Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64 , No. 6

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 6, pp.5-42
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2020
Received 09 Oct 2020 Revised 30 Nov 2020 Accepted 02 Dec 2020

모바일 기부 애플리케이션의 메시지 유형과 기부 방식이 모바일 기부의도에 미치는 영향
김윤경** ; 박남기*** ; 신은수**** ; 장은채*****
**연세대학교 언론홍보영상학부 강사 (
***연세대학교 언론홍보영상학부 교수 (
****연세대학교 일반대학원 언론홍보영상학과 박사과정 (
*****연세대학교 일반대학원 언론홍보영상학과 석사과정 (

The effects of message strategies and donation methods via mobile donation applications on mobile donation intention
Yoonkyoung Kim** ; Namkee Park*** ; Eun-soo Shin**** ; Eunchae Jang*****
**Instructor, Department of Communication, Yonsei University (
***Professor, Department of Communication, Yonsei University, corresponding author (
****Doctoral student, Department of Communication, Yonsei University (
*****M.S. student, Department of Communication, Yonsei University (
Funding Information ▼


본 연구는 모바일 기부를 증진시키는 방법의 일환으로, 모바일 기부 애플리케이션의 메시지 유형과 기부 방식이 기부의도와 기부 애플리케이션의 이용의도에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았다. 즉, 모바일 기부 애플리케이션 메시지의 유형(이용자에 집중한 메시지 vs. 기부 수혜자에 집중한 메시지 vs. 혼합 메시지)과 기부 방식(현금 기부 vs. 참여 기부)이 기부의도와 기부 애플리케이션 이용의도에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았다. 또한 개인적인 성향을 고려하여 이타주의, 사회규범, 자아존중감을 포함하여 분석하였다. 분석결과, 기부 방식이 기부의도와 애플리케이션 이용의도에 유의미한 영향을 미쳤으며, 참여 기부의 경우 개인의 기부의도와 애플리케이션 이용의도 모두 높게 나타났다. 그러나 기부 메시지 유형과 기부 방식의 상호작용 효과는 나타나지 않았다. 또한 집단간 차이가 유의미하게 나타나지는 않았으나, 이용자에게 집중한 메시지를 받은 집단에서 기부의도와 애플리케이션 이용의도가 다른 집단에 비해 높게 나타났다. 본 연구는 향후 기부 애플리케이션의 발전 방향을 제시함으로써 기부 애플리케이션 개발에 기여할 것으로 기대된다. 또한 메시지 전략과 기부 방식의 다양화로 잠재적 기부자들에게 기부를 유도할 수 있는 방안을 제시하였다.


As part of ways to promote mobile donation, this study examined the effects of message strategies and donation methods via mobile donation applications on intention to donate and continued use of the donation application. The mobile donation application message was about how notifications or messages could be sent to users in different ways, for example, messages that are focused on the users, messages that are related to donation beneficiaries, and mixed messages that are focused on the users and donation beneficiaries. Participants who received messages focusing on the users received empathetic messages or interesting messages that people could enjoy. Participants who received messages related to donation beneficiaries read about the hard situations of the poor, young children, abandoned dogs, poor elders who live alone, and children of the third world nations. The other groups received two messages focusing on the users and two messages about donation beneficiaries. The donation type was divided into cash donations and participation donations, such as walking donations, donations of points collected after viewing advertisements, or donations of points accumulated by the way of photo-taking of related issues through mobile donation applications. In addition, considering personal dispositions, participants' levels of altruism, perception toward social norms (subjective norm, personal descriptive norm, personal injunctive norm, societal descriptive norm, and societal injunctive norm), and self-esteem were included. The study found that the donation method had an effect on donation intention and application use intention. Moreover, in terms of donation type, participants who were in the method of participation donation exhibited higher donation intention and application use intention than those in the method of cash donation. The difference between message strategies was not significant to have an effect on donation or application use intention. Although the group difference with respect to the message type was not significant, the group that received the message focused on the users showed higher donation intention and application use intention than other groups. In addition, descriptive norms were significant in predicting donation intention and application use intention. The higher descriptive norms participants perceived, the higher donation intention and application use intention they had. With such results, the importance of social norms in donations was confirmed. Given the decreased donation rate in South Korea, the study suggests that mobile donation applications can be developed by using various message strategies, while offering diverse donation methods that people can easily and effectively utilize.

Keywords: 영문키워드
키워드: 모바일 기부, 메시지 전략, 기부 방식, 기부의도, 애플리케이션 이용 의도


This work was supported by the Yonsei University Research Grant of 2020 (이 논문은 연세대학교 2020년 학술연구비의 지원으로 이루어진 것임).

1. Ahn, J., & Sung, Y. (2019). Donation toward in-groups vs. out-groups: The effects of self-construal and advertising message type. Korean Psychological Association: Consumer Advertising, 20(4), 423-444.
2. Aju Business Daily (2014, August 24). The ice bucket challenge craze around the world…raised over 30 billion won within 3 weeks. Retrieved 09/24/2020 from
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
4. Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89-105.
5. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1, 115-160.
7. Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, altruism and morality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8. Browne, K. M., Hoyle, R., & Nicholson, M. (2012). Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social connectedness as mediators of the relationship between volunteering and well-being. Journal of Social Service Research, 38, 468-483.
9. Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2010). Mobile communication and social capital: An analysis of geographically differentiated usage patterns. New Media & Society, 12(3), 435-451.
10. Chen, W., & Givens, T. (2013). Mobile donation in America. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(2), 196-212.
11. Choi, B., & Kim, M. (2016). Donation via mobile applications: A study of the factors affecting mobile donation application use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32(12), 967-974.
12. Choi, M., & Park, N. (2019). Effects of risk responsibility attribution and likelihood of pro-social behaviors on intention to donate to disaster relief funds. Journal of Speech Media and Communication Research, 18(4), 7-49.
13. Chu, S. (2017, October 29). [Non-profit Fundraising Content A-Z] Secrets of donating 1.5 billion won in the past year as a social donation platform. Chosun News. Retrieved 09/24/2020 from
14. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234.
15. D’Alessasndro, A. M., Peltier, J. W., & Dahl, A. J. (2012). The impact of social, cognitive, and attitudinal dimensions on college students’ support for organ donation. American Journal of Transplantation, 12, 152-161.
16. Dawson, S. (1988). Four motivations for charitable giving: Implications for marketing strategy to attract monetary donations for medical research. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 8(2), 31-37.
17. De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425-449.
18. Diminescu, D., Licoppe, C., Smoreda, Z., & Ziemlicki, C. (2009). Tailing untethered mobile user: Studying urban mobilities and communication practices. In R. Ling & S. W. Campbell (Eds.), The reconstruction of space and time: Mobile communication practices (pp. 17-37). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
19. Donation Research Center (2014. August 26). The beautiful foundation. Retrieved 09/22/2020 from
20. Edwards, S. M., Lee, J. K., & Ferle, C. L. (2009). Does place matter when shopping online? Perceptions of similarity and familiarity as indicators of psychological distance. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(1), 35-50.
21. Eisenberg, N., Fabes. R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial behavior. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development, 6th ed. (pp. 646–718). New York: Wiley.
22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23. Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 562-572.
24. Go, G., Jang, Y., Lee, Y., Han, S., & Jin, J. (2019). Nanum (acts of sharing) status policy report 2018. Retrieved 09/23/2020 from;jsessionid=2249474874C72A472F6EA27456DD8323.node02?cond_research_name=&cond_research_start_date=&cond_research_end_date=&research_id=1351000-202000030&pageIndex=2&leftMenuLevel=160
25. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Jones, S. C. (1973). Self-and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79(3), 185-199.
27. Jung, D., Seol, S., Lee, M, & Kim, H. (2014). How does others’ observation affect ethical consumption in the brain? Korean Psychological Association Conference, 2014(1), 138-138.
28. Jung, I., Kim, E., & Baek, Y. M. (2014). An exploratory study on the relationship between Internet use and communication norms. The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies, 58(3), 283-312.
29. Kenrick, D., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2015). Social psychology: Goals in interaction. London , UK: Pearson Education.
30. Kim, G. (2020, May 04). Will donations from emergency disaster relief funds work? Donation index in Korean ranked 20th in OECD. Yonhap News. Retrieved 09/22/2020 from
31. Kim, H. (2009). A study on the factors influencing on constant donation intention. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Seonam University, Jeollabuk-do, South Korea.
32. Kopfman, J. E., & Smith, S. W. (1996). Understanding the audiences of a health communication campaign: A discriminant analysis of potential organ donors based on intent to donate. Journal of Applied Communication, 24, 22–49.
33. Korean Information Society Development Institute (2019). The current status of digital divide. KISDI STAT Report 19-22.
34. Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127-147.
35. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62.
36. Lee, B., & Choi, M. (2008). Exploring the persuasive effect of entertainment-education as a new public campaign: The influences of television programs on attitudes and behavior toward organ donation. Korea Advertising Society, 19(1), 75-97.
37. Lee, G. (2018). The fundraising advertisement’s effect of NGOs. Academy of Korean Social Welfare Administration, 20(2), 205-232.
38. Lii, Y. S., Wu, K. W., & Ding, M. C. (2013). Doing good does good? Sustainable marketing of CSR and consumer evaluations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(1), 15-28.
39. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269.
40. Moreland, R. L., & Topolinski, S. (2010). The mere exposure phenomenon: A lingering melody by Robert Zajonc. Emotion Review, 2, 329-339.
41. Morgan, S. E (2004). The power of talk: African Americans’ communication with family members about organ donation and its impact on the willingness to donate organs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(1), 112-124.
42. Morgan, S. E., & Miller, J. (2002) Communicating about gifts of life: The effect of knowledge, attitudes, and altruism on behavior and behavioral intentions regarding organ donation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(2), 163-178.
43. Nam, K. (2017). Identifiable victim effect and donation intention: Focusing on the moderating effect of spatial distance and advertising skepticism. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 61(5), 405-433.
44. Park, H., Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2013). The impact of recipients’ information and interaction with message framing on charitable persuasion. Korean Psychological Association: Consumer Advertising, 14(1), 24-44.
45. Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 194-218.
46. Park, J. Y. (2019). KISDI STAT Report: Reality of Digital Divide (Vol. 19-22). Jincheon: Korea Information Society Development Institute (KISDI).
47. Park, M., Noh, B., Jeon, H., Yu, J., & Kang, S. (2019). [Special session 4. Social welfare community] 2019 Donation trend forecast in Korea. Academy of Korean Social Welfare Administration, Conference, 199-212.
48. Park, N., Oh, H. S., & Kang, N. (2015). Effect of ego involvement and social norms on individuals’ uploading intention of Wikipedia: A comparative study between the United States and South Korea. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1494-1506.
49. Radecki, C. M., & Jaccard, J. (1997). Psychological aspects of organ donation: A critical review and synthesis of individual and next-of-kin donation decisions. Health Psychology, 16(2), 183-195.
50. Rheingold, H. (2007). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York: Basic Books.
51. Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1088-1097.
52. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
53. Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302.
54. Scheff, T. J., Retzinger, S. M., & Ryan, M. T. (1989). Crime, violence, and self-esteem: Review and proposals. In A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser & J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), The social importance of self-esteem (pp. 165-199), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
55. Statistics Korea. (2019). The result of survey (Welfare, Social Participation, Culture and Leisure, Income and Labor Consumption) in 2019.
56. Steele, W. R., Schreiber, G. B., Guiltinan, A., Nass, C., Glynn, S. A., Wright, D. J., Kessler, D., Schlumpf, K. S., Tu, Y., Smith, J. W., & Garratty, G. (2008). The role of altruistic behavior, empathetic concern, and social responsibility motivation in blood donation behavior. Transfusion, 29, 43-54.
57. Suh M., Kang M., & Ahn, J. (2010). The roles of customer participation behavior and citizenship behavior in the relationship development. Korean Journal of Marketing, 25(1), 159-193.
58. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
59. Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 926-930.
60. Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2014). Facebook: The enabler of online civic engagement for activists. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 284-289.
61. Yu, J., Jung, M., & Cho, S. (2007). Study on corporate communication messages in crisis. Korean Association of AD & PR, 9(3), 104-128.
62. Ye, J., & Kang, M. (2014). The influence of advertising messages and self-construal on donation intention. Korean Management Review, 43(4), 1317-1342.
63. Ye, J., Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2017). The influence of the attribution of recipient’s responsibility on donor’s empathy and donation intention. Journal of Media Economics & Culture, 15(1), 7-49.
64. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.

1. 고경환·장영식·이연희·한솔희·진재현 (2019). <나눔실태 2018 정책 보고서>. Retrieved 09/23/2020 from;jsessionid=2249474874C72A472F6EA27456DD8323.node02?cond_research_name=&cond_research_start_date=&cond_research_end_date=&research_id=1351000-202000030&pageIndex=2&leftMenuLevel=160
2. 김경윤 (2020.05.04). “재난지원금 기부 잘 될까” 한국 기부지수 OECD 20위 그쳐. <연합뉴스>. Retrieved 09/22/2020 from
3. 김해숙 (2009). <지속적인 기부의도에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구>. 서남대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
4. 남경태 (2017). 인식 가능한 수혜자 효과와 기부의도: 공간적 거리감과 광고 회의주의의 조절 효과를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 61권 5호, 405-433.
5. 박미희·노법래·전현경·유재윤·강수진 (2019). [특별세션 4. 사회복지공동모금회] 2019 한국의 기부 트렌드 전망. <한국사회복지행정학회 학술대회 자료집>, 199-212.
6. 박주영 (2019). <KISDI STAT Report: 디지털 디바이드(Digitial Divide)의 실태> (19-22권). 진천: 정보통신정책연구원.
7. 박하연·성영신·김지연 (2013). 기부 설득에서 수혜자 특성과 메시지 프레이밍의 상호작용 효과. <한국심리학회지: 소비자광고>, 14권 1호, 24-44.
8. 서문식·강명주·안진우. (2010). 관계발전과정에서 고객참여행동과 시민행동의 역할에 관한 연구. <마케팅연구>, 25권 1호, 159-193.
9. 아름다운 재단 기부문화연구소. (2014.08.26.). Retrieved 09/22/2020 from
10. 아주경제신문 (2014.08.24). “전 세계를 휘감은 아이스버킷챌린지 열풍...3주간 300억이상 모금”. <아주경제신문>. Retrieved 09/24/2020 from
11. 안정용·성용준 (2019). 내/외집단 기부 수혜자에 대한 심리적 거리가 기부 캠페인 설득 효과에 미치는 영향: 기부자의 자기해석성향과 광고 메시지 유형의 조절된 매개효과를 중심으로. <한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고>, 20권 4호, 423-444.
12. 예종석·강명애 (2014). 광고메시지의 특성과 소비자의 자기해석이 기부의도에 미치는 영향. <경영학연구>, 43권 4호, 1317-1342.
13. 예종석·이상균·김영미 (2017). 기부 광고에서 수혜자에 대한 책임 귀인이 기부자의 공감과 기부 의도에 미치는 영향. <미디어 경제와 문화>, 15권 1호, 7-49.
14. 유종숙·정만수·조삼섭. (2007). 위기시 기업 커뮤니케이션 메시지 형태 비교 연구. <한국광고홍보학보>, 9권 3호, 104-128.
15. 이광재 (2018). 비영리단체의 모금 광고의 효과. <한국사회복지행정학>, 20권 2호, 205-232.
16. 이병관·최명일 (2008). 새로운 미디어 공공 캠페인으로서 교육적-오락물의 설득효과에 대한 탐구. <광고학연구>, 19권 1호, 75∼97.
17. 정대현·설선혜·이민우·김학진 (2014). 타인의 시선에 의한 윤리적 소비행태 변화의 신경학적 경로. <한국심리학회 학술대회 자료집>, 2014년 1호, 138-138.
18. 정보통신정책연구원 (2010). <디지털 디바이드(Digial Divide)의 실태>. Retrieved 11/20/2020 from
19. 정일권·김은미·백영민 (2014). 인터넷 이용과 커뮤니케이션 규범 변화의 관계에 관한 연구. <한국언론학보>, 58권 3호, 283-312.
20. 주선영 (2017, 10, 29). [비영리 모금 컨텐츠 A-Z] 소셜 기부 플랫폼으로 최근 1년간 15억 기부한 비결. <더나은미래. 조선일보 공익섹션>. Retrieved 09/24/2020 from
21. 최미현·박남기 (2019). 위기책임성 귀인과 친사회적 행동 경향이 재해구호 성금 기부의도에 미치는 영향. <한국소통학보>, 18권 4호, 7-49.
22. 통계청 (2019). <2019년 사회조사 결과(복지, 사회 참여, 문화와 여가, 소득과 소비 노동)>. Retrieved 09/24/2020 from