Effects of infectious disease cues and donation protagonists on blood donation intention

Abstract: When infectious diseases are prevalent, people are often reluctant to give blood for fear of infection, resulting in a “blood shortage” In response, blood collection agencies across China have launched relevant initiatives to encourage the public to donate blood. To recruit blood donors, blood collection agencies use different advertising strategies to attract people’s attention. For example, some display people in need of help and others display blood donors in their recruitment campaigns. What type or types of donation protagonist are most effective in recruitment campaigns during an infectious disease outbreak? This issue has become particularly important in recent years, with the increasing emergence of infectious diseases. It is therefore essential to understand how blood collection agencies should recruit donors when signs of infectious disease appear. Motivated by this issue, this study explored the joint impact of infectious disease cues and donation protagonists on the intention to donate blood and the psychological mechanisms underlying this impact.
Study 1 adopted a 2 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient) ´ 2 (infectious disease cues: yes vs. no) between-subjects design and used a reading comprehension task to manipulate the salience of infectious disease cues. We recruited 207 college students and randomly assigned them to one group with infectious disease cues and one without. The participants then viewed recruitment messages with different donation protagonists (donor vs. recipient). Next, the participants were asked whether they would be willing to donate blood. For those who answered yes and were willing to leave their contact details, we helped them make an appointment to donate blood at the nearest blood bank. Study 1 provided preliminary evidence that recipient (vs. donor) protagonists reduce people’s intention to donate blood when infectious disease cues are salient.
Studies 2A and 2B further supported the results of Study 1 by adding a no-donation protagonist and two control groups (accidental threat and non-infectious disease threat). Specifically, Study 2A adopted a 3 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient vs. none) × 2 (threat type: infectious disease vs. accident) between-subjects design and recruited 306 participants from a questionnaire platform. We manipulated the threat type through a slideshow. After viewing the slides, the participants viewed recruitment messages with different donation protagonists and reported their intention to donate blood. Study 2B adopted a 3 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient vs. none) × 2 (threat type: infectious disease vs. non-infectious disease) between-subjects design and recruited 285 participants from the questionnaire platform. We used pictures and text to manipulate the contagiousness of the disease. After viewing the slides, the participants viewed recruitment messages with different donation protagonists and reported their intention to donate blood. The results showed that compared with donor protagonists, recipient protagonists played a less effective role and reduced people’s willingness to donate blood when exposed to an infectious disease (vs. accident and non-infectious disease) threat.
Study 3 adopted a single-factor (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient vs. none) between-groups design and recruited 151 participants from the questionnaire platform. The priming material for the infectious disease cues was a short news report on COVID-19 reinfection. The participants were randomly divided into three groups after viewing the news report to view recruitment information on donation protagonists. The participants then reported their willingness to donate blood using the same measurement scale as in Study 2A. Next, the participants reported their state anxiety. In addition, to rule out alternative explanations, the participants reported their levels of empathy, perceived threat, medical fear, and other state-based emotions (disgust and fear). The results showed that recipient (vs. donor) protagonists increased the participants’ anxiety levels, thereby reducing their willingness to donate blood.
Studies 4A and 4B examined the moderating role of self-construal by measuring chronic self-construal and situational self-construal and further verified the mediating role of state anxiety. Specifically, Study 4A adopted a 2 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient) × 2 (self-construal: interdependent vs. independent) between-subjects design and recruited 199 participants from the questionnaire platform. We measured the participants’ blood donation intention, state anxiety, empathy, perceived threat, medical fear, and other state-based emotions (disgust and fear) by priming infectious disease cues as salient. Finally, the participants’ chronic self-construal was measured. Study 4B adopted a 2 (donation protagonist: donor vs. recipient) × 2 (self-construal: interdependent vs. independent) × 2 (infectious disease cues: yes vs. no) between-subjects design and recruited 357 participants from the questionnaire platform. Study 4B used the pronoun-circling method to manipulate self-construal, and the participants then reported information consistent with Study 4A. The results revealed that the participants with an interdependent orientation who viewed recruitment messages with recipient (vs. donor) protagonists exhibited increased state anxiety, which reduced their intention to donate blood.
In summary, the results of the four studies provide strong empirical evidence for the joint effect of infectious disease cues and donation protagonists on blood donation intention, the moderating impact of self-construal on this joint effect, and the underlying psychological mechanism due to state anxiety.