善心是否盲目？災後募款情境與非營利組織責信對大眾公益捐款決策之影響

Abstract

近年來重大災害事件頻仍，災後募款已成為非營利組織動員社會資源的重要途徑。然而，隨著慈善組織財務不透明、善款流向不明及治理爭議事件屢見不鮮，公眾在面對募款訊息時是否願意捐款，不再只是情緒反應或利他動機的展現，而涉及組織責信、公共信任與捐款決策等公共治理議題。既有研究多著重於災難情境所引發之同情心與情緒激發效果，或探討非營利組織績效與資訊成本對捐款行為之影響，惟較少檢視災後情境與組織責信資訊如何共同影響公眾之捐款決策。 有鑑於此，本文以修正式計畫行為理論為基礎，結合非營利組織責信、腐敗感知與災後募款相關文獻，採用2×3組間問卷實驗設計，以募款情境（平時／災後）及組織責信資訊（無資訊／負面資訊／正面資訊）作為實驗情境，共蒐集386份有效樣本，並以捐款意圖、模擬捐款比例及是否捐款作為主要分析指標。 研究結果顯示：第一，負面責信資訊顯著提高公眾之腐敗感知與背叛感，並降低捐款意圖、捐款比例及捐款可能性；第二，正面責信資訊未能顯著提升捐款反應，顯示財務透明與治理健全已逐漸成為公眾對非營利組織的基本期待；第三，災後情境雖能有效提升情緒激發與急迫感知，卻未顯著提高捐款意圖與行為反應；第四，災後情境與責信資訊之交互作用未達統計顯著，顯示災難情緒不足以抵銷組織失信所造成的負面影響。 整體而言，本研究發現公眾之公益捐款決策並非單純受情緒驅動，而是情緒反應、社會規範、過去經驗與組織責信評估共同作用的結果。研究結果不僅補充災後募款與慈善捐贈相關文獻，也凸顯透明、廉潔與責信已成為非營利組織獲取社會支持與維繫公共信任的重要基礎。

In recent years, major disasters have occurred with increasing frequency, making post-disaster fundraising an important mechanism through which nonprofit organizations mobilize social resources. However, recurring controversies surrounding financial opacity, unclear allocation of donated funds, and organizational governance failures have raised concerns about whether the public remains willing to donate when confronted with fundraising appeals. Charitable giving is therefore no longer merely a reflection of emotional responses or altruistic motivations; it has become closely associated with broader issues of organizational accountability, public trust, and donation decision-making. Existing studies have primarily emphasized the effects of sympathy and emotional arousal generated by disaster situations or examined how nonprofit performance and information costs influence charitable giving. Comparatively less attention has been devoted to understanding how disaster contexts and organizational accountability information jointly shape public donation decisions. To address this gap, this study draws upon the Revised Theory of Planned Behavior and integrates insights from the literature on nonprofit accountability, corruption perception, and disaster fundraising. A 2×3 between-subjects survey experiment was employed, manipulating fundraising context (ordinary versus post-disaster) and accountability information (no information, negative information, and positive information). A total of 386 valid responses were collected. Donation intention, simulated donation allocation, and donation participation were used as the primary outcome variables. The findings reveal four major patterns. First, negative accountability information significantly increases perceptions of corruption and feelings of betrayal, while reducing donation intention, donation allocation, and the likelihood of donating. Second, positive accountability information does not significantly enhance donation responses, suggesting that financial transparency and sound governance have gradually become baseline expectations rather than value-added signals for nonprofit organizations. Third, although post-disaster contexts effectively heighten emotional arousal and perceived urgency, they do not significantly increase donation intention or donation behavior. Fourth, the interaction effect between disaster context and accountability information is statistically insignificant, indicating that disaster-induced emotions are insufficient to offset the negative consequences of organizational misconduct and accountability concerns. Overall, the findings suggest that public charitable giving decisions are not driven solely by emotional impulses. Rather, they are shaped by the combined influence of emotional reactions, social norms, prior donation experiences, and evaluations of organizational accountability. By extending the literature on disaster fundraising and charitable giving, this study highlights the central role of accountability in shaping donation decisions and demonstrates that transparency, integrity, and accountability have become essential foundations for nonprofit organizations seeking to secure public support and sustain public trust.