve a
donation. If the audience is highly prejudice then that characteristic may be the only attribute
that the audience pays attention to in a commercial. “We found that more highly racially
prejudiced perceivers used race as an independent category to a greater extent than did more
egalitarian perceivers” (Strangor, 1992 p.216). The exemplar-based model of social
categorization reinforces the fact that the perceived similarity shared among individuals and the
audience will be targeted by the receiver’s memory (Smith, 1992). The audience will focus most
of their attention on the attribute of the individual that they can most closely associate
themselves with. Reiterating the fact that an audience will share similarities and possibly donate
to humanitarian aid commercial to which they feel the most connected.
Expanding on the exemplar based model, it holds its emphasis in one’s memory. There
are three contributing factors that play into this theory. The model is rooted in how a person
makes decisions. The model states that a decision is made based on how the audience feels about
a situation and not what they see on the face of a scenario. “A perceiver may expect that a newly
encountered individual is likely to prove unpleasant because a similar, recently encountered
person behaved in an obnoxious fashion” (Smith, 1992, Lewicki, 1986). This kind of an
encounter may not be able to be interpreted by the individual because it stems from a multitude
of memories and situations. This can show that a person’s willingness to contribute may be
hindered by the audience’s past experience in some circumstances. In other words, does the
individual reflect a memory in the audience’s past, similar to what they are currently viewing. If
so, it will affect the audience’s interpretation of the situation. The last part of the theory states a
range of social and motivational factors depend on the differences of the perceivers past
experiences. Finally, if the perceiver’s attention is influenced by the individual they can control
what the perceiver’s mind retrieves and can therefore persuade their behavior (Smith, 1992,
Lewicki, 1986).
These contributing factors all play a role in the decision making process of the individual
and their willingness to contribute. If the audience has a dominate memory that stems from any
of the examples in the exemplar base model this will affect the way they interpret the situation
8
Byrne
they are viewing. If the audience can connect with the individual on a multitude of levels in the
exemplar base model ranging from past memories, social factors, information given to the
audience, relevance and believability of the individual will help achieve a higher donation from
the audience. These criteria help the audience build logical knowledge about the commercial
when deciding whether or not to donate to the cause. This basis for building logical knowledge
about a situation also stems from Slovic’s (2004) analytic system of judgment. Past research also
suggests that audience impressions are formed faster though individuals compared to groups.
Susskind, (1999) argues that the formation of impressions on an individual are formed
faster and with greater confidence than with groups. This article plays into Slovic’s research
using the analytic system of social judgment in a given situation. Susskind breaks down how the
perceiver views an individual. He references how the audience wants to interpret the core of a
person’s personality and the need for information to understand this premise. This will not allow
for experiential system of judgment to be made about the individual, but for the analytic system
to take over the subject. Second, the individual’s behavior should be consistent throughout the
commercial, giving the impression to the audience that the subject has a stable personality. This
helps guide the observer to future predictions about the behavior of the subject. Third, the
audience develops impressions of others by putting together all the pieces of information
available to develop an overall impression of the individual. Finally, the audience strives to
resolve inconsistencies within the individual’s behavior. Then the perceiver attempts to search
their memories to determine why certain behavior is acted upon and searches for a cause to unify
that behavior in their mind (Susskind, 1999).
Drawing from Susskind, Hamilton, and Sherman (1996) they each argue that the
differences in expectations of the audience members reflect how the individuals are seen by each
audience member. Hamilton and Sherman go on to argue that the individuals are seen as more
coherent, unified, and entitative than the groups. This difference of perceived unity affects the
impression formation of the audience on the individual and the group. This leads the audience to
likely form impressions of social targets on-line. The reference to on-line is what the audience
can recall from the information given to them in a commercial and not from previous
experiences. This on-line reference will be given later in the literature review, in the group
discussion (Susskind, 1999, Hamilton & Sherman 1996). Susskind, Hamilton and Sherman’s
research help contribute to the criteria stated in the exemplar base model that helps an audience
9
Byrne
build logical knowledge about the commercial when deciding whether or not to donate to the
cause. These criteria are that the individuals are seen as more coherent, unified, and entitative
than the groups. The criteria in the exemplar base model and Susskind, Hamilton and Sherman’s
research helped the researcher operationalize the concepts to form the survey research for this
study.
THE GROUP:
In a study done by Sanbonmatsu, Sherman, and Hamilton, participants in the study were
broken up into individuals and groups. The participants had to read a series of statements
regarding targets identified as letters A-E. The subjects were then told two desirable and three
undesirable behaviors that correlated with the corresponding letters and told to pay attention to
letter C. The group had to use memory based responses to answer questions given to them about
the targets in the study. This is experiment was called an illusory correlation paradigm
(Sanbonmatsu, 1987). This study will go on to show that when an audience is learning about
groups the audience overestimates the amount of undesirable behaviors committed by the group.
This will help illustrate that individuals are considered more desirable by audiences because they
perform more desirable behaviors compared to groups.
Sanbonmatsu goes on to argue that groups tend to be give more impression based
responses when asked to recall information about the behaviors given to them in the study. The
subjects tended to form an illusory correlation based on the perception of frequent behaviors and
about the salient group being studied. The subjects in the study formed impression based
judgments only during the time that were asked to recall the information given to them. The
participants in the group now tended to overestimate the attitudes in the group that would be in
line with their own, leading to more impression based judgments. The attitudes that were similar
to their own were more attention drawing and more likely to be falsely associated with other
attention drawing stimuli. Illusory correlation was formed between attitudes similar to their own
and the salient group in the study. Attitudes that were similar to the participants in the more
salient group were overestimated to be consistent to their own beliefs (Sanbonmatsu, 1987).
The groundbreaking evidence found in this study was that, “when participants were
learning about groups, they overestimated the number of undesirable behaviors performed by the
distinctive group, and they rated that group less favorably than the other groups” (Hamilton,
1996 p. 340). The participants in Sanbonmatsu’s study illustrated that an audience tends to form
10
Byrne
impressions of a group that ties back to Slovic’s (2004) experiential system of judgment. This is
an indication to the researcher that the audience will not use analytic thinking when deciding to
donate to a group. The audience will use Slovic’s experiential system of judgment, and jump to
conclusions through the use of impression based judgments, stereotypes and/or past memories to
make the decision to donate to a group.
This evidence about group dynamics can help set the stage for the assumption that people
have predispositions about others and act upon past memories. In reference to individuals, the
study showed the opposite effect. The participants overestimated the number of desirable
behaviors performed by the target person (Sanbonmatsu, 1987). The information that is given to
the audience about the individual is an essential element to set them apart from the group.
“Forming impressions of individuals, the perceiver seeks to understand the predominate features
of the person’s personality” (Hamilton, 1996, p.340). The personality of the participant was not
being discovered by the groups because they did not seek out the information to separate the
individual from the group. Hindering the ability of the audience to perform Slovic’s (2004)
analytic system of judgment and build logical knowledge about the group. The more desirable
behaviors a group can form with the audience, the higher the chance of receiving a donation
from the audience. Groups lack the ability to convey the correct message of desirable behaviors
to the audience.
This information helps the researcher build upon the knowledge that groups lack the
criteria in the exemplar base model to achieve a higher donation from an audience compared to
individuals. These criteria are; past memories, social factors, information given to the audience,
relevance and believability of the humanitarian aid commercial. Along with Susskind, Hamilton
and Sherman’s criteria that individuals are more coherent, unified, and entitative then groups.
Research has shown that audiences that view groups generally draw their information
from their memories not from the information given to them directly. It seems that audiences
most often judge groups based on their past experiences, and make decisions according to their
memories alone. McConnel, Sherman, and Hamilton (1994) confirmed and extended this
analysis. An illusory correlation paradigm was used once again. The findings of this study
showed even greater evidence of illusory correlation for group than for individuals, as studied in
this experiment (Hamilton, 1996). The study goes on to confirm that,
11
Byrne
“group target condition attributed a greater proportion of negative (infrequent) behaviors
to the minority target than did participants in the individual target condition. Both of
these findings represent traditional illusory correlation effects for group targets but not
for individual targets” (Hamilton, 1996).
The negative comments were mainly attributed to the group but the findings did not correlate
with the individual. The participants were more open to attributing the positive information with
the individual compared to the group. This research contributes to the hypothesis of this paper
that audiences will interpret individuals in a more positive way compared to group dynamics.
Within groups there is a sense of impression formation that audiences seek to learn about
from a group. Audiences look into the group for a sense of unity that ties the group together.
Hamilton (1996) goes on to assume that there are variations among groups and how the audience
views the sense unity within the particular group can play a role in the donation amount for a
humanitarian aid organization. Take for instance a fraternity. This group is very tight knit and
outsiders expect the group to be very similar in many respects. The group members are
preselected to join the group on the basis of similarities, and how other group members identify
themselves with perspective fraternity brothers. On the other hand, there are groups that have
the same sensation of unity, but are not as tightly of a knit group. The military has many
branches of service members that have their own area of expertise, but they are all members of
the United States military. The more unified a group is perceived by an audience the higher sense
that the audience has a positive sense of impression formation about that group (Hamilton,
1996). If a group is not perceived as a unified one the audience will continue to look for links
between the group members. This unhinged link can hinder the overarching narrative of
humanitarian aid organizations to obtain a contribution from the audience through a commercial.
Turner (1981) touches on the point that group members do not shed their identity when
they enter into a group (deindividualism theory) but can interchange their personalities for the
common good of the group. This theory is called depersonalization. The group members do not
react as differentiated individuals but as examples for the rest of the group. In this sense they are
leading by example to create a group dynamic that members and outsiders can grasp. Turner
argues that group members act upon behavior for the common good of all by regulating social
behavior within the group. This regulation causes group members to act in terms of shared
needs, goals, norms, and regulation within in-group and out-group behavior. When shared social
12
Byrne
conditions become salient with the in-group and the out-group behavior, the two groups become
more uniform. Under these conditions, individuals tend to define themselves as group members
and not as idiosyncratic persons (Turner, 1981). The argument by Turner ties back to the
unification process of a group, which is necessary to gain donations from audiences. Without the
entire group acting as one, in terms of shared needs, the audience will not be able to link the
group members together. This will leave the audience with a negative impression formation of
the group hindering the possibility of a donation from the audience.
This study will prove that identified individuals compared to groups will lead to higher
donations by the audience in humanitarian aid commercials.
Method:
This study follows Paul Slovic’s term of an audience’s willingness to contribute. In
Slovic’s articles there are many experimental methods of conducting research into this topic, but
none that use a survey method with videos imbedded into it. In one of Slovic’s many
experiments, participants within a group setting were asked to rate the attractiveness of gambling
on a scale of 0-20 (Slovic, 2002). Then on the individual level participants were asked to make a
similar gamble and the amount gambled was significantly less than in the group setting. Slovic’s
results concluded that the individual weighed probability higher than the payoff and vice versa
on the group level. On the group level payoff needed to be higher to accommodate the entire
group so taking more risk was considered to be a good judgment by the participants. On the
individual level deeper analytic thinking was used when gambling because the participants
wanted a higher probability rating for the amount gambled for. Using deeper analytic thinking
skills allows the individual to win more money gambling smaller amounts over time using
probability, compared to betting on a high payoff and lower probability of winning the bet. This
experiment helps explain the hypothesis of this study that identified individuals will have a
higher willingness to contribute from an audience compared to groups.
When examining Slovic’s research study and comparing it to this study. The audience
will want to contribute more to the individual compared to groups due to the small amount of
funds needed to accommodate one person. The audience sees the identified individual in a
different way because a vast amount of money is not needed to make a difference. The audience
is going to use analytic thinking skills when deciding whether or not to make a donation. The
audience will understand that the need of one individual can outweigh the needs of a group
13
Byrne
because only a small investment will make a large difference in the individuals’ life. In the group
setting of Slovic’s experiment a higher amount was needed in the wager to satisfy the entire
group, regardless of the probability of winning the bet. The audience may view this necessity of
a contribution to the group as an overwhelming need, compared to the individual’s need for aid.
It is important to remember that a person’s willingness to contribute is reliant on how they
interpret a situation (Slovic, 2004).
The humanitarian aid organization that was chosen for this study is Save the Children.
This organization was chosen for this study due to the high amount of validity the organization
has been given by the international community. The images used by Save the Children and other
humanitarian aid organizations commonly use children as a tool for financial gain. The situations
that the children are faced with are often dramatic and shocking to an audience. Viewing children
who have so little make people who have so much feel obligated to contribute through high
emotional arousal. The videos used in this study demonstrate the tactics and appeals used by
Save the Children after the Haiti earthquake in 2010.
The organization was founded in 1919 in the United Kingdom and now has branches in
28 countries worldwide. Save the Children is dedicated to raising awareness about children in
need preserving the right of children on the international level. The organization prides itself on
advocating for a quality education for children affected by conflict and abuse. Save the Children
relies on private donations for a majority of their funding. Pope Benedict XV publically
announced his support for Save the Children in 1919 by declaring December 28th Innocent’s day.
The hope was to raise awareness for children in need through contributions of private donors
facilitated through Save the Children.
In order for Save the Children to contribute as much money as possible to children they
need effective messages to resonate with their audience. The messages produced by the
organization need to be as effective as possible so the lowest amount of money can be allocated
to paid media production. The audience needs to understand the position of children, not only
children but identified individuals who can speak with the audience. This study uses two
YouTube videos from the Save the Children campaign, used after the Haiti earthquake in
January, 2010. If organizations like Save the Children use messages that pertain to identified
individuals and not to groups, their goal of achieving the highest possible donation can be
achieved.
14
Byrne
Contributing to Paul Slovic’s research this original research study will use a survey
method to further understand individual and group dynamics, and their willingness to contribute
to a humanitarian aid organization. The willingness to contribute is considered to be the free will
of the participants to donate to Save the Children. The survey program Qualtrics was used to
administer the survey. The participants in the study consisted of American University students,
Lynchburg College students, and through the researcher’s online social network on Facebook. A
total of thirty-nine questions were given to the participants along with two YouTube videos that
coincide with the questions. The questions being asked by the researcher seek to understand the
criteria of an effective humanitarian aid commercial. Criteria of an effective commercial are
being operationalized by using questions that have the following characteristics:








Distinctiveness
Uniqueness
Believability
Relevance
Ability to cognitively interpret the commercial
Information given in the commercial
Compelling to the participant
Willingness to contribute to Save the Children
The questions in the survey had a methodical order to them and were broken up into six
blocks to achieve the best results.
Block 1
The first block of the survey began with a consent form informing the participants about
the focus of the study, the benefits, confidentiality, compensation and the participant’s rights.
This consent form is necessary in survey research so the participants fully understand the purpose
of the study and their rights as a participant.
Block 2
The second block of the survey was intended to understand the participant’s demographics. This
block consists of questions two through nine in the survey. The questions consisted of the gender of the
participant, and their age. Followed by four questions that were intended to understand how much
knowledge the participants have with humanitarian aid organizations. The need for this block
was to understand the participant’s familiarity with Save the Children, and humanitarian aid
organizations in general.
15
Byrne
The study indicates in question four that 22 out of 34 participants are familiar with
humanitarian aid organizations but in question five 28 out of 34 participants have heard of Save
the Children. These questions can show that a person may not fully understand humanitarian aid
organizations but they might know what some humanitarian aid organizations are called.
Question seven indicated responses that 19 out of 14 participants have donated to a
humanitarian aid organization in the past two years. All 34 participants indicated in question
eight that it was somewhat important or very important for people to know about humanitarian
aid organizations. Signifying that even if a person does not donate to a humanitarian aid
organization it is still important for people to know what they are in general
4. How familiar are you with humanitarian aid organizations?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Very familiar
4
12%
4
Somewhat familiar
22
65%
5
Not very familiar
8
24%
6
Not at all
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.88
Variance
1.32
Standard Deviation
1.15
Total Responses
34
16
Byrne
5. Have you heard of the humanitarian aid group called Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes
28
82%
2
No
6
18%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.18
Variance
0.15
Standard Deviation
0.39
Total Responses
34
7. Please indicate if you have donated to an humanitarian aid organization within the past two
years. (Examples of a few organizations; The Red Cross, World Vision, Mercy Corps, CARE,
Save the Children)
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes
19
58%
2
No
14
42%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.42
Variance
0.25
Standard Deviation
0.50
Total Responses
33
17
Byrne
8. How important would you say it is for people to know about humanitarian aid organizations?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not at all important
0
0%
2
Not very important
0
0%
4
Somewhat important
15
44%
5
Very important
19
56%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
4
Max Value
5
Mean
4.56
Variance
0.25
Standard Deviation
0.50
Total Responses
34
Block 3
Questions 10 through twenty were asked after the participants watched the first video.
Video 1 in the survey consisted of a girl named Andressa telling a personal story after her house
was destroyed during the Haiti earthquake in 2010. Andressa explains her life’s story and what it
has taken to survive over a one year time period after the earthquake. The dramatic story is told
from the first person perspective. Andressa begins the video by telling the audience that she
thought she was going to die once the earthquake hit because houses were falling down around
her. She tells the audience she was scared and didn’t know what to do initially after the
earthquake struck.
The video then cuts to one year after the earthquake. Andressa explains that she is now in
school that has a teacher and she feels better due to having personal connections with friends.
She goes on to explain to the audience that she is the best student in school and she loves
learning science. Andressa explains her goal in life is to become a doctor one day because their
profession helps save lives.
Andressa goes on to explain that she still lives in a tent because her house was destroyed
during the earthquake. She tells the audience that she does not feel right living in a tent. She calls
it “not a normal life” and a “scary place to live” (Save the Children, Video 1). The camera
18
Byrne
freezes frame and writes text on the screen to “please help us give the children of Haiti a better
future” (Save the Children, Video 1).
This video tells a story that is parallel with the ideals of Save the Children. The story
explains that funding is needed to help children gain a more fruitful education in conflict stricken
areas of the world.
The criteria used to examine Video 1 are the same that are used to examine Video 2.
These criteria include; emotional connection, distinctiveness, uniqueness, believability,
relevance, ability to understand the commercial, quality of information given, and is the
commercial compelling to the participant.
Questions that have more than half the participants indicating agreement or disagreement
were inputted into the method section. More than half of the participants were needed to indicate
significance of a certain question for this study.
Question number 12 indicates that 32 participants believed this video was telling the
truth, with only two participants disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the truthfulness of the
video. Indicating to the researcher that the participants thought this video was truthful.
Question 13 had similar results in regard to the relevance of what is happening with
children in need today. Only two participants indicating that they disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the video’s relevance. Indicating to the researcher that the participants thought this video
was relevant
Question 15 had only two participants indicate that the video was confusing or difficult to
understand. Signifying the video was easily understood by the participants.
Question 16 had 21 participants indicate agreement and five participants indicated they
strongly agreed that the video was informative. This question had 8 participants indicate
disagreement that the video was informative.
Question 17 was a very important question in regard to the research of this study.
Twenty-two participants indicated they agreed or strongly agreed that the video made them feel
compelled to donate to Save the Children. 12 participants indicated that they disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the question. 22 out of 12 participants indicated they felt compelled to
donate to the cause. With over half the participants feeling compelled to donate this indication
helps signify support for the hypothesis of this study.
19
Byrne
Question 20 had 32 participants indicate that if they chose to contribute to Save the
Children they would feel like the donation was going to a worthily cause. Only two participants
disagreed with the question. This question signifies that the participants thought Save the
Children was worthily of a possible donation and the money would be going to a good cause.
12. Did you feel that the video was telling the truth?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
1
3%
2
Disagree
1
3%
4
Agree
21
62%
5
Strongly Agree
11
32%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
4.18
Variance
0.70
Standard Deviation
0.83
Total Responses
34
13. Was the video relevant to what is happening with children in need today?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
1
3%
2
Disagree
1
3%
4
Agree
19
56%
5
Strongly Agree
13
38%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
4.24
Variance
0.73
Standard Deviation
0.85
Total Responses
34
20
Byrne
15. Did you find the video confusing or difficult to understand?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
13
38%
2
Disagree
19
56%
4
Agree
1
3%
5
Strongly Agree
1
3%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
1.76
Variance
0.73
Standard Deviation
0.85
Total Responses
34
16. Was the video informative?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
8
24%
4
Agree
21
62%
5
Strongly Agree
5
15%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
3.68
Variance
1.01
Standard Deviation
1.01
Total Responses
34
21
Byrne
17. Based on the video do you feel compelled to contribute to the cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
2
Disagree
10
29%
4
Agree
18
53%
5
Strongly Agree
4
12%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.35
Variance
1.45
Standard Deviation
1.20
Total Responses
34
20. If you chose to contribute to Save the Children would you feel like the donation would be
going to a worthily cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
2
6%
3
Agree
23
68%
4
Strongly Agree
9
26%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
3.21
Variance
0.29
Standard Deviation
0.54
Total Responses
34
22
Byrne
Block 4
Questions 21 through 31 convey the general goals of Save the Children. The Video 2
explains the general goals of the organization. The video tells the story that Save the Children is
there to help children with food, medical care and education when disaster strikes a certain area.
The video goes on to say that Save the Children is there to help children as a long term solution
after a crisis. This general video speaks on a wide array of topics about what Save the Children
does as an organization. The video speaks about the history of Save the Children internationally,
and in the United States. Then details how they are here as an avenue for empathy and caring for
children who need it. The video finishes detailing how the audience can help donate to the cause
in order to make a difference.
The same questions used to examine Video 1 are used to examine Video 2. These criteria
include; emotional connection, distinctiveness, uniqueness, believability, relevance, ability to
understand the commercial, quality of information given, and is the commercial compelling to
the participant.
Questions that have more than half the participants indicating agreement or disagreement
were inputted into the method section. More than half of the participants were needed to indicate
significance of a certain question for this study.
Question number 23 indicated all 34 participants either agreed or strongly agreed that the
video was telling the truth. This question signifies that the video was portrayed in a truthful
manor to the participants.
Question 24 indicated that 32 participants agreed or strongly agreed that the video was
relevant to what is happening to children in need today. This question signifies that this video
was relevant to the participants about what is happening to children in need today.
Question 26 indicated that all 34 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that the
video was difficult to understand. Showing a strong indication that the video was easily
understood by the participants.
Question 27 indicated that 33 participants answered in agreement or strong agreement
that the video was informative.
Question 28 is also very important to this research study. 20 participants agreed to
strongly agree that the video made them feel compelled to donate to the Save the Children. 14
participants disagreed that they felt compelled to donate to the cause. With a higher amount of
23
Byrne
the participants disagreeing with this question compared to Video 1 this helps contribute to the
support of the researcher’s hypothesis.
Question 29 is different from block three because 23 participants indicated that they
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the story being told was unique. Signifying to the researcher
that this video was not told in a unique way.
Question 31 indicated that 33 participants felt like if they chose to donate to Save the
Children their donation would be going to a worthily cause. Only one participant disagreed with
the question.
23. Did you feel that the video was telling the truth?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
3
Disagree
0
0%
4
Agree
23
68%
5
Strongly agree
11
32%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
4
Max Value
5
Mean
4.32
Variance
0.23
Standard Deviation
0.47
Total Responses
34
24
Byrne
24. Was the video relevant to what is happening with children in need today?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
2
6%
3
Agree
18
53%
4
Strongly agree
14
41%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
3.35
Variance
0.36
Standard Deviation
0.60
Total Responses
34
26. Did you find the video confusing or difficult to understand?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
12
35%
2
Disagree
22
65%
3
Agree
0
0%
4
Strongly Agree
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.65
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
34
25
Byrne
27. Was the video informative?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
1
3%
3
Agree
18
56%
4
Strongly Agree
13
41%
Total
32
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
3.38
Variance
0.31
Standard Deviation
0.55
Total Responses
32
28. Based on the video do you feel compelled to contribute to the cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
14
41%
3
Agree
17
50%
4
Strongly Agree
3
9%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
2.68
Variance
0.41
Standard Deviation
0.64
Total Responses
34
26
Byrne
29. Did you feel like the story being told was unique?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
3
Disagree
21
62%
4
Agree
10
29%
5
Strongly Agree
1
3%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.24
Variance
0.61
Standard Deviation
0.78
Total Responses
34
31. If you chose to contribute to Save the Children would you feel like the donation would be
going to a worthily cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
1
3%
4
Agree
22
65%
5
Strongly Agree
11
32%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
4.26
Variance
0.38
Standard Deviation
0.62
Total Responses
34
27
Byrne
Block 5
The following section seeks to understand why the participants chose one video over the
other, for having the best qualities to get an audience to contribute to a cause. Questions in this
section pertained to the highest emotional connection, willingness to contribute, uniqueness,
relevance, and informative information given to the audience. Asking similar questions again
gives the researcher further information about why the participants chose one video over another.
This block of the study was the major contributing factor to the results of this research.
Question 32 indicated that the participants thought that the Video 2 showing the general
story was the most informative. 21 of the participants agreed with question two showing the
girl’s story. This evidence was supported in the previous question in block 4. However, in block
3 evidence showed 26 participants agreed that the story was informative but a higher number of
participants agreed with the general story. Concluding that the general story was more
informative compared to the single story.
Question 33 indicated that the participants agreed with Video 1 that it was the most
relevant. This same question had results in block 3 and block 4 that indicated that both videos
had the same amount of relevance. After the participants viewed both videos 22 out of 12
participants indicated that Video 1 was more relevant than Video 2. This signifies that Video 1
was more relevant than Video 2.
Question 34 indicated that the participants thought that Video 1 was more unique than
Video 2. This statement is supported in the questions in block 3 and block 4. 26 out of eight
participants agreed that Video 1 was more unique than Video 2. This signifies that Video 1 has a
more unique story than Video 2.
Question 35 indicated that there was an equal chance for the participants to contribute to
Video 1 and Video 2. This evidence has changed since the questions were previously asked in
block 3 and 4. Previous evidence supports a higher willingness to contribute to Video 1
compared to Video 2.
Question 36 indicates that the participants have stronger emotional connection with
Video 1 compared to Video 2. This evidence was also supported in questions in block 3 and
block 4. 24 participants agreed with Video 1 and only 10 participants agreed with Video 2. This
signifies that the participants had a stronger emotional connection with Video 1 compared to
Video 2.
28
Byrne
32. Now that you have seen both videos, please pick one that you think is best.
What video was the most informative?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
13
38%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
21
62%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.62
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
34
33. What video was the most relevant?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
22
65%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
12
35%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.35
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
34
29
Byrne
34. What video was the most unique?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
26
76%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
8
24%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.24
Variance
0.19
Standard Deviation
0.43
Total Responses
34
35. What video would you be the most willing to contribute to?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
17
50%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
17
50%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.26
Standard Deviation
0.51
Total Responses
34
30
Byrne
36. What video do you share the strongest emotional connection with?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
24
71%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
10
29%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.29
Variance
0.21
Standard Deviation
0.46
Total Responses
34
Block 6
The last section of the survey was designed to learn more about the participants. The
responses in this section seek to understand if there is a correlation between the video chosen by
the majority of the group and income level, race, and level of education of the participant.
Results
The questions being asked by the researcher seek to understand the criteria of an effective
humanitarian aid commercial. Criteria of an effective commercial are being operationalized by
using questions that have the following characteristics:








Distinctiveness
Uniqueness
Believability
Relevance
Ability to cognitively interpret the commercial
Information given in the commercial
Compelling to the participant
Willingness to contribute to Save the Children
Through survey research that was conducted by the researcher the following results were
found. Video 1 was considered by the participants to be the; most unique, the most relevant,
most distinctive, most compelling to participate, have the highest emotional connection with the
31
Byrne
audience, and have the highest willingness to contribute characteristics. Video 2 is considered to
be the most informative. Both videos shared high levels of believability, and cognitive ability of
the participants to interpret the commercial. Video 1 had more operationalized characteristics
that the participants agreed with than Video 2. This leads the research to believe that the
hypothesis was supported by the survey research.
Conclusion
There were many limitations when conducting this study. Given the amount of time the
researcher had and only n=34 participated in the survey. This low number of participants is not a
representative sample of a large enough population for the study to have much face validity. The
population that was sampled was mainly college students with four year degrees or higher. Only
two respondents had some college and one participant had a two year degree. The other 31
respondents had a four year college degree or more. The high amount of participants with a high
education level could have affected the validity of the study. Only seven participants out of 34
were not Caucasian so the low amount of information given about race was also a limitation in
this study.
26 participants have an annual salary of $25,000 or less. With many participants making
a low salary this could affect the donation amount they are willing to contribute. Although,
participants were not asked to specify the amount of money they would be willing to donate but
asked which video was more persuasive to get an audience to donate to a cause. The amount of
time that has been allocated for this project completed in one semester also affected the amount
of research that was conducted on framing for the literature review.
The research that was conducted in this study supports the hypothesis that identified
individuals compared to groups will lead to higher donations by the audience in humanitarian aid
commercials. The hypothesis was supported due to the majority of participants agreeing with the
operationalized characteristics in this study for Video 1 compared to Video 2.
Video 1 was considered by the participants to be the; most unique, the most relevant,
most distinctive, most compelling to participate; have the highest emotional connection with the
audience, and have the highest willingness to contribute characteristics.
Video 2 was only considered to be the most informative by the participants.
Both Video 1 and Video 2 shared high levels of believability, and cognitive ability of the
participants to interpret the commercials.
32
Byrne
Paul Slovic’s analytic system of judgment was a factor after both videos were watched by
the participants. Participants first indicated that both videos shared a high level of relevance,
unique quality and strong emotional connection in block 3 and 4. In block 5 the participants
indicated that Video 1 had the highest amount of relevance, unique quality and emotional
connection. This is an indication to the researcher that the participants used the analytic system
of judgment to connect with Video 1 over Video 2. This is due to the fact that individuals
compared to groups have a higher level of connection with the audience.
As stated in the exemplar base model an audience will make a decision to donate to a
humanitarian aid organization depending upon how they feel about the commercial. This being
stated, Video 1 has a higher amount of agreement from the participants in regard to the
operationalized concepts that are based on the feelings of the participants. The research
conducted helps conclude that individuals compared to groups will achieve a higher donation
from audiences in regard to humanitarian aid organizations.
Further research should be conducted in the area of survey research regarding individual
and group dynamics and humanitarian aid organizations. The studies that have been conducted
on individual and group dynamics that are available have been designed solely by the researcher.
Further studies should be conducted using proven research methods.
Organizations that have a deep understanding about how to frame a commercial to be
receptive to an audience is a very powerful tool to achieve donations. After disasters
organizations need to utilize all the resources possible for disaster victims and allocate a small
amount of money towards paid advertising. If humanitarian aid organizations use individuals
compared to groups to advocate for donations in commercials, this will lead to higher donation
amounts from an audience.
33
Byrne
Appendix
1. Are you willing to participate in the study?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes
34
100%
2
No
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
1
Mean
1.00
Variance
0.00
Standard Deviation
0.00
Total Responses
34
2. What is your gender?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Male
6
18%
2
Female
28
82%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.82
Variance
0.15
Standard Deviation
0.39
Total Responses
34
34
Byrne
3. What is your current age? (U.S. Census)
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Less than 16
0
0%
2
16 to 19
0
0%
3
20 to 24
25
74%
4
25 to 34
8
24%
5
35 to 44
1
3%
6
45 to 54
0
0%
7
55 to 64
0
0%
8
65 or over
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
3
Max Value
5
Mean
3.29
Variance
0.27
Standard Deviation
0.52
Total Responses
34
4. How familiar are you with humanitarian aid organizations?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Very familiar
4
12%
2
Somewhat familiar
22
65%
3
Not very familiar
8
24%
4
Not at all
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
4
Mean
3.88
Variance
1.32
Standard Deviation
1.15
Total Responses
34
35
Byrne
5. Have you heard of the humanitarian aid group called Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes
28
82%
2
No
6
18%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.18
Variance
0.15
Standard Deviation
0.39
Total Responses
34
6. If you have heard of Save the Children, to what extent do you agree that they are actually
helping children in need?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly Disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
2
7%
3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
11
39%
4
Agree
13
46%
5
Strongly Agree
2
7%
Total
28
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
3.54
Variance
0.55
Standard Deviation
0.74
Total Responses
28
36
Byrne
7. Please indicate if you have donated to an humanitarian aid organization within the past two
years. (Examples of a few organizations; The Red Cross, World Vision, Mercy Corps, CARE,
Save the Children)
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Yes
19
58%
2
No
14
42%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.42
Variance
0.25
Standard Deviation
0.50
Total Responses
33
8. How important would you say it is for people to know about humanitarian aid organizations?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not at all important
0
0%
2
Not very important
0
0%
4
Somewhat important
15
44%
5
Very important
19
56%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
4
Max Value
5
Mean
4.56
Variance
0.25
Standard Deviation
0.50
Total Responses
34
37
Byrne
9. How important would you say it is for people to know about Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Not at all important
0
0%
2
Not very important
4
12%
4
Somewhat important
22
67%
5
Very Important
7
21%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
3.97
Variance
0.72
Standard Deviation
0.85
Total Responses
33
10. Please base your answers on the video that you have just watched and indicate your level of
agreement with each of the following statements (Video 1).
Based on the video you just watched did you feel a strong emotional connection with the
children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
0
0%
3
Neutral
8
24%
4
Agree
18
53%
5
Strongly Agree
8
24%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
3
Max Value
5
Mean
4.00
Variance
0.48
Standard Deviation
0.70
Total Responses
34
38
Byrne
11. Based on your past experiences is this video unique to an humanitarian aid commercial?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
7
21%
3
Neutral
9
26%
4
Agree
12
35%
5
Strongly Agree
6
18%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
3.50
Variance
1.05
Standard Deviation
1.02
Total Responses
34
12. Did you feel that the video was telling the truth?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
1
3%
2
Disagree
1
3%
4
Agree
21
62%
5
Strongly Agree
11
32%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
4.18
Variance
0.70
Standard Deviation
0.83
Total Responses
34
39
Byrne
13. Was the video relevant to what is happening with children in need today?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
1
3%
2
Disagree
1
3%
4
Agree
19
56%
5
Strongly Agree
13
38%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
4.24
Variance
0.73
Standard Deviation
0.85
Total Responses
34
14. After watching the video do you feel the need to contribute to Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
12
36%
4
Agree
16
48%
5
Strongly Agree
5
15%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
3.42
Variance
1.31
Standard Deviation
1.15
Total Responses
33
40
Byrne
15. Did you find the video confusing or difficult to understand?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
13
38%
2
Disagree
19
56%
4
Agree
1
3%
5
Strongly Agree
1
3%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
1.76
Variance
0.73
Standard Deviation
0.85
Total Responses
34
16. Was the video informative?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
8
24%
4
Agree
21
62%
5
Strongly Agree
5
15%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
3.68
Variance
1.01
Standard Deviation
1.01
Total Responses
34
41
Byrne
17. Based on the video do you feel compelled to contribute to the cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
2
Disagree
10
29%
4
Agree
18
53%
5
Strongly Agree
4
12%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.35
Variance
1.45
Standard Deviation
1.20
Total Responses
34
18. Did you feel like the story being told is unique?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
1
3%
2
Disagree
14
42%
5
Agree
13
39%
6
Strongly Agree
5
15%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
6
Mean
3.76
Variance
3.00
Standard Deviation
1.73
Total Responses
33
42
Byrne
19. Do you feel the need to contribute to another cause, not Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
2
Disagree
16
48%
4
Agree
12
36%
5
Strongly Agree
3
9%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
2.94
Variance
1.50
Standard Deviation
1.22
Total Responses
33
20. If you chose to contribute to Save the Children would you feel like the donation would be
going to a worthily cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
2
6%
3
Agree
23
68%
4
Strongly Agree
9
26%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
3.21
Variance
0.29
Standard Deviation
0.54
Total Responses
34
43
Byrne
VIDEO 2 is shown to the participants
21. Please base your answers on the video that you have just watched and indicate your level of
agreement with each of the following statements.
Based on the video you just watched did you feel a strong emotional connection with the
children (Video 2).
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly Disagree
1
3%
2
Disagree
6
18%
3
Neutral
13
38%
4
Agree
13
38%
5
Strongly Agree
1
3%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.21
Variance
0.77
Standard Deviation
0.88
Total Responses
34
22. Based on your past experiences is this video unique to an humanitarian aid commercial?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
2
Disagree
9
26%
3
Neutral
7
21%
4
Agree
12
35%
5
Strongly Agree
4
12%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.21
Variance
1.32
Standard Deviation
1.15
Total Responses
34
44
Byrne
23. Did you feel that the video was telling the truth?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
3
Disagree
0
0%
4
Agree
23
68%
5
Strongly agree
11
32%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
4
Max Value
5
Mean
4.32
Variance
0.23
Standard Deviation
0.47
Total Responses
34
24. Was the video relevant to what is happening with children in need today?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
2
6%
3
Agree
18
53%
4
Strongly agree
14
41%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
3.35
Variance
0.36
Standard Deviation
0.60
Total Responses
34
45
Byrne
25. After watching the video do you feel the need to contribute to Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
11
32%
3
Agree
21
62%
4
Strongly agree
2
6%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
2.74
Variance
0.32
Standard Deviation
0.57
Total Responses
34
26. Did you find the video confusing or difficult to understand?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
12
35%
2
Disagree
22
65%
3
Agree
0
0%
4
Strongly Agree
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.65
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
34
46
Byrne
27. Was the video informative?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
1
3%
3
Agree
18
56%
4
Strongly Agree
13
41%
Total
32
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
3.38
Variance
0.31
Standard Deviation
0.55
Total Responses
32
28. Based on the video do you feel compelled to contribute to the cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
14
41%
3
Agree
17
50%
4
Strongly Agree
3
9%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
4
Mean
2.68
Variance
0.41
Standard Deviation
0.64
Total Responses
34
47
Byrne
29. Did you feel like the story being told was unique?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
3
Disagree
21
62%
4
Agree
10
29%
5
Strongly Agree
1
3%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
5
Mean
3.24
Variance
0.61
Standard Deviation
0.78
Total Responses
34
30. Do you feel the need to contribute to another cause, not Save the Children?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
2
6%
3
Disagree
21
62%
2
Agree
11
32%
4
Strongly agree
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
3
Mean
2.56
Variance
0.38
Standard Deviation
0.61
Total Responses
34
48
Byrne
31. If you chose to contribute to Save the Children would you feel like the donation would be
going to a worthily cause?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Strongly disagree
0
0%
2
Disagree
1
3%
4
Agree
22
65%
5
Strongly Agree
11
32%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
2
Max Value
5
Mean
4.26
Variance
0.38
Standard Deviation
0.62
Total Responses
34
32. Now that you have seen both videos, please pick one that you think is best.
What video was the most informative?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
13
38%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
21
62%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.62
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
34
49
Byrne
33. What video was the most relevant?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
22
65%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
12
35%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.35
Variance
0.24
Standard Deviation
0.49
Total Responses
34
34. What video was the most unique?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
26
76%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
8
24%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.24
Variance
0.19
Standard Deviation
0.43
Total Responses
34
50
Byrne
35. What video would you be the most willing to contribute to?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
17
50%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
17
50%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.50
Variance
0.26
Standard Deviation
0.51
Total Responses
34
36. What video do you share the strongest emotional connection with?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Video 1 (showing the girls story)
24
71%
2
Video 2 (showing the general story)
10
29%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
2
Mean
1.29
Variance
0.21
Standard Deviation
0.46
Total Responses
34
51
Byrne
37. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
Less than High School
0
0%
2
High School / GED
0
0%
3
Some College
2
6%
4
2-year College Degree
1
3%
5
4-year College Degree
24
71%
6
Master’s Degree
7
21%
7
Doctoral Degree
0
0%
8
Professional Degree (JD, MD)
0
0%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
3
Max Value
6
Mean
5.06
Variance
0.48
Standard Deviation
0.69
Total Responses
34
52
Byrne
38. Please indicate what category you fall under
What is your race?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
White/Caucasian
25
74%
2
African American
5
15%
3
Hispanic
1
3%
4
Asian
1
3%
5
Native American
1
3%
6
Pacific Islander
0
0%
7
Other
1
3%
Total
34
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
7
Mean
1.59
Variance
1.76
Standard Deviation
1.33
Total Responses
34
53
Byrne
39. What is your annual salary (including bonuses and commissions) in U.S. dollars?
#
Answer
Response
%
1
$0 - $25,000
26
79%
2
$25,001 - $50,000
3
9%
3
$50,001 - $75,000
1
3%
4
$75,001 - $100,000
2
6%
5
$100,001 - $125,000
0
0%
6
$125,001 - $150,000
1
3%
7
$150,001 - $175,000
0
0%
8
$175,001 - $200,000
0
0%
9
$200,001+
0
0%
Total
33
100%
Statistic
Value
Min Value
1
Max Value
6
Mean
1.48
Variance
1.32
Standard Deviation
1.15
Total Responses
33
54
Byrne
References
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: imagining how another feels
versus imagining how you would feel. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
751–758.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social Identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social
Cognition, 11, 150-164
Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behavior. In J. C. Turner & H.
Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 33-65). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological
Review. 103, 336-335.
Kogut, T. & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single
individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157-167.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1987). Illusory correlation in the
perception of individuals and groups. Social Cognition,5, 1-25
Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological
Review, 99, 3-21
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as
feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 112.
Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). Perceiving
individuals and groups: expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall
55
Byrne
56