Turning narcissists into prosocial agents:

explaining young people’s online

donation behavior
Widya Paramita, Felix Septianto, Rokhima Rostiani, Sari Winahjoe and Handini Audita

Abstract Widya Paramita is Lecturer

Purpose – This study aims to empirically test the proposition that high narcissistic consumers are more at the Department of
likely to perform donation-related behavior, such as the intention to donate and to share the donation link, Management, Faculty of
compared to low narcissistic consumers when the organization’s reputation is high. Built upon the Economics and Business,
evolutionary psychology theory, this study proposes that narcissism activates the status motive, and the Universitas Gadjah Mada,
relationship between narcissism, organization reputation and donation-related behavior can be
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
explained by status motive.
Felix Septianto is Senior
Design/methodology/approach – The current research comprises two between-subject experimental Lecturer at the UQ
studies that use both measured and manipulated narcissism subsequently, whereas the organization’s
Business School, The
reputation was manipulated in both studies.
University of Queensland,
Findings – The results demonstrate that narcissistic consumers are more likely to donate and to share Queensland, Australia.
the donation advertisement when the donation organization is perceived as having a high (vs low)
Rokhima Rostiani is
prestige. Further, the status motive mediates the effect of narcissism on donation decisions only when the
Lecturer at Department of
donation organization is perceived as having high (vs low) prestige.
Management, Faculty of
Research limitations/implications – This research’s main limitation is that it only examines two
Economics and Business,
alternate ways to improve perceived organization’s reputation (e.g. highlight the organization’s
Universitas Gadjah Mada,
reputational features and link to reputable entities such as celebrities), although organizational literature
suggests that perceived organization reputation can be improved in many ways. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sari
Winahjoe is Senior Lecturer
Practical implications – From a practical perspective, social marketers and donation organizations
at the Department of
potentially benefit from this research because it demonstrates that high narcissistic consumers
potentially involve in donation-related behaviors more than consumers with low narcissism when the Management, Faculty of
organization is perceived as highly reputable. Economics and Business,
Originality/value – The current research contributes to the narcissism literature and adds to the Universitas Gadjah Mada,
evolutionary psychology theory by providing empirical evidence that narcissism, whether manifesting as Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
a trait or a state, can activate a status motive that leads to prosocial behavior, but only when the donation Handini Audita is Lecturer
organization is perceived as prestigious. at Department of
Keywords Narcissism, Donation, Status motive, Organization prestige Management, Faculty of
Paper type Research paper Economics and Business,
Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Introduction
The current trend toward online donation has created new challenges and opportunities for
non-profit organizations seeking to maximize the use of social media platforms to target
social media users (Ibrisevic, 2018). Alongside the use of social media platforms by non-
profit organizations, online donations have recorded 23% growth in the past year, with 21%
contributed from social media (Donation, 2019; NP Source, 2019). Regarding the donors,
statistic shows that 45% of online donors are young people comprises of people under age Received 21 November 2019
Revised 17 April 2020
55 years old and millennials while only 29% of young people donate offline (MacLauglin, 11 May 2020
2017). Accepted 8 June 2020

DOI 10.1108/YC-11-2019-1070 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

 However, the trend mentioned above in online donation seems to contradict existing
literature on the characteristics of young people and social media users. Specifically, young
people and social media use are strongly associated with narcissism[1] (McCain and
Campbell, 2018; Harton et al., 2014; Ablow, 2013; Malcolm, 2014), an individual
characteristic that is associated with anti-social behaviors such as greed, insincerity and
dishonesty (Ferenzi et al., 2017; Carpenter, 2012; Miller and Maples, 2011) Trait personality
models of narcissistic personality disorder, grandiose narcissism and vulnerable
narcissism. Arguably, this is because social media use feeds narcissism by encouraging
self-promoting behaviors in consumers such as updating their status, changing their
biographical information and uploading pictures of themselves (Harton et al., 2014; Ablow,
2013). Given the strong association between social media use and narcissism (McCain and
Campbell, 2018), non-profit organization (NPO) needs to understand what marketing
strategy that will effectively increase the donation of those assumed narcissistic social
media users.
Our research aims to identify the conditions under which narcissistic social media users can
be “turned” into prosocial agents, in particular, by donating to social causes and sharing
the donation link, and further establish the underlying process driving these effects.
Building on the fundamental motives framework from evolutionary psychology (Griskevicius
and Kenrick, 2013; Kenrick et al., 2010), this research contributes to the literature by
empirically demonstrating that narcissism acts as an internal cue to activate status motive.
Furthermore, the interaction between narcissism and exposure to an external cue (i.e.
organization reputation cue) leads to participation in donation and willingness to share a
donation link. Moreover, the present research also reveals the underlying mechanism, such
that the mediating role of the status motive effect emerges only when the status of the
donation organization is perceived as highly prestigious.

Theoretical development
Evolutionary psychology
The fundamental motives framework posits that human psychology and behavior can be
explained in evolutionary terms as motivated by the need to solve significant environmental
challenges (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013). Individuals who are successful in overcoming
these challenges achieve reproductive fitness and thus contribute to human evolution
(Kenrick et al., 2010). These fundamental challenges include survival, reproduction,
meeting needs for shelter and nourishment, as well as social challenges (Griskevicius and
Kenrick, 2013; Kenrick et al., 2010).
In turn, these diverse evolutionary challenges are associated with specific fundamental
motivational systems that function to help solve particular problems (Griskevicius and
Kenrick, 2013). Because the challenges are qualitatively different, and thus, require
different adaptation strategies, human psychological systems have evolved to respond
according to the specific evolutionary challenge – just as a Swiss Army knife has different
tools for solving different problems (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013).
Evolutionary psychology theory further posits that different fundamental motives can be
activated by exposure to internal or external cues (Kenrick et al., 2010). External cues
represent environmental threats or opportunities such as the presence of an audience that
can be used to activate status motive and trigger a preference for green products in
consumers (Griskevicius et al., 2010a, 2010b). On the other hand, internal cues represent a
mechanism within an individual that produces a particular behavioral tendency, such as
hormonal changes during the period of peak fertility incline mate-seeking behavioral
tendency such that cause women to pay attention to men, dress in a sexier outfit, purchase
more alluring clothing (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013). Another study examining internal

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
cue found that specific emotions can also activate fundamental motives leading to donation
decisions (Paramita et al., 2020).
Activating a fundamental motive can direct an individual’s attention, memory, cognition and
preference toward specific aspects perceived to be more relevant to achieving the
activated motive (Kenrick et al., 2010). For instance, when the status motive is activated, the
reputational cost becomes salient and people will be more likely to select a product that
facilitates status gain (Griskevicius et al., 2010b, 2010a).
Drawing from the evolutionary psychology theory, we propose that narcissism can serve as
an internal cue that activates a status motive. Hence, narcissistic consumers will respond
differently to exposure of external cue (i.e. perceived organization reputation), compared to
consumers with low narcissistic characteristics.

Narcissism and prosocial behavior

Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by relatively low empathy and egoism so that
they have difficulty in taking the perspective of others (Konrath et al., 2016; Miller and
Campbell, 2008; Kang and Lakshmanan, 2018; Vonk et al., 2013). Consistently, prior
studies have revealed that narcissism negatively related to variables associated with
interpersonal relatedness (Campbell et al., 2002; Konrath, et al., 2016). For instance,
narcissistic individuals tend to have a lower need for intimacy, succorance, less empathy
(Campbell et al., 2002 for a review). In sum, prior research convergently suggests that
narcissism has a negative association with communal traits such as agreeableness and
morality (Campbell et al., 2002; Konrath et al., 2016).
On the contrary, prior studies in donation have revealed the importance of empathy in
predicting donation behavior (Verhaert and Van den Poel, 2011; Basil et al., 2008; Dickert
et al., 2011; Lee and Chang, 2007). That is, people with empathetic concern tend to feel
sympathy and compassion for distressed others (Verhaert and Van den Poel, 2011). In
addition, people with empathetic concern focus on the person in need and not themselves,
with a selfless and altruistic motivation to help others in need (Bendapundi et al., 1996). In
sum, as narcissistic consumers are less prone to empathetic feelings, they are less likely to
engage in prosocial behavior, especially donation.
Consistently, previous studies empirically demonstrate that narcissism is negatively
correlated with pro-social behavior (Brunell et al., 2014; Campbell et al., 2005; Konrath
et al., 2016). In addition, recent studies also tried to examine conditions that may turn
narcissistic consumers into prosocial agents, such as the presence of recognition, the
visibility of the situation, advertisement image (Konrath et al., 2016; Kang and Lakshmanan,
2018; Prewett et al., 2019).
Likewise, this paper is interested in examining organization prestige as a moderator
because prior studies indicate that organizational prestige is relatively manageable by the
organization (Zakari et al., 2019; Hsu, 2012), thus it is more relevant for the non-profit
organization. In sum, this paper aims to examine perceived organizational prestige as a
moderator that may turn narcissistic consumers into prosocial agents, particularly, by
performing donation behavior and sharing the donation link.

Narcissism and status-seeking motive

Besides characterized as low empathy, another primary character of narcissism is excessive self-
esteem (Miller and Campbell, 2008; Konrath et al., 2016). In other words, narcissism is
conceptually defined as a personality trait that reflects an addiction to feeling superior in various
aspects of self, including intelligence, power, physical attractiveness, pervasive sense of
uniqueness and entitlement (Baumeister and Vohs, 2001; Buffardi and Campbell, 2008). Although
feeling superior is pleasurable for people, in general, narcissism is regarded as an individual

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 predisposition in that the sense of satisfaction or pleasure acquired is more intense for narcissistic
people (Baumeister and Vohs, 2001).
As with other kinds of addiction or craving, narcissistic individuals experience pleasure or
satisfaction when feeling superior and experience discomfort when they are criticized (Morf
and Rhodewalt, 1993; Baumeister and Vohs, 2001). As the craving becomes stronger,
seeking pleasure by feeling superior will dominate the motives and influence the behaviors
of narcissistic individuals (Baumeister and Vohs, 2001). Therefore, while narcissism is
conceptualized as a trait in the current study, we also subscribe to the dynamic perspective
according to which narcissism may further (and temporarily) change in response to
situational affordances (Giacomin and Jordan, 2014; Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001).
To maintain the desired state of pleasure or satisfaction, narcissistic individuals continuously
participate in dynamic self-construction or self-maintenance activities (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001;
Morf and Rhodewalt, 1993). In general, most theoretical models of narcissism posit that
narcissistic individuals tend to use social relationships for self-construction purposes (Morf and
Rhodewalt, 2001; Buffardi and Campbell, 2008). Specifically, narcissistic individuals need to
receive affirmation from others to support their self-perceived superiority (Vazire and Funder, 2006;
Buffardi and Campbell, 2008). For instance, narcissistic individuals tend to initiate and use
relationships to look popular, successful and high in status. In sum, within their social relationships,
narcissistic individuals are more concerned with self-construction than with social approval (Morf
and Rhodewalt, 2001; Elliot and Thrash, 2001). The relational efforts of narcissistic individuals are
not motivated by the intrinsic satisfaction of interacting with and connecting to others or gaining
social approval. Instead, narcissistic individuals use relationships as instruments to affirm their
superiority (Elliot and Thrash, 2001; Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). Consequently, narcissistic people
do not focus on interpersonal intimacy, are more likely to disregard others, and are less
considerate and less restrained in indulging their need to feel superior (Baumeister and Vohs,
2001; Buffardi and Campbell, 2008).
Subscribing to this view, we propose that narcissism can serve as an internal cue such that
high narcissistic individuals have stronger inclination to crave for superior feeling in various
aspects, and hence, are more likely to respond favorably toward environmental stimuli that
offer high status than their counterparts (Baumeister and Vohs, 2001; Buffardi and
Campbell, 2008). The elicited motives to gain higher status may cause individuals to seek
respect and admiration from others (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013) and, in turn, regard
others’ disrespect as exceptionally costly (Griskevicius et al., 2010a, 2010b). Specifically,
when the status motive is activated, individuals tend to see monetary cost as less important
than being disrespected by others (Neel et al., 2016; Van Vugt et al., 2007; Roberts and
Roberts, 2012). Hence, the status motive may induce individuals to show-off their enhanced
status by any means, such as conspicuous consumption or through relationships with
prestigious entities (Griskevicius et al., 2010a; Neel et al., 2016; Griskevicius et al., 2010b).
As such, the current study proposes that narcissism activates the status motive in an
individual. In turn, this status motive can influence consumers’ responses (i.e. donation
choice and sharing choice) to any cues that can elevate themselves (i.e. organizational
prestige).

The moderating role of organizational prestige

In accordance with our proposal that narcissism activates status motive and when a status
motive is activated, narcissistic individuals will be more attuned to where they stand in the
social hierarchy. They will value associations with high-status people and objects to gain
admiration from others while cutting off their associations with low-ranked entities
(Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013; Neel et al., 2016; Baumeister and Vohs, 2001). Another
way to fulfill the status motive is by performing prosocial behavior, such as the donation
itself, as this may communicate high status through what is known as competitive altruism
(Van Vugt et al., 2007; Griskevicius et al., 2010b; Septianto et al., 2018; Griskevicius et al.,

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
2010a, 2010b). Competitive altruism is a type of altruistic behavior whereby individuals
compete for status through their pro-social behavior (Van Vugt et al., 2007). Individuals who
are seen to spend more money on social causes may gain more status (Rucker et al., 2011;
Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013).
However, although competitive altruism provides an alternate way to gain reputation, by
doing so, individuals sacrifice their personal resources such as the resource for survival,
reproduction and kin care to benefits others (Barett et al., 2002; Griskevicius et al., 2010a,
2010b). As we have discussed earlier, the individual tendency to disregard others and treat
them as resources is the central concept of narcissism (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). Thus,
whereas previous studies have researched altruism in the general population (Van Vugt
et al., 2007; Griskevicius et al., 2010b; Septianto et al., 2018; Griskevicius et al., 2010a), we
studied narcissistic consumers to explore our argument that the status gained by merely
becoming involved in donation behavior may not align with the central tendencies of
narcissistic consumers. More specifically, for narcissistic consumers, the status motive may
not be activated by mere exposure to donation stimuli.
The evolutionary psychology framework suggests that the status motive may trigger consumers
to seek products that signal prestige (Neel et al., 2016; Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013).
Previous studies also consistently confirm that being identified with a prestigious entity may
enhance the status of consumers (Zhang and Kim, 2013; Dutton et al., 1994). Further,
narcissistic consumers tend to cultivate others whom they perceive to be high-status consumers
(Buss and Chiodo, 1991; Baumeisterand Vohs, 2001). Similarly, the literature on conspicuous
consumption also suggests that consumption of prestigious goods may increase status and
provide social value (Zhang and Kim, 2013; Baek et al., 2010).
In the present study, prestige is attributed to the organization according to its reputation
and image, as perceived by external stakeholders (Smidts et al., 2001). Organizational
reputation is conceptualized as the beliefs that people hold about an organization based
upon their experience and evaluation of the company (Sims, 2009; Fombrun and Foss,
2004). The role of organizational reputation as a means to enhance one’s status had been
widely discussed within the literature (Fombrun, 2012; Amblee and Bui, 2008). For instance,
consumers are more likely to associate themselves with reputable entities to enhance their
status (Amblee and Bui, 2008; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Another example, people favor
identification with a reputable company as the more prestigious an organization is, the more
likely it is to enhance their self-esteem (Smidts, et al., 2001). However, its application within
the donation domain has not been widely examined.
Organizational reputation is influenced by various aspects, some of them might be less
controllable such as public evaluation and customer satisfaction (Walsh et al., 2009;
Nisar, et al., 2020). Whereas some others are more controllable such as how the
company responds to company ethical scandals, the use of corporate social
responsibility programs and the use of celebrity endorsement (Zhou and Whitla, 2013;
Wang and Berens, 2015; Baudot et al., 2020; Zakari et al., 2019; Sengupta et al., 2015;
Park and Lee, 2007). Company reputation is formulated by their responses to a range of
multi-faceted tangible and intangible interactions with the company at various points of
contact (Kim et al., 2014). Notwithstanding the aspects, it is important to communicate
those aspects to both internal and external stakeholders to shape organizational
reputation (Simoes et al., 2005; Kim, et al., 2014). Thus, this research focus on how
NPO communicate their organizational aspects to signal prestigious reputation to their
consumers, such as using high prestige celebrity endorsement and promoting positive
public evaluation on the donation advertisement.
In conclusion, a prestigious entity may fulfill the status motive of narcissistic consumers.
Accordingly, we propose that narcissistic consumers are more likely to donate and share a
donation advertisement when the donation organization is perceived as high-status.

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Further, and consistent with the evolutionary psychology framework, we propose that only
when exposed to a prestigious donation organization, will a status motive that is activated
by narcissism lead to donation and sharing a donation advertisement via social media.
Stated formally (Figure 1):

H1. There will be a significant interaction between narcissism and organizational prestige on
donation and sharing choice, such that consumers with high (vs low) levels of narcissism
will be more likely to: (a) make a decision to donate and (b) share a donation advertisement
via their social media when they perceive high (vs low) levels of organizational prestige.
H2. The effect of narcissism on (a) donation choice and (b) sharing choice will be
mediated by a status motive, but only in the high (but not in the low) organizational
prestige condition.

Study 1
Study 1 sought to provide initial support for H1a and H1b using a real-world context. We
collaborated with a non-profit organization in Indonesia to test the effectiveness of some
charitable advertisements. Indonesia is selected as one of the countries with the highest
donation rate increase overtime (Heriyanto, 2018; Statista, 2020). Additionally, Indonesia is
also located within the ring of fire that has been causing frequent disasters such as volcano
eruption, tsunami and earthquake (National Geographic, 2020), which renders the highly
important of research in regard to donation. Before embarking on the main study, we
conducted some pre-tests.

Stimuli development
Following prior research (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999), we set up a stimuli development
test because we wanted to manipulate organizational prestige using celebrities with
different levels of credibility. In particular, the findings of the Lafferty and Goldsmith (1999)
study suggest that an organization with higher levels of endorser credibility is perceived as
more prestigious. The four Indonesian celebrities were selected based on their perceived
reputation sourced from various Indonesian entertainment media (Bangkapos.com, 2016;
coconuts jakarta, 2020). For the stimuli development test, we recruited participants from an
online research panel in Indonesia (N = 89) and asked them to evaluate four celebrities (two
men: Christian Sugiono and Raffi Ahmad; two women: Dian Sastrowardoyo and Nikita
Mirzani). Specifically, on a five-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much), participants rated
the extent to which each celebrity was “attractive,” “classy,” “honest,” “experienced,”
“skillful” and “trustworthy” (averaged as an index of credibility; a = 0.83). Paired sample t-
tests comparing the two male celebrities revealed that Christian Sugiono (M = 3.71) was
perceived as more credible than Raffi Ahmad (M = 3.20, t = 5.78, p < 0.001). For the female
celebrities, Dian Sastrowardoyo (M = 4.14) was perceived as more credible than Nikita
Mirzani (M = 2.64, t = 13.95, p < 0.001). Based on these results, we then used Christian

Figure 1 Conceptual model

Narcissism Donaon Choice

Status Move
(High vs. Low) Sharing Choice

Organizaonal Presge
(High vs. Low)

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
Sugiono and Dian Sastrowardoyo in the high prestige condition, whereas Raffi Ahmad and
Nikita Mirzani were used in the low prestige condition.

Main study: methods

Participants and design
In total, 160 participants (40% women, Mage = 30.16, SD = 10.18) were recruited from the
donor database of a non-profit organization affiliated with a large public university in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We asked their permission to send a survey link via Whatsapp to its
members (approximately 1,000 members). With the total participants account for 160
members, the response rate of this survey is 16% that is acceptable according to prior
research (Fajardo et al., 2018; Kupor and Laurin, 2020). Consistent with the published
statistics presented earlier in the introduction, 80% of the total participants are millennials
and gen Z young people (n = 129). The detailed participant’s profile is presented in Table 1.
Study 1 used a two (Narcissism: High vs Low; measured)  two (Prestige: High vs Low)
between-subjects design.

Procedure
In the first section, participants completed demographic questions (e.g. gender) and then
the narcissistic personality inventory (NPI-13; a = 0.90) to assess their narcissism levels
(Gentile et al., 2013). Scale items from NPI-13 include: “I am more capable than others;”
and “there is nothing I can learn from other people.” Higher scores on the NPI-13 represent

Table 1 Profile of participants

Study 1 Study 2
Demographic characteristics N = 160 (%) N = 192 (%)

Sex
Male 64 60.00 109 56.77
Female 96 40.00 83 43.23
Age
Gen Z 58 36.25 5 2.60
Millenials 71 44.375 98 51.04
Others 31 19.375 57 29.69
Education
Postgraduate 74 46.25 39 20.31
Undergraduate 27 16.88 98 51.04
Vocational training 0 0.00 19 9.90
High school 58 36.25 36 18.75
Less than high school 1 0.63 0 0.00
Monthly expenditure
Less than US$65 15 9.38
US$65 to US$130 43 26.88
US$131 to US$200 30 18.75
US$201 to US$265 18 11.25
US$266 to US$330 11 6.88
Above US$330 43 26.88
Monthly income
Less than US$15,000 7 3.65
US$15,000 to US$24,999 18 9.38
USD25,000 to US$34,999 29 15.10
US$35,000 to US$49,999 28 14.58
US$50,000 to US$84,999 66 34.38
US$85,000 to US$99,999 21 10.94
US$100,000 and greater 23 11.98

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 higher levels of narcissism. Following this, participants were asked to evaluate a charitable
advertisement from the NPO that we specially developed for this study with either high or
low prestige. We used an identical image for all advertisements, with the exception of the
celebrity (see description of the stimuli development above). Participants were randomly
assigned to different conditions. We also controlled for potential gender issues by coding
the survey so that participants saw an advertisement with a same-sex celebrity [2]. As an
organizational prestige manipulation check, participants rated their agreement with three
statements (a = 0.87), measured on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree). These items were, namely, the organization is very prestigious; the organization has
a good reputation; the organization is looked up to as a prestigious company to work for
(Mael and Ashforth, 1992). Finally, for the dependent variables, participants indicated
whether they wanted to donate (yes or no) and share the advertisement on their social
media page (yes or no). The list of scales is presented in the Appendix.

Results
Manipulation check
As predicted, participants rated the organization in the high prestige condition (M = 3.69)
as having higher levels of prestige than the organization in the low prestige condition (M =
3.05, t = 5.22, p < 0.001).

Donation choice
We conducted a logistic regression analysis with narcissism scores, organizational prestige
(1 = high, 0 = low) and their interaction as independent variables and donation choice
(1 = yes, 0 = no) as the dependent variable. We found a significant main effect of
prestige (B = 2.94, z = 2.24, p = 0.025); however, this was qualified by a significant
interaction between narcissism and prestige (B = 0.87, z = 2.47, p = 0.013). Simple slope
analyzes showed that in the high prestige condition, participants with a high narcissism
score were more likely to donate than those with a low narcissism score (B = 0.70, z = 2.51,
p = 0.012). However, such differences between participants in the high and low narcissism
conditions were non-significant in the low prestige condition (B = 0.17, z = 0.79, p =
0.432; see Figure 2). These findings support H1a.

Sharing choice
We conducted a logistic regression analysis with narcissism scores, organizational prestige (1 =
high, 0 = low) and their interaction as independent variables and sharing choice (1 = yes, 0 =
no) as the dependent variable. We identified interaction between narcissism and prestige (B =
0.68, z = 2.04, p = 0.041). Simple slope analyzes showed that in the high prestige condition,
participants with high narcissism were more likely to share the donation link than those with low
narcissism (B = 0.60, z = 2.27, p = 0.023). However, differences between participants in the
high and low narcissism conditions were non-significant in the low prestige condition (B =
0.07, z = 0.37, p = 0.710; see Figure 3). These findings support H1b.

Discussion
In support to our proposition (as formally expressed in H1), the results of Study 1 show that
high narcissistic consumers are more likely to donate compared to low narcissistic
consumers only when the perceived organizational prestige is high. However, when the
organizational prestige is low, there is no difference in donation behavior between high and
low narcissism. The results of Study 1 are consistent with the literature on narcissism,
suggesting that narcissism tends to use strategies that can elevate themselves, as such, by
donating and sharing the donation link (Konrath, et al., 2016).

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Figure 2 Probability of participants choosing to donate (Study 1)

1.00
0.87
0.90
0.80 0.73
0.70 0.65
0.59
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Low Narcissism (-1SD) High Narcissism (+1SD)

Low Organizaonal Presge High Organizaonal Presge

Figure 3 Percentage of participants choosing to share (Study 1)

1.00
0.90 0.83
0.80
0.70 0.60
0.56
0.60
0.58
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Low Narcissism (-1SD) High Narcissism (+1SD)

Low Organizaonal Presge High Organizaonal Presge

More importantly, Study 1 demonstrates that other things being equal, endorsing high
prestige celebrities could enhance perceived organizational prestige (Zakari et al., 2019;
Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999). Therefore, to attract consumers characterized with
narcissism, a non-profit organization may use prestigious cues, particularly celebrity to
engage them in donation-related behaviors.

Study 2
Study 2 extended the findings of Study 1 in two meaningful ways. First, we wanted to
establish the causal effect of narcissism. Accordingly, instead of measuring narcissism, we
manipulated this construct. Second and more importantly, Study 2 explicitly tested our
argument that status motive would mediate the predicted effect.

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Methods
Participants and design
In total, 192 participants (43% women, Mage = 38.54, SD = 11.92) were recruited from
Amazon Mechanical Turk. Amazon Mechanical Turk was selected mainly to validate the
results of Study 1 to ensure that the effect holds in the different context as suggested by
prior experimental studies (Fajardo et al., 2018; Septianto et al., 2020). Among the total
participants, 59% are millennials and gen-Z (n = 112). The detailed participant’s profile is
presented in Table 1. Study 2 used a two (Narcissism: High vs Low)  two (Prestige: High
vs Low) between-subjects design.

Procedure
The study consisted of two ostensibly unrelated tasks. The first task served as a narcissism
manipulation task in which participants were asked to recall and describe a personal
experience (De Bellis et al., 2016; Sakellaropoulo and Baldwin, 2007). In the high
narcissism condition, they recalled a situation when they felt they had impressed others. In
the low narcissism condition, they recalled a situation where they felt socially accepted.
Participants were randomly assigned to a different condition for each task. A separate
manipulation check (N = 59) was conducted to test the effectiveness of this manipulation
task by asking participants to complete the NPI-13 measure following the recall task. As
expected, the results showed that participants in the high narcissism condition (M = 4.47)
reported higher levels of narcissism than those in the low narcissism condition (M = 3.63, t =
2.90, p = 0.005). We then measured the status motive using a six-item scale (a = 0.91),
measured on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Neel et al.,
2016)[3]. Items included: “it is important to me that other people look up to me;” “I want to
be in a position of leadership;” and “it is important to me that others respect my rank or
position.” The list of scales and manipulation stimuli are presented in the Appendix.
In the second task, participants evaluated a charitable advertisement from Donate.org (a
fictitious organization). We manipulated organizational prestige by changing the description of
the organization (Helm et al., 2009; Sengupta et al., 2015). Specifically, in the high prestige
condition, the organization was described as having been “rated by Forbes as among the
most respected (five stars) social organizations in the world in 2018.” In the low prestige
condition, the organization was described as having been “given an average (three stars)
international rating as a social organization by Forbes.” Forbes was selected as it annually
publishes top non-profit organization (Barrett, 2019). The use of fictitious organization and
different organizational prestige manipulation aims to rule out the speculation that the effect
shown in Study 1 was because of the celebrity endorsement and other brand-related variables
of the real NPO. Finally, as in Study 1, participants completed an organizational prestige
manipulation check and the dependent variables (i.e. whether participants wanted to make a
donation and share the advertisement on their social media page).

Results
Manipulation check
As predicted, participants rated the organization in the high prestige condition (M = 5.49)
as having higher levels of prestige than the organization in the low prestige condition (M =
4.32, t = 5.97, p < 0.001).

Donation choice
We conducted a logistic regression analysis with narcissism (1 = high, 0 = low),
organizational prestige (1 = high, 0 = low) and their interaction as independent variables
and donation choice (1 = yes, 0 = no) as the dependent variable. We found a significant

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
main effect of prestige (B = 0.44, Wald = 7.87, p = 0.005), which was qualified by a
significant interaction between narcissism and prestige (B = 0.40, Wald = 6.34, p = 0.012).
Follow-up analyzes showed that in the high prestige condition, participants with high
narcissism (82%) were more likely to donate than those with low narcissism (61%, x 2(1) =
5.29, p = 0.021). However, such differences between participants in the high (46%) and low
narcissism (59% x 2(1) = 1.55, p = 0.214) conditions were non-significant in the low prestige
condition (Figure 4). These findings support H1a.
In relation to our argument that high (vs low) levels of narcissism will lead to higher levels of
status motive, an independent sample t-test showed that participants in the high narcissism
condition (M = 4.50) reported higher levels of status motive than those in the low narcissism
condition (M = 4.04, t = 2.27, p = 0.025).
To test the underlying process for status motive, we conducted a moderated mediation
analysis using PROCESS Model 15 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples (Hayes, 2017).
Specifically, we examined the indirect effects of narcissism on donation choice via status
motive, as moderated by organizational prestige. As predicted, the indirect effect was only
significant in the high prestige condition (B = 0.098, SE = 0.070, 95% CI: 0.005 to 0.271),
but not in the low prestige condition (95% CI: 0.022 to 0.170; Table 2 for full mediation
results). These results support H2a.

Sharing choice
We conducted a logistic regression analysis with narcissism (1 = high, 0 = low),
organizational prestige (1 = high, 0 = low) and their interaction as independent
variables and sharing choice (1 = yes, 0 = no) as the dependent variable. We found
significant main effects of narcissism (B = 0.33, Wald = 4.50, p = 0.034) and prestige
(B = 0.31, Wald = 3,917, p = 0.048), but qualified by a significant interaction between
narcissism and prestige (B = 0.57, Wald = 13.73, p < 0.001). Specifically, in the high
prestige condition, participants with high narcissism (78%) were more likely to share
the donation link than those with low narcissism (37%, x 2(1) = 16.61, p < 0.001).
However, such differences between participants in the high (38%) and low narcissism
(50% x 2(1) = 1.40, p = 0.236) conditions were non-significant in the low prestige
condition (Figure 5). These findings support H1b.
As before, to test the underlying process of status motive, we conducted a moderated
mediation analysis using PROCESS Model 15 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples (Hayes,
2017). Specifically, we examined the indirect effects of narcissism on sharing choice via

Figure 4 Percentage of participants choosing to donate (Study 2)

100%
90% 82%
80%
70%
59% 61%
60%
50% 46%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Low Narcissism High Narcissism

Low Organizaonal Presge High Organizaonal Presge

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Table 2 Full mediation results (Study 2)
Antecedent Consequent
Status motive Donation choice
DV: donation choice Coeff. SE t p Coeff. SE t p

Constant 4.271 0.103 41.604 <0.001 0.845 0.515 1.642 0.101

Narcissism 0.233 0.103 2.266 0.025 0.054 0.164 0.329 0.742
Status motive — — — — 0.325 0.118 2.753 0.006
Organizational prestige — — — — 0.021 0.515 0.041 0.967
Narcissism  prestige — — — — 0.317 0.164 1.937 0.053
Status motive  prestige — — — — 0.094 0.118 0.798 0.425
Model summary R2 = 0.026, F(1,190) = 5.136, p = 0.025 McFadden R2 = 0.092, p < 0.001
DV: sharing choice Status motive Sharing choice
Coeff. SE t p Coeff. SE t p
Constant 4.271 0.103 41.604 < 0.001 1.549 0.566 2.734 0.006
Narcissism 0.233 0.103 2.266 0.025 0.254 0.160 1.585 0.113
Status motive — — — — 0.363 0.126 2.888 0.004
Organizational prestige — — — — 0.817 0.566 1.442 0.149
Narcissism  prestige — — — — 0.501 0.160 3.122 0.002
Status motive  prestige — — — — 0.241 0.126 1.920 0.055
Model summary R2 = 0.026, F(1,190) = 5.136, p = 0.025 McFadden R2 = 0.131, p < 0.001

Figure 5 Percentage of participants choosing to share (Study 2)

100%
90%
78%
80%
70%
60%
50%
50%
37% 38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Low Narcissism High Narcissism

Low Organizaonal Presge High Organizaonal Presge

status motive, as moderated by organizational prestige. As predicted, the indirect effect

was only significant in the high prestige condition (B = 0.141, SE = 0.085, 95% CI: 0.014 to
0.345), but not in the low prestige condition (95% CI: 0.054 to 0.126; Table 1 for full
mediation results). These results support H2b.

Discussion
The results of Study 2 conducted within a different context (i.e. US respondents via Amazon
Mechanical Turk) show identical results with Study 1. That is, high narcissistic consumers

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
are more likely to donate and share the donation link when the perceived organization
prestige is high. Study 2 used a different appeal to manipulate the perceived organizational
prestige that is by promoting the organization’s reputation rating from Forbes magazine. In
conclusion, the results of Study 1 hold in a different context and, thus, are validated.
Additionally, this study also confirms that narcissism is not only an innate characteristic but
also represents a state that can be activated by external stimuli (i.e. by thinking about one’s
achievement). Therefore, Study 2 provides another empirical support for narcissism
literature suggesting that narcissism is both an innate characteristic and also, a dynamic
state that can be altered in response to contextual aspects (Giacomin and Jordan, 2014;
Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001).
Furthermore, Study 2 provides support for H2, that status motive mediates the relationship
between narcissism and donation-related behavior when the perceived organizational
prestige is high. Consistent with the evolutionary psychology theory, narcissism has a more
tendency to activate status motive when consumers are exposed to a stimulus that is
perceived to enhance themselves such as, perceived organizational prestige (Griskevicius
and Kenrick, 2013). Therefore, the mediating role of status motive is not held when the
perceived organizational prestige is low.

General discussion
The present study provides important theoretical and practical contributions. First and
theoretically, it contributes to the literature on narcissism by confirming that young people and
social media users have narcissistic tendencies (McCain and Campbell, 2018 for a review). We
acknowledge that our study shows a low correlation score (r = 0.37) yet is significant at p < 0.01.
Literature has suggested that there are two types of narcissistic consumers, extrovert and introvert,
in which only extrovert use social media frequently while introvert use social media but they tend to
be more cautious (Ahn et al., 2015; McCain et al., 2016; McCain and Campbell, 2018). As we
focus on the general narcissism, we did not separate those two types of narcissism that probably
contributed to the low correlation with the frequency of social media use. However, we propose
that the use of general narcissism is more practical, as narcissism, in general, can be identified,
such as they are more likely to post-selfies, spend more time and generate more contents in social
media (McCain and Campbell, 2018).
Second, the present research also demonstrates that narcissism can enhance donation and
willingness to share a donation link, but only in the high prestige condition. In other words,
narcissistic consumers respond to donation advertisements differently compared to low
narcissistic consumers only when they are exposed to high-prestige cues. Furthermore, the
present study found that narcissism does not merely represent a stable trait. Narcissism is
also a dynamic state that can be primed by exposure to a specific stimulus, such as asking
consumers to think about an experience of empathic concern or receiving social approval
(Giacomin and Jordan, 2014; Gentile et al., 2013).
Third, our research further confirms the fundamental motive framework. In this case, the
status motive works as the underlying process in the donation decisions of narcissistic
consumers. Specifically, narcissism activates the status motive to increase the donation
decision, but only when given exposure to high-prestige cues. Further, this study shows
empirically that status motive can be induced internally (i.e. through narcissism
characteristics) and will only lead to donation behavior under a specific extrinsic condition
(i.e. exposure to prestigious cues) (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013; Neel et al., 2016).
From a practical perspective, this research also contributes in several ways. First, although
social media users are generally narcissistic, given the appropriate stimuli (i.e. high
prestigious stimuli), a non-profit organization can increase their engagement in donation-
related behavior. Interestingly, a non-profit organization can identify narcissistic consumers
and manipulate the narcissistic state temporarily. For example, the literature on narcissism

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 and social media use have suggested that there are specific social media behaviors linked
to narcissism, such as posting selfies, spend more time and generate more content in
social media (McCain and Campbell, 2018 for a review). The non-profit organization may
also manipulate narcissism by asking their potential donors to think about their achievement
in their donation advertisement (De Bellis et al., 2016; Sakellaropoulo and Baldwin, 2007),
combined with high prestige organizational cues to increase the donation performance.
Second, social marketers and donation organizations potentially benefit from this research
because it illustrates that the use of high prestigious organization reputation appeal in
the donation advertisement increases the donation for narcissistic donors. It adds to the
donation literature as generally non-profit organizations use emotional appeals to elicit
donations (Hibbert et al., 2007; Small and Verrochi, 2009). This research also shows the
efficacy of using the importance of external cues (i.e. celebrity endorsement and positive
public review) in the donation advertisement for increasing perceived organization prestige
and, subsequently, the donation performance (Smidts et al., 2001; Lafferty and Goldsmith,
1999). This research also confirms that a direct description of a prestigious organization’s
reputation can increase donation performance (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; Sengupta
et al., 2015; Baek et al., 2010).

Limitations
We acknowledge several limitations of the present research. First, although an online donation is
complex and involves various aspects that may influence donation decisions, we focus only on
reputational cues for the organization. However, an online donation may also present other
avenues for narcissistic consumers to gain status, such as by providing donation recognition
whereby other people can see who has donated and how much they have donated (Winterich,
2018). Previous studies have confirmed the effect of recognition on donation for the pride
condition, and according to the symbolization dimension of moral identity (Paramita et al., 2020;
Winterich et al., 2013). As narcissistic consumers actively seek admiration from others
(Baumeister and Vohs, 2001), it can be expected that recognition will also positively influence
donation decisions for narcissistic consumers. Thus, future research could include recognition
as one of the antecedents of online donation decisions.
Second, although existing research on reputation suggests that perceived reputation can be
signaled by various types of cues (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; Sengupta et al., 2015). The
current study only used two types of cue, namely, celebrity endorsement and direct description
of the reputation of the donation organization. While the use of prestigious external cues such as
celebrity endorsement is more controllable, the reputation rating from Forbes is less controllable
in the short-term (Nisar et al., 2020; Zakari et al., 2019). Besides, although manipulating
organizational reputation provides higher internal validity for the experiment as it isolates other
brand-related variables such as promotional activities and brand familiarity, it renders lower
external validity. Therefore, further studies could examine the effectiveness of other cues for
increasing perceived reputation or measuring the actual reputation for higher external validity
results.
Third, as the research results show that narcissistic consumers are more likely to share
donation, identifying consumers’ narcissism is also vital for the non-profit organization to
make their donation advertisement goes viral and create free exposure to the donation
advertisement (Libert and Tynski, 2013). Consistently, as prior studies show that they tend
to be more sociable and are attention seekers, a non-profit organization can cultivate the
potential of narcissistic consumers as they will be more likely to enjoy sharing donation
advertisement from a non-profit organization that they perceived as high prestige
(Campbell et al., 2002; McCain and Campbell, 2018).
In conclusion, the present study provides important theoretical and practical contributions
by examining the mechanism and conditions underlying narcissistic consumers’ donation

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
behavior. Not only does this research provide empirical support for the evolutionary
psychology theory and narcissism literature, but the findings are also expected to help
donation organizations to use online or social media platforms and boost the donation
performance of potential donors through leveraging the narcissistic characteristic of young
people and social media users.

Notes
1. To empirically replicate these findings, the current study also conducted a pre-test (N = 148) using
adult consumers in the USA and confirmed a positive correlation between the level of narcissism in
individuals [measured using the narcissistic personality inventory (NPI-13; a = 0.90) (Gentile et al.,
2013)] and their frequency of social media usage [using online sociability scale (Ross, et al.,
2009)]. The correlation (r = 0.37) is significant at p < 0.01.
2. We also tested the potential gender effects by including this variable as covariate in the analyzes.
Results showed that gender did not influence both donation choice (p = 0.167) and sharing
donation link (p = 0.317).
3. The confirmatory factor analysis result shows that status motive construct and narcissism construct
represent two distinct constructs with KMO score = 0.864 (above 0.50) and Bartlett’s test of
Sphericity is significant at 0.000 (below 0.001). In addition, all items are loaded accordingly to each
related construct with loading factors above 0.5.

References
Ablow, K. (2013), “Fox News”, available at: www.foxnews.com/opinion/we-are-raising-a-generation-of-
deluded-narcissists (accessed 9 August 2019).
Ahn, H., Kwolek, E.A. and Bowman, N.D. (2015), “Two faces of narcissism on SNS: the distinct effects of
vulnerable and grandiose narcissism on SNS privacy control”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 45,
pp. 375-381.

Amblee, N. and Bui, T. (2008), “Can brand reputation improve the odds of being reviewed on line?”,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 11-28.

Baek, T.H., Kim, J. and Yu, H.J. (2010), “The differential roles of brand credibility and brand prestige in
consumer brand choice”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 662-678.
Bangkapos.com (2016), available at: www.bangka.tribunnews.com, https://bangka.tribunnews.com/2016/
09/27/inilah-artis-artis-indonesia-yang-paling-dibenci-sekaligus-dicintai (accessed 6 April 2020).
Barett, L., Dunbar, R. and Lycett, J. (2002), Human Evolutionary Psychology, Princeton University Press, NJ.
Barrett, W.P. (2019), available at: www.forbes.com, www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2019/12/11/how-
forbes-picked-americas-top-charities-for-2019-and-what-to-look-for-in-yours/#3e8edf1d7d10 (accessed 8 May
2020).
Basil, D.Z., Nancy, R.M. and Basil, M.D. (2008), “Guilt and giving: a process model of empathy and
efficacy”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Baudot, L., Johnson, J.A., Roberts, A. and Roberts, R.W. (2020), “Is corporate tax aggresiveness a
reputation threat? Corporate accountability, corporate social responsibility, and corporate tax
behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 163 No. 2, pp. 197-215.
Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (2001), “Narcissism as addiction to esteem”, Psychological Inquiry,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 206-210.
Bendapundi, N., Singh, S.N. and Bendapudi, V. (1996), “Enhancing helping behviour: an integrative
framework for promotion planning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 33-49.
Brunell, A.B., Tumblin, L. and Buelow, M.T. (2014), “Narcissism and the motivation to engage in
volunteerism”, Current Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 365-376.
Buffardi, L.E. and Campbell, K.W. (2008), “Narcissism and social networking websites”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1303-1314.

Buss, D.M. and Chiodo, L.M. (1991), “Narcissistic acts in everyday life”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 59
No. 2, pp. 179-215.

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Campbell, K.W., Bush, C.P. and Brunell, A.B. (2005), “Understanding the social costs of narcissism: the
case of the tragedy of the common”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 10,
pp. 1358-1368.
Campbell, K.W., Rudich, E.A. and Sedikides, C. (2002), “Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views:
two portraits of self-love”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 358-368.
Carpenter, C.J. (2012), “Narcissism on Facebook: self-promotional and anti-social behaviour”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 482-486.
Coconuts Jakarta (2020), msn.entertainment.com, available at: www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/celebrity/
actress-nikita-mirzani-placed-under-city-arrest-for-alleged-assault-against-ex-husband/ar-BBZDsIr?li=AAaGkVj
(accessed 6 April 2020).

De Bellis, E., Sprott, D. E., Herrmann, A., Bierhoff, H. W., and Rohmann, E. (2016), The influence of trait
and state narcissism on the uniqueness of mass-customized products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 92
No. 2, pp. 162-172.
Dickert, S., Namika, S. and Slovic, P. (2011), “Affective motivations to help others: a two stage model of
donation decisions”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 361-376.
Donation, D. (2019), available at: www.doublethedonation.com, https://doublethedonation.com/tips/
matching-grant-resources/nonprofit-fundraising-statistics/ (accessed 9 August 2019).
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member
identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-263.
Elliot, A.J. and Thrash, T.M. (2001), “Narcissism and motivation”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 216-219.

Fajardo, T.M., Townsend, C. and Bolander, W. (2018), “Toward an optimal donation solicitation: evidence
from the field of the differential influence of donor-related and organization-related information on
donation choice and amount”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 142-152.
Ferenzi, N., Marshall, T.C. and Bejnayan, K. (2017), “Are sex differences in antisocial and prosocial
Facebook use explained by narcissism and relational self-construal?”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 77, pp. 25-32.

Fombrun, C. and Foss, C. (2004), “Business ethics: corporate responses to scandal”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 284-288.

Fombrun, C.J. (2012), “The building blocks of corporate reputation: definitions, antecedents,
consequences”, in Barnett, M.L. and Pollock, T.G. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 94-113.
Gentile, B., Joshua, D.M., Brian, J.H., Dennis, E.R., Zeichner, A. and Campbell, W.K. (2013), “A test of
two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: the narcissistic personality inventory-13 and the narcisstic
personality inventory-16”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 1-17.

Giacomin, M. and Jordan, C.H. (2014), “Down-regulating narcissistic tendencies: communal focus
reduces state narissism”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 488-500.
Griskevicius, V. and Kenrick, D.T. (2013), “Fundamental motives: how evolutionary needs influence
consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 372-386.
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M.N. and Nowlis, S.M. (2010a), “The many shades of rose-colored glasses: an
evolutionary approach to the influence of different positive emotions”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 238-250.
Griskevicius, V., Van den Bergh, B. and Tybur, J.M. (2010b), “Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and
conspicuous conservation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 392-404.

Harton, R.S., Reid, C.A.,Barber, J.M., Miracle, J. and Green, J.D. (2014), “An experimental investigation
of the influence of agentic and communal Facebook use on grandiose narcissism”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 93-98.
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York.
Helm, S., Garnefeld, I. and Tolsdorf, J. (2009), “Perceived corporate reputation and consumer
satisfaction–an experimental exploration of causal relationships”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 69-74.

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consmer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet”, Journal
of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Heriyanto, D. (2018), available at: www.thejakartapost.com, www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/11/02/
welcome-to-the-most-generous-country-in-the-world-indonesia.html (accessed 6 April 2020).
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A. and Ireland, F. (2007), “Guilt appeals: persuassion knowledge and
charitable giving”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 723-742.

Hsu, K.-T. (2012), “The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and brand
equity: evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 2,
pp. 189-201.
Ibrisevic, I. (2018), available at: www.donorbox.org, https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/7-nonprofit-
social-media-trends-taking-over-2018/ (accessed 9 August 2019).

Kang, E. and Lakshmanan, A. (2018), “Narcissism and self-versus recipient-oriented imagery in

charitable giving”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 1214-1227.
Kenrick, D.T. et al. (2010), “Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior: the fundamental-motives
framework”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 63-67.
Kim, S.S., Lee, J. and Prideaux, B. (2014), “Effect of celebrity endorsement on tourists’ perception of
corporate image, corporate credibility and corporate loyalty”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 37, pp. 131-145.
Konrath, S., Ho, M.-H. and Zarins, S. (2016), “The strategic helper: narcissism and prosocial motives and
behaviors”, Current Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 182-194.
Kupor, D. and Laurin, K. (2020), “Probable cause: the influence of prior probabilities on forecasts and
perceptions of magnitude”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 833-852.
Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and
purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility EndorserIs used in the ad”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 109-116.
Lee, Y.K. and Chang, C.T. (2007), “Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation
behavior”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1173-1180.
Libert, K. and Tynski, K. (2013), “The emotions that make marketing campaigns go viral”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 1.
McCain, J.L. and Campbell, K.W. (2018), “Narcissism and social media use: a meta-analytic review”,
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 308-327.

McCain, J.L., Borg, Z.G., Rothenberg, A.H., Churillo, K.M., Weiler, P. and Campbell, W.K. (2016), “Personality
and selfies: narcissism and the dark triad”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 126-133.
MacLauglin, S. (2017), “SGENGAGE”, available at: https://npengage.com/nonprofit-fundraising/4-facts-
online-donors/
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model
of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Malcolm, L. (2014), “ABC”, available at: www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/young-people-
today-are-more-narcissistic-than-ever/5457236
Miller, J.D. and Maples, J. (2011), “Trait personality models of narcissistic personality disorder, grandiose
narcissism, and vulnerable narcissism”, in Campbell, K.M. and Miller, J.D. (Eds), The Handbook of
Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Findings, and
Treatments, John Willey & Sons, NJ, pp. 71-88.

Morf, C.C. and Rhodewalt, F. (1993), “Narcissism and self-evaluation maintenance: explorations in object
relations”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 668-676.
Morf, C.C. and Rhodewalt, F. (2001), “Unravelling the paradoxes of narcissism: a dynamic self-regulatory
processing model”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 177-196.
National Geographic (2020), available at: www.nationalgeographic.org, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/
encyclopedia/ring-fire/ (accessed 6 April 2020).
Neel, R., Kenrick, D.T., White, A.E. and Neuberg, S.L. (2016), “Individual differences in fundamental
social motives”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 110 No. 6, pp. 887.

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Nisar, T.M., Prabhakar, G., Illavarasan, V. and Baabdullah, A.M. (2020), “Up the ante: electronic word of mouth
and its effect on firm reputation and performance”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 53.
NP Source (2019), “The ultimate list of charitable giving statistics for 2018”, available at: https://
nonprofitssource.com/online-giving-statistics/
Paramita, W., Septianto, F. and Tjiptono, F. (2020), “The distinct effects of gratitude and pride on donation
choice and amount”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 53, p. 101972.
Park, N. and Lee, K.M. (2007), “Effects of online news forum on corporate reputation”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 346-348.
Prewett, A., Elliot, C. and Story, P.A. (2019), “Watch me give: narcissism as a moderator to donating to a
non-profit”, The Kennesaw Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 2.
Roberts, J.A. and Roberts, C.R. (2012), “Money matters: does the symbolic presence of money affect
charitable giving and attitudes among adolescents?”, Young Consumers, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 329-336.
Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G. and Orr, R.R. (2009), Personality and
motivations associated with Facebook use”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 578-586.
Rucker, D.D., DuBois, D. and Galinsky, A.D. (2011), “Generous paupers and stingy princes: power drives
consumer spending on elf and others”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1015-1029.
Sakellaropoulo, M. and Baldwin, M. W. (2007), “The hidden sides of self-esteem: two dimensions of
implicit self-esteem and their relation to narcissistic reactions”, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 995-1001.
Sengupta, A.S., Balaji, M. and Krishnan, B.C. (2015), “How customers cope with service failure? A study of
Brand reputation and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 665-674.
Septianto, F. and Tjiptono, F. (2019), “The interactive effect of emotional appeals and past performance
of a charity on the effectiveness of charitable advertising”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 50, pp. 189-198.
Septianto, F., Tjiptono, F. and Arli, D. (2020), “Authentically, proudly ethical: the effects of authentic pride on
consumer acceptance of unethical behaviour”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 351-379.
Septianto, F., Sung, B., Seo, Y. and Tugiman, N. (2018), “Proud volunteers: the role of self- and vicarious-
pride in promoting volunteering”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 501-519.
Simoes, C., Dibb, S. and Fisk, R.P. (2005), “Managing corporate identity: an internal perspective”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 153-168.
Sims, R. (2009), “Toward a better understanding of organizational efforts to rebuild reputation following
an ethical scandal”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 453-472.
Small, D.A. and Verrochi, N.M. (2009), “The face of need: facial emotion expression on charity
advertisements”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 777-787.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H. and van Riel, C.B.M. (2001), “The impact of employee communication and perceived
external prestige on organizational identification”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5,
pp. 1051-1062.
Statista (2020), available at: www.statista.com, www.statista.com/statistics/883464/indonesia-donation-
based-crowdfunding-market-size/ (accessed 6 April 2020).
Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G. and Hardy, C. (2007), “Competitive altruism: development of reputation-based
cooperation in groups”, in Dunbar, R. and Barret, L. (Eds), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 531-540.
Verhaert, G.A. and Van den Poel, D. (2011), “Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 12, pp. 1288-1295.
Vazire, S. and Funder, D.C. (2006), “Impulsivity and the self-defending behavior of narcissists”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 154-165.
Vonk, J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mayhew, P. and Mercer, S. (2013), “Mirror, mirror on the wall, which form of narcissist
knows self and others best of all?”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 396-401.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Jackson, P.R. and Beatty, S.E. (2009), “Examining the antecedents and
consequences of corporate reputation: a customer perspective”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Wang, Y. and Berens, G. (2015), “The impact of four types of corporate social performance on reputation
and financial performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 131 No. 2, pp. 337-359.

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
Winterich, K. (2018), “The conversation”, available at: https://theconversation.com/not-everyone-wants-
their-donations-touted-on-facebook-or-plastered-on-walls-106752 (accessed 5 November 2019).
Winterich, K.P., Mittal, V. and Aquino, K. (2013), “When does recognition increase charitable behavior?
Toward a moral identity-based model”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 121-134.
Zakari, M., Dogbe, C.S.K. and Asante, C. (2019), “Effect of celebrity endorsement on telecommunication
companies’ reputation”, Management Research Review, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 1297-1314.

Zhang, B. and Kim, J.-H. (2013), “Luxury fashion consumption in China: factors affecting attitude and
purchase intent”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 68-79.
Zhou, L. and Whitla, P. (2013), “How negative celebrity publicity influences consumer attitudes: the
mediating role of moral reputation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1013-1020.

Further reading
Arli, D., Tjiptono, F., Lasmono, H. and Anandya, D. (2017), “Do consumer ethics and consumer
religiousness evolve across time?”, Young Consumers, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 329-347.
Kagama.co (2020), “Kagama care”, available at: http://kagama.co/tag/kagama-care (accessed 9 May
2020).
Liang, J. and Wang, L. (2007), A Study on the Signaling Mechanism of Corporate Reputation, IEEE.
Liu, L. (2017), “Empathy or perceived credibility?”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 623-651.
Miller, J.D. and Campbell, K.W. (2008), “Comparing clinical and social personality conceptualizations of
narcissism”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 449-476.
Murillo, D.E., Kang, J. and Yoon, S. (2016), “Factors influencing pro-social consumer behavior through
non-profit organizations”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 626-643.
Patrick, A.S. and Black, A. (1997), “Who is going online? Results from the national Capital freenet”,
Internet Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 305-319.
Shier, M.L. and Handy, F. (2012), “Understanding online donor behavior: the role of donor
characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social network”,
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 219-230.

Appendix
List of scales
Study 1

1. NPI-13

䊏 I am happy when I have power over others.

䊏 I have strong desire to be someone with power.
䊏 People seems to always acknowledge my authority.
䊏 I am born as a leader.
䊏 I know that I am a good person because many others told me so.
䊏 I like to show myself to others.
䊏 I like to watch/observe myself.
䊏 I will show off when there is an opportunity to do so.
䊏 I like to watch over my own body on the mirror.
䊏 It is easy for me to manipulate others.
䊏 I insist to receive respects that I deserve.
䊏 I expect a lot from others.
䊏 I never satisfied until I get what I deserve.
2. Dependent variable

䊏 Would you donate through the NPO (donation organization)?

䊏 Would you share an advertisement or donation call from the NPO to others through
your social media?

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
 Study 2

1. Evaluations on donation and sharing

䊏 If you were given the chance, would you donate to this organization?
䊏 If you were given the chance, would you be willing to share the information about
this organization to others through your social media page?
2. Evaluation of the organization

䊏 Very prestigious.
䊏 Has a good reputation.
䊏 Is looked up as a prestigious company to work for.
3. Evaluations on ads

䊏 Proud.
䊏 Grateful.
䊏 Compassionate.
4. Evaluations on self

䊏 It is important to me that other people look up to me.

䊏 I want to be in a position of leadership.
䊏 It is important for me that others respect my rank or position.
䊏 I do things to ensure that I do not lose the status I have.
䊏 I do not like being at the bottom of a hierarchy.
䊏 I am worried very much about losing status.

Manipulation Study 2
Low prestige
Donate.org is a social organization that manage and distribute from society to people in
needs such as water victims or social problems globally. Donate.org has been rated as an
average (three stars) social organization in the world in 2018 by Forbes. The rating was
measured based on several criteria such as honesty, integrity, accountability and accuracy
in distributing the donation fund and manage social funding. Help people in needs via
Donate.org by going to this website: www.donate.org/donate.

High prestige
Donate.org is a social organization that manage and distribute from society to people in
needs such as water victims or social problems globally. Donate.org has been awarded by
Forbes as the most respected (five stars) social organization in the world in 2018. The social
organization has been known for its honesty, integrity, accountability and accuracy in
distributing the donation fund and manage social funding. Help people in needs via
Donate.org by going to this website: www.donate.org/donate.

Corresponding author
Widya Paramita can be contacted at: widyaparamita@ugm.ac.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j YOUNG CONSUMERS j