Charitable crowdfunding donation-intention estimation depending on emotional project images using fNIRS-based functional connectivity

SuJin Bak; Minsun Yeu; Dongwon Min; Jaehoon Lee; Jichai Jeong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303144

. 2024 May 8;19(5):e0303144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303144

Charitable crowdfunding donation-intention estimation depending on emotional project images using fNIRS-based functional connectivity

SuJin Bak ^1,^#, Minsun Yeu ^2,^#, Dongwon Min ^3,^*, Jaehoon Lee ^4,^*, Jichai Jeong ^5,^*

Editor: Holger A Rau⁶

PMCID: PMC11078340 PMID: 38718035

Abstract

Charitable fundraising increasingly relies on online crowdfunding platforms. Project images of charitable crowdfunding use emotional appeals to promote helping behavior. Negative emotions are commonly used to motivate helping behavior because the image of a happy child may not motivate donors to donate as willingly. However, some research has found that happy images can be more beneficial. These contradictory results suggest that the emotional valence of project imagery and how fundraisers frame project images effectively remain debatable. Thus, we compared and analyzed brain activation differences in the prefrontal cortex governing human emotions depending on donation decisions using functional near-infrared spectroscopy, a neuroimaging device. We advance existing theory on charitable behavior by demonstrating that little correlation exists in donation intentions and brain activity between negative and positive project images, which is consistent with survey results on donation intentions by victim image. We also discovered quantitative brain hemodynamic signal variations between donors and nondonors, which can predict and detect donor mental brain functioning using functional connectivity, that is, the statistical dependence between the time series of electrophysiological activity and oxygenated hemodynamic levels in the prefrontal cortex. These findings are critical in developing future marketing strategies for online charitable crowdfunding platforms, especially project images.

Introduction

Charity fundraising increasingly relies on online crowdfunding platforms [1]. Donation-based crowdfunding platforms are easy to access and operate, allowing fundraisers to launch charity crowdfunding projects easily. Fundraisers post their projects with images and brief descriptions on an online charitable crowdfunding platform. As competition for charitable crowdfunding projects intensifies, research on the effect of the project image on donor behavior is needed to increase the project success effectively.

Project images use a variety of emotional appeals to promote helping behavior. According to the literature, charitable donors are influenced by project images, and emotionally engaging images are critical in attracting donor attention and motivating charitable donations [2]. Thus, when seeking an answer to what makes people perform helping behavior, it is crucial to consider the behavior concerning the emotions the project image generates.

Negative emotions are commonly used to motivate positive behavior, such as donating. Consumers often rely on victim images (i.e., beneficiary images with negative expressions) to decide to engage in helping behavior [3]. The image of a happy child may not motivate donors to donate as willingly. Most past studies have suggested that negative emotions, such as sadness, expressed in images more effectively elicit helping behaviors [4–6]. For example, Burt et al. found that images of children that evoked negative emotions produced higher positive responses to donations and potential donations than images that evoked positive emotions [5]. Fisher et al. found that, unlike negative emotions, positive emotions, such as love and pride, did not increase donation behavior in response to television advertisements focused on children’s needs and fundraising [7]. Most donors donate money when the image is negative rather than happy or neutral. Negative emotions are more effective than positive emotions across texts and content, including images [8].

Moreover, the group Save the Children completed an in-house two-year research project and decided to change how they portray beneficiaries by adding positive imagery [9]. Their findings revealed that a happy victim image may be more beneficial [10]. Seeing a happy child in a charity advertisement can drive a larger potential donation because it allows donors to see the results of their donation. Sciulli et al. argued that advertisements with high positive emotional intensity encourage viewers to participate in relevant social causes [11].

These contradictory results suggest that the emotional valence of project images is still debatable, suggesting that how fundraisers frame project images effectively remains unclear. We solve this problem through empirical biosignal analysis using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), the latest neuroimaging device. Many studies on emotional valence can be interpreted according to the prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity of the brain. The PFC is situated in the frontal lobe toward the front of the brain. Its primary role is to govern human emotions, such as cognitive control, encompassing attention, behavior, thoughts, and so on [12]. In line with this role, studying the brain activity of the PFC enables us to anticipate human behavioral donation patterns. One approach to understanding the state of the PFC is to calculate and analyze the functional connectivity (FC). Some studies have found a tendency to predict emotional states well by analyzing the FC [13,14]. A recent study strongly supported that the strength of FC can be a useful and powerful way to explain the neuropathies of affective disorder [15].

Therefore, this study explores the emotional valence of project images related to the intention toward charity crowdfunding projects. We compared and analyzed differences in brain activities, such as FC, depending on charitable donation decisions by analyzing fNIRS signals measured while watching three emotional valence (i.e., positive vs. negative vs. neutral) project images.

Materials and methods

Participant demographics

Before conducting the study, we calculated the desired sample size using G*Power 3.1.9.2. Referring to Ref.[16], per the task group, the target sample size of 64 individuals was determined based on assumptions of a moderate effect size (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, effect size = 0.25), with all variables standardized. Thus, 64 people (32 males and 32 females) from Korea University between 20 and 33 (mean and standard deviation of age: M = 25.67 sd = 2.69 years) participated in a same-day fNIRS study. All participants were recruited from the online community around KOPAS affiliated with Korea University over the span of a month. We have explained the whole process of experimenting, and all participants fully understood it. We recorded the demographics of the participants in Table 1. Participants with sensory impairments, epilepsy, and brain injury were excluded. All subjects were right-handed and used their dominant hand in the experiment to ensure consistency in brain activation patterns. They had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The participants had no previous history of any physical, mental, or psychological disorders. All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study. All experimental procedures were approved by the Korea University Institutional Review Board (KUIRB-2022-0318-01). Experiments were carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration’s requirements. All participants were financially compensated for their time.

Table 1. Summary of demographic subject information.

Variable	Category	Number of subjects	Percentage
Race	Asian	64	100.00%
Gender	Men	32	50.00%
Gender	Women	32	50.00%
Age range	20s	57	89.06%
Age range	30s	7	10.94%
Employment	Unemployed (including students)	60	93.75%
Employment	Employed	4	6.25%
Education	High school graduate	44	68.75%
	Bachelor’s degree	18	28.13%
	Graduate degree	2	3.13%

Open in a new tab

fNIRS device specification and data preprocessing

A high-density fNIRS device (NIRSIT Lite; OBELAB, Seoul, Korea) measured the relative changes in oxy-Hb and deoxy-Hb. Fig 1 presents the composition of the fNIRS system, which has five dual-wavelength (780/850 nm) laser diodes and seven photodetectors, resulting in 15 channels, with each a source and detector around 3 cm apart. The optical signal variation of each channel was sampled at 8.138 Hz. We quantified the frequency band of the detected channels using bandpass filtering from 0.005 to 0.1 Hz to remove the slow drift of physiological and environmental noise. The threshold of the signal-to-noise ratio was 30 dB. Relative hemodynamic changes in each task were extracted using the modified Beer–Lambert law [17]. The baseline relative change was defined as the average value from −5 to 0 s before the start of each task period. The multitrial results were individually block averaged, and grand averaging was applied to extract representative mapping results from each group.

Emotional preferences depending on the victim images

We instructed all participants in an online questionnaire to indicate their emotional preferences regarding the project images using a survey software program (Qualtrics, Inc., Provo, UT). All participants’ feelings about the victim images were scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “very negative” to “very positive,” to quantify the three valence ratings (i.e., positive, negative, and neutral emotions).

Questionnaire on whether to donate or shop

After the experiments, all subjects examined the emotional project image and determined whether to donate or shop. Their responses were graded on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” regarding the donation or shopping activity.

Online donation task protocol

Per the presurvey donation intentions, we divided the experimental participants into three groups: donation, no donation (shopping), and nonintention groups. Subsequently, all subjects were reportedly exposed to all three types of images (positive, negative, and neutral), as specified in the within-subject design (i.e., repeated measures design) process. This design can minimize the variance caused by individual differences among participants. Each group randomly performed the three emotional project-image-watching tasks. All project images used as donation images on Happybean were provided by the Korean internet platform Naver, a platform for nonprofit organizations to promote their projects and raise funds. We presented positive, negative, and neutral emotional images to induce incidental emotional states in participants before they made two types of donation decisions. Fig 2 represents the experimental protocol. The overall experiment consists of a cue (1 s), an image-watching task time (25 s), and a break time (30 s). Using the fNIRS device, we recorded hemodynamic responses during the online donation task protocol. Then, we divided the recorded hemodynamic responses into nine categories: Types 1 to 9. Tasks 1, 2, and 3 involve watching positive, negative, and neutral project images, respectively.

Fig 2 — Tasks 1, 2, and 3 present images corresponding to positive, negative, and neutral perspectives, respectively.

Experimental results

Valence rating results

We investigated the valence ratings of project images in this experiment. Table 2 lists the reactions to the project images. Of the 64 subjects, 25 people expressed that the project images in Task 1 were positive (39.06%), 33 indicated that project images in Task 2 were negative (51.56%), and 23 expressed that project images in Task 3 were neutral (35.94%). These ratios account for the largest percentage of responses for the three categories. In Tasks 1, and 2, the subjects answered the most positive, negative, and neutral images, respectively. On the other hand, Task 3 elicited predominanatly neutral responses, yet there was a notable majority expressing positive feedback. In this study, we are focused on the effect of positive and negative images on donations, and the valence quantitative ratings of positive and negative tasks are considered appropriate. Thus, we conclude that the valence rating of the victim images in this study is properly designed.

Table 2. Survey results quantifying the valence rating for emotional images in each task.

	Task 1 (Positive images) No. (%) of subjects	Task 2 (Negative images) No. (%) of subjects	Task 3 (Neutral images) No. (%) of subjects
Strongly positive	6 (9.38%)	-	5 (7.81%)
Positive	25 (39.06%)	-	18 (28.13%)
Slightly positive	13 (20.31%)	1 (1.56%)	17 (26.56%)
Neutral	11 (17.19%)	3 (4.69%)	23 (35.94%)
Slightly negative	6 (9.38%)	12 (18.75%)	-
Negative	2 (3.13%)	33 (51.56%)	1 (1.56%)
Strongly negative	1 (1.56%)	15 (23.44%)	-

Open in a new tab

Responses on deciding whether to donate or shop

Fig 3. illustrates the survey results for the donation intentions for the three tasks. The left panel is a graph on the decision of whether to donate. Conversely, the right panel graphs the decision of whether to shop instead of donate. Unlike Task 3, with neutral images, Tasks 1 and 2 (with positive and negative images, respectively) greatly contributed to increasing donating. Task 3 encouraged people to shop instead of donating.

PFC activity differences

We recorded the functional hemodynamic signals depending on donation intentions, as explained in Fig 4. The colored bar marks the quantifiable brain activation, ranging from -1 (low activation) to 1(high activation). The decision to donate is unaffected by emotional tasks, regardless of whether the visuals are positive or negative. No visually significant difference occurs in the presented brain activity (Fig 4). This phenomenon is similar to the donation intention survey results for the three tasks. Hence, negative victim images do not always lead to donations.

Channelwise functional connectivity

Channelwise FC represents the statistical relationship between the 15 hemodynamic sensor signals measured from the subject’s donation intention within each task activity. FC works based on statistics, which maps the correlation between responses shown in the PFC of a subject brain. The functional connectivity is a potential biomarker, estimated as the Pearson correlation coefficient between the mean time series from each channel of interest. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to calculate the strength of the temporal correlation of the hemodynamics between all channel combinations.

Fig 5 presents the FC results regarding the subjects’ nine donation intention types. The horizontal axis represents their intention to donate, whereas the vertical axis represents stimuli-response tasks with positive, negative, and neutral images. Regardless of the task type, the correlation map indicates that a higher FC correlation results in higher intentions to donate, whereas a lower FC correlation indicates lower intentions to donate or the inability to make decisions about donations. Among the nine experimental types, the correlation strength was high, in the following order: Types 3, 1, 2, 9, 4, 7, 5, 6, and 8. Strong interhemispheric linkages were observed in Type 3 but not 8. The color bars are quantifiable brain activation ranging from -1 (low activation) to 1 (high activation). Black boxes indicate no functional connection between sensor signals. These findings enable identifying areas where connections are stronger or weaker. When subjects desired to donate, we discovered no FC difference between positive and negative beneficiary images, suggesting that promoting images of a poor beneficiary to the donor is unnecessary to raise donations.

Discussion

Effect of emotional image on donation intention

Most studies have reported that negative images greatly influence helping behavior. Many researchers have found that contribution advertising with negative imagery raises more money than donation advertisements with positive images [5,6,18,19]. Specifically, the beneficiaries’ negative facial expressions have been exploited to increase donations [6]. In contrast, some studies have yielded contradictory outcomes. Recent studies have argued that positive images can be more useful because these images influence positive consumer assessments and donations [10,20]. In addition, consumers are known to synchronize helping behavior by sympathizing with negative images [21], but constant exposure to these negative images can also increase negative attitudes toward the advertisements, decreasing helping behavior [22,23].

In line with this trend, donors who participated in this study made similar donation decisions regardless of viewing a positive or negative image, as presented in Fig 5. Additionally, we conducted a short interview with fifteen donors randomly among participants and found that the positive images in this experiment maximized their sympathy. Despite the positive expressions and bright impressions of the beneficiaries, the donors expressed regret about the poor conditions and situations. This phenomenon reveals that project images, whether positive or negative, that elicit individual empathy can improve the willingness to donate. Likewise, Bagozzi and Moor also found that sympathetic images elicited donation activity, regardless of the emotional images [4]. If sponsorship images inspire sympathy for donors, it is not necessary to use negative sponsorship images. However, this phenomenon is not observed in neutral images. Our research reveals that many participants reacted positively to the neutral image, but this did not lead to donations. It has been known that people tend to feel a neutral image positively or negatively depending on their current mood state [24]. In this study, it is impossible to control people’s ever-changing emotions, so this phenomenon is considered beyond the scope of the study.

Functional connectivity as biomarkers determining donation intentions

Brain FC, or the synchronization of geographically distant spontaneous neuronal activity, has been discovered in various brain systems [25–27]. In addition, FC is believed to reflect interactions between neuronal populations [28], and the correlation structure of spontaneous activity in FC maps can provide insight into the human brain’s underlying functional architecture [29]. Furthermore, FC has been extensively used to define the neuronal disconnection of many neurological and psychological conditions [30].

We performed channelwise connectivity analyses within the PFC. The findings revealed changes in FC based on donation decisions, confirming the highest association between fNIRS channels in the donation behavior of participants, as represented in Fig 5. The nine connectivity states (i.e., Types 1 to 9) were generated, demonstrating the FC differences depending on donation decisions. Those who decided to donate had strong FC correlations in all task types. The color bars represent quantified brain activation between -1 (low) and 1 (high). Black boxes indicate low channelwise connectivity. The scientific evidence suggests that these FC correlations can be developed as a biomarker capable of detecting and predicting donors and nondonors by focusing on the brain FC.

Necessity for an innovative donation incentivepolicy to promote and incentivize donations

Compensatory psychology is heavily influenced by donation activities [31,32]. Recent research has discovered that, as donation culture spreads, strong activation of the medial PFC region in the frontal lobe occurs, which has a significant connection to the brain’s reward circuit [19,33]. However, the evidence is not observed in these findings. We only demonstrated changes in brain activation based on donation decisions on three emotional project images. The medial parts including the overall PFC associated with the compensation circuit are not activated in our experiment because it may or may not affect the neurological compensation circuits depending on the intention to donate. In this experiment, we categorized participants as donors or shoppers according to their survey responses and discovered differences in brain activity between material reward through shopping and emotional reward through donation. This difference leads to the deactivation of the entire PFC, including the medial PFC, associated with neurological reward aspects, when a more valuable reward than any reward for donation is available.

These PFC activity differences are explained well in Fig 6. depending on the donation intention of the subjects who watched positive, negative, and neutral project images. Those who indicated a willingness to donate after watching the project images displayed PFC inactivation (Fig 6, left), whereas those who responded that they would shop (i.e., not donate) displayed PFC activation (Fig 6, right). This phenomenon is consistent with previous research results [34], indicating a decrease in frontal brain waves in people who make voluntary donations. Saffari et al. also confirmed that while shopping in a online shopping mall, people’s brain activation increases [35]. Hence, people who do not intend to donate will require a new contribution policy because they will not profit much from the current donation incentives.

Conclusion

We divided the hemodynamic signaling responses of 64 participants by their donation intentions into nine types and compared them with each other. The findings indicated that emotional project images did not affect the decision to help or not, regardless of whether the project images were positive or negative. It is consistent with the survey responses on intentions to donate after viewing project images in this experiment. However, it relies on the participants’ presurvey donation intentions or their subsequent response to donation or shopping. The results imply that a negative project image does not always lead to donations. Moreover, more donation activity results in stronger FC correlations, implying that the donor’s mental brain function could be predicted and recognized. This research can be useful in building future cause marketing strategies for charities and nonprofit organizations.

Supporting information

S1 File

(ZIP)

pone.0303144.s001.zip^{(57.2MB, zip)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Essayreview (www.essayreview.co.kr) for performing the English language editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2023S1A5A8076043) and in part by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5A2A01067613).

References

1.Kenworthy N., et al., A cross-sectional study of social inequities in medical crowdfunding campaigns in the United States. PLoS One, 2020. 15(3): p. e0229760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Hou J.-R., Zhang J., and Zhang K., Pictures that are worth a thousand donations: How emotions in project images drive the success of online charity fundraising campaigns? An image design perspective. MIS Quarterly, 2022. [Google Scholar]
3.Carvalho S.W., Hildebrand D., and Sen S., Dressed to impress: the effect of victim attire on helping behavior. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2019. 4(4): p. 376–386. [Google Scholar]
4.Bagozzi R.P. and Moore D.J., Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of marketing, 1994. 58(1): p. 56–70. [Google Scholar]
5.Burt C.D. and Strongman K., Use of images in charity advertising: Improving donations and compliance rates. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 2005. 8(8): p. 571–580. [Google Scholar]
6.Small D.A. and Verrochi N.M., The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 2009. [Google Scholar]
7.Fisher R.J., Vandenbosch M., and Antia K.D., An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals. Journal of consumer research, 2008. 35(3): p. 519–531. [Google Scholar]
8.Kwon J., et al., Computerized emotional content analysis: empirical findings based on charity social media advertisements. International Journal of Advertising, 2022. 41(7): p. 1314–1337. [Google Scholar]
9.Birkwood S., Beneficiaries’ don’t want pictures to show them suffering all the time’, says save executive. 2016. [Google Scholar]
10.Li D. and Atkinson L., Effect of emotional victim images in prosocial advertising: the moderating role of helping mode. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2020. 25(4): p. e1676. [Google Scholar]
11.Sciulli L.M., Bhagat P.S., and Bebko C.P., Eye tracking analysis: Engagement levels and donor tendencies using print advertisements with emotional appeals. Innovative Marketing, 2012. 8(2). [Google Scholar]
12.Zwir I., et al., Temperament & Character account for brain functional connectivity at rest: A diathesis-stress model of functional dysregulation in psychosis. Molecular psychiatry, 2023. 28(6): p. 2238–2253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Duan L., et al., Intrinsic organization of cortical networks predicts state anxiety: an functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study. Translational psychiatry, 2020. 10(1): p. 402. doi: 10.1038/s41398-020-01088-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Liu Z., et al., A systematic review on hybrid EEG/fNIRS in brain-computer interface. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 2021. 68: p. 102595. [Google Scholar]
15.Zhu H., et al., Decreased functional connectivity and disrupted neural network in the prefrontal cortex of affective disorders: a resting-state fNIRS study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2017. 221: p. 132–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Cohen J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). 1977, New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
17.Donaldson A., Andrade D., and Das M.. Sensitivity of functional near-infrared spectroscopy to optical properties in brain imaging. in Multiscale Imaging and Spectroscopy IV. 2023. SPIE. [Google Scholar]
18.Chang C.T. and Lee Y.K., Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 2009. 39(12): p. 2910–2935. [Google Scholar]
19.Huang Q., et al., Multivariate pattern analysis of electroencephalography data reveals information predictive of charitable giving. NeuroImage, 2021. 242: p. 118475. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Zemack-Rugar Y. and Klucarova-Travani S., Should donation ads include happy victim images? The moderating role of regulatory focus. Marketing Letters, 2018. 29: p. 421–434. [Google Scholar]
21.Baberini M., et al., Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual communication quarterly, 2015. 22(2): p. 118–128. [Google Scholar]
22.Dyck E.J. and Coldevin G., Using positive vs. negative photographs for third-world fund raising. Journalism Quarterly, 1992. 69(3): p. 572–579. [Google Scholar]
23.Van Kleef G.A., Van den Berg H., and Heerdink M.W., The persuasive power of emotions: Effects of emotional expressions on attitude formation and change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015. 100(4): p. 1124. doi: 10.1037/apl0000003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Wadlinger H.A. and Isaacowitz D.M., Positive mood broadens visual attention to positive stimuli. Motivation and emotion, 2006. 30: p. 87–99. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9021-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Fox M.D. and Raichle M.E., Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature reviews neuroscience, 2007. 8(9): p. 700–711. doi: 10.1038/nrn2201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Lu C.-M., et al., Use of fNIRS to assess resting state functional connectivity. Journal of neuroscience methods, 2010. 186(2): p. 242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Horwitz B., The elusive concept of brain connectivity. Neuroimage, 2003. 19(2): p. 466–470. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00112-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.He B.J., et al., Electrophysiological correlates of the brain’s intrinsic large-scale functional architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008. 105(41): p. 16039–16044. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807010105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Biswal B., et al., Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo‐planar MRI. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 1995. 34(4): p. 537–541. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910340409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Auer D.P., Spontaneous low-frequency blood oxygenation level-dependent fluctuations and functional connectivity analysis of the ‘resting’brain. Magnetic resonance imaging, 2008. 26(7): p. 1055–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Dunn E.W., Aknin L.B., and Norton M.I., Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 2008. 319(5870): p. 1687–1688. doi: 10.1126/science.1150952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Harbaugh W.T., Mayr U., and Burghart D.R., Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 2007. 316(5831): p. 1622–1625. doi: 10.1126/science.1140738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Tusche A., et al., Decoding the charitable brain: empathy, perspective taking, and attention shifts differentially predict altruistic giving. Journal of Neuroscience, 2016. 36(17): p. 4719–4732. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3392-15.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Zhang H., et al., Neural Responses to Mandatory and Voluntary Donation Impact Charitable Giving Decisions: An Event-Related Potentials Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021. 12: p. 783825. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.783825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Saffari F., et al., The Role of Stimuli-Driven and Goal-Driven Attention in Shopping Decision-Making Behaviors—An EEG and VR Study. Brain Sciences, 2023. 13(6): p. 928. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13060928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303144.r001

Decision Letter 0

Holger A Rau

12 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-35092Charitable crowdfunding donation-intention estimation depending on emotional project images using fNIRS-based functional connectivityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear authors,

firstly, I am sorry for the delay - but unfortunately it was not easy to find reviewers. I am happy that now I can make a decision. I now have the report of a reviewer who is an expert in his/her field. Based on this report, I am happy to invite a major revision.

The report is very detailed and very helpful. In terms of having a clear path of improving the article, such that it can become publishable, I really expect that you clearly follow all these helpful comments made by the reviewer.

Based from my own reading of the article, I completely agree with the reviewer. One of the main issues is really that the experimental design is very hard to follow. I also asked myself about the timing of collecting the data on participants' intentions of donating or not. At the same time, the article is written in a manner that is very policy-related, which is good. However, this suggests that you may come up with policy implications (e.g., how to increase donation motivation by this image manipulations) and what are the potential underlying neuro-image channels? If for this reason, you also asked for the ex post willingness to donate (after treatment), then be clear about it and explain it.

In summary. three things are really important for this revision: (1) clearly outline your exact experimental design more comprehensively in the "Methods" section; (2) clearly and more openly discuss and admit the limitations of your design (e.g., also as outlined by the reviewer, when you report in your manipulation checks the rather low shares of people who agreed that the shown neutral images are really neutral); another issue is, if you really find a null effect - also discuss what this means. I am aware about the fact that in neuro studies the sample size is typically rather small. However, this still raises some questions about the validity of your findings. Is it really a null effect when the sample size is low? Be more cautious about interpreting that. (3) You report a couple of different findings and presentations in your figures. It would be good, if you could increase the focus on your main findings that you want to sell with this paper (e.g., the ones of Fig. 5). However, try to be cautious in terms of not overinterpreting the findings.

Good luck for the revision!

Best

Holger Rau

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Holger A. Rau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We note that Figure 1, 2, 4 and 6 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1, 2, 4 and 6 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

firstly, I am sorry for the delay - but unfortunately it was not easy to find reviewers. I am happy that I can make a decision. I know have the report of a reviewer who is an expert in his/her field. Based on this report, I am happy to invite a major revision.

Good luck for the revision!

Best

Holger Rau

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors used fNIR spectroscopy to examine the controversy about whether images with positive or negative emotional valence are more effective in stimulating people to make donations on online crowdfunding platforms. They recruited 64 young adults (ages 20 to 33, half female) from Korea University with written informed consent, but do not describe what how subjects were recruited or what they were told about the experiment. They report that “per presurvey donation intentions, we divided the experimental participants into three groups: donation, no donation (shopping), and non-intention groups (Methods, page 4, lines 8-9).” They presented positive, negative, and neutral images to induce emotional states in participants before they made two types of donation decisions (to donate or to shop (Methods, page 4, line 82). All subjects were apparently exposed to all three types of images (positive, negative, and neutral), as shown by the total number of subjects who rated each type of image for Tasks 1-3 (see Table 1). However, this is not clearly described, raising concern about exposure to multiple types of images in all subjects on the results presented. Generally, the design is really not clearly described despite 6 Figures and 1 Table.

They say in conclusions (page 14-15) that “we divided the hemodynamic signaling responses of 64 participants by their donation intentions into nine types and compared them with each other/ They conclude that the valence of the images did not affect the decision to help or not, but it is not clear if this means it did not change presurvey donation intentions or the final response to donate or shop. They go on to say that more donation activity results in stronger functional connectivity in the prefrontal cortex, and it could provide a way that the donor’s mental brain function could be predicted and recognized. However, there are several issues that need to be clarified regarding the design of the study, the results, and the discussion.

It appears from Methods that the emotional images were generic, provided by the platform and are not tied specifically to unique charitable causes: “All project images used as donation images on Happybean were provided by the Korean internet platform Naver… (page 4, line 80). Then they presented positive, negative, and neutral emotional images to induce “incidental emotional states in participants before they made two types of donation decisions”, as shown in Figure 1 describing the overall experimental procedure (page 5 with 9 experimental types emerging from the possible combinations of 3 tasks (positive, negative, and neutral images), and (I think) presurvey intentions (donation, shopping, no intention). The survey results of the valence ratings using a 7 point Likert scale for the 3 sets of images (positive, negative, neutral are given in Table 1 on page 7. They summarize this by concluding that the “valence ratings of the project images in this study is properly designed”, but in fact the table makes clear that the neutral images were rated neutral only 36% (23 subjects) of the time and were rated positively by 40 subjects. Instead of pointing this out, they focus on the fact that the most frequent category in the seven-point scale is in conformity with their design, even though the overall direction of the valence is not so for the neutral images. They show in Figure 3 (results, page 8) that both positive and negative image sets increased the intensity of intention to donate or not (7 point Likert scale, not a dichotomous choice), whereas the images called neutral were mostly associated with not donating, even though they had been rated as positive by most subjects. What does this mean about the adequacy of the quantitative ratings of valence and intention to donate or shop? Something else is operating rather than just emotional valence of the images because most neutral images are rated positive by most subjects, but this is not discussed.

The authors found no effect of image valence on the hemodynamic activity of the prefrontal cortex, as illustrated in Figure 4. The Figure shows the intentions to donate (presumably by design this was the intention rated presurvey and pre-image exposure) on the horizontal axis and the vertical axis is the variation from reduced activity (-1, labeled as low activation) to increased activity (+1, labeled as high activation). Nearly the responses for all 9 types (intention x image valence) are for low activation (Figure 4, below 0, dark to light blue with some white for no change) except for a dash of yellow for type 8. In the discussion, the authors present more results illustrated in their Figure 6, showing that the decision to donate (presumably in response to exposure to valenced images) was associated with reduced prefrontal hemodynamic activity whereas the decision to shop was associated with increased prefrontal hemodynamic activity. More discussion is needed about the meaning of this difference. Are the positive and negative valenced images just weak and unexciting? Does donation generally induce a state of calm rest from engagement with a charitable cause? Is anticipation of shopping more rewarding than helping others because the subjects in this study were self-preoccupied and not altruistic? What can be said about the meaning of this study without knowing more about the personality and motivations of the subjects studied?

The authors have emphasized their findings about functional connectivity in relation to donation in their title and conclusions, and this is potentially their most interesting observation, as described in Figure 5. They say that “regardless of task type, the correlation map indicates that a higher FC correlation results in higher intentions to donate, whereas a lower FC correlation indicates lower intentions to donate or the inability to make decisions about donations.” However, inspection of the color bars show that nearly all 9 intention types have high functional connectivity, indicated red to yellow. There are channels with no detectable functional connectivity associated with shopping (why is this black instead of white as shown in the legend?). However, no statistical results are presented to indicate that the results are significant to justify the qualitative statements and conclusions.

In the discussion, Pages 13 and 14 (related to Figure 6), the authors state that donation has been associated with activation of the medial prefrontal cortex in other prior research, but that the activation of the medial prefrontal cortex “is not observed in our experiment.” (page 13, line 173). They go on to say that the observed deactivation of the entire PFC, including the medial PFC” (page 13, line 176). However, Figure 2 shows the placement of the fNIR spectroscopy channels, leads, and detectors, which appear to be mostly located in what is usually called the anterior cortex or frontal poles (BA 10). This includes anterior aspects of the medial PFC but it seems an overstatement to say that the entire PFC can be measured by such placement using fNIRS. Perhaps the authors could be more clear about what brain regions are actually measured in this experiment.

If the authors did record, subjects’ intentions prior to experimental manipulation, why didn’t they present any information about whether the baseline intentions were modified by their manipulation. That is, if someone set out to shop, was that changed by any of the experimental conditions? Or if they set out to donate, was that changed? If they had no preferred intention, did the intervention change that? Is the intention prior to experimental manipulation, a crude proxy for a measurement of their personality and whether they are self-centered, empathic, or charitable. This seems to be addressed to some extent by the results they report of short interviews of some donors after the experiment who reported that positive images had maximized their sympathy (page 12, line 149). Such a conclusion would require statistical evidence that positive images had changed intention to donate from its baseline following a planned intervention, but it is not clear that this is what the authors have reported. I cannot be sure because I still have questions about their design despite studying the paper carefully. This is an interesting study and I hope the authors will be able to answer my questions and obtain more data about who their subjects are in future work. As they say, the PFC has a key role in the regulation of emotional reactions, and its functional connectivity is strongly associated with individual differences in temperament and character (Zwir, I., Arnedo, J., Mesa, A. et al. Temperament & Character account for brain functional connectivity at rest. Mol Psychiatry (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-023-02039-6).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 8;19(5):e0303144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303144.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

28 Mar 2024

We appreciate your contribution. According to your statement, we respond as follows. We respond by dividing your statement into nine questions temporarily. If we misunderstood your intention, please let us know again.

1) The authors used fNIR spectroscopy to examine the controversy about whether images with positive or negative emotional valence are more effective in stimulating people to make donations on online crowdfunding platforms. They recruited 64 young adults (ages 20 to 33, half female) from Korea University with written informed consent, but do not describe what how subjects were recruited or what they were told about the experiment.

� Response: We supplemented the manuscript as follows.

“In this study, 64 people (32 males and 32 females) from Korea University between 20 and 33 (mean and standard deviation of age: M = 25.67 sd = 2.69 years) participated in a same-day fNIRS study. All participants were recruited from the online community around KOPAS affiliated with Korea University in a month way. We have explained the whole process of experimenting, and all participants fully understood it.”

2) They report that “per presurvey donation intentions, we divided the experimental participants into three groups: donation, no donation (shopping), and non-intention groups (Methods, page 4, lines 8-9).” They presented positive, negative, and neutral images to induce emotional states in participants before they made two types of donation decisions (to donate or to shop (Methods, page 4, line 82). All subjects were apparently exposed to all three types of images (positive, negative, and neutral), as shown by the total number of subjects who rated each type of image for Tasks 1-3 (see Table 1). However, this is not clearly described, raising concern about exposure to multiple types of images in all subjects on the results presented. Generally, the design is really not clearly described despite 6 Figures and 1 Table.

� Response: We supplemented the manuscript as follows.

“All subjects were reportedly exposed to all three types of images (positive, negative, and neutral), as specified in the within-subject design (i.e., repeated measures design) process. This design can minimize the variance caused by individual differences among participants.”

3) They say in conclusions (page 14-15) that “we divided the hemodynamic signaling responses of 64 participants by their donation intentions into nine types and compared them with each other/They conclude that the valence of the images did not affect the decision to help or not, but it is not clear if this means it did not change presurvey donation intentions or the final response to donate or shop.

� Response: We supplemented the manuscript as follows.

“However, it relies on the participants' presurvey donation intentions or their subsequent response to donation or shopping.”

4) They go on to say that more donation activity results in stronger functional connectivity in the prefrontal cortex, and it could provide a way that the donor’s mental brain function could be predicted and recognized. However, there are several issues that need to be clarified regarding the design of the study, the results, and the discussion. It appears from Methods that the emotional images were generic, provided by the platform and are not tied specifically to unique charitable causes: “All project images used as donation images on Happybean were provided by the Korean internet platform Naver… (page 4, line 80). Then they presented positive, negative, and neutral emotional images to induce “incidental emotional states in participants before they made two types of donation decisions”, as shown in Figure 1 describing the overall experimental procedure (page 5 with 9 experimental types emerging from the possible combinations of 3 tasks (positive, negative, and neutral images), and (I think) presurvey intentions (donation, shopping, no intention). The survey results of the valence ratings using a 7 point Likert scale for the 3 sets of images (positive, negative, neutral are given in Table 1 on page 7. They summarize this by concluding that the “valence ratings of the project images in this study is properly designed”, but in fact the table makes clear that the neutral images were rated neutral only 36% (23 subjects) of the time and were rated positively by 40 subjects. Instead of pointing this out, they focus on the fact that the most frequent category in the seven-point scale is in conformity with their design, even though the overall direction of the valence is not so for the neutral images. They show in Figure 3 (results, page 8) that both positive and negative image sets increased the intensity of intention to donate or not (7 point Likert scale, not a dichotomous choice), whereas the images called neutral were mostly associated with not donating, even though they had been rated as positive by most subjects. What does this mean about the adequacy of the quantitative ratings of valence and intention to donate or shop? Something else is operating rather than just emotional valence of the images because most neutral images are rated positive by most subjects, but this is not discussed.

� Response: We agree with you. We didn't mean it, but we think this result is exaggerated, so it has been revised as below.

“On the other hand, Task 3 elicited predominanatly neutral responses, yet there was a notable majority expressing positive feedback. In this study, we are focused on the effect of positive and negative images on donations, and the valence quantitative ratings of positive and negative tasks are considered appropriate.”

� Response: Additionally, we discussed these results as follows.

“However, this phenomenon is not observed in neutral images. Our research reveals that many participants reacted positively to the neutral image, but this did not lead to donations. It has been known that people tend to feel a neutral image positively or negatively depending on their current mood state [23]. In this study, it is impossible to control people's ever-changing emotions, so this phenomenon is considered beyond the scope of the study.”

5) The authors found no effect of image valence on the hemodynamic activity of the prefrontal cortex, as illustrated in Figure 4. The Figure shows the intentions to donate (presumably by design this was the intention rated presurvey and pre-image exposure) on the horizontal axis and the vertical axis is the variation from reduced activity (-1, labeled as low activation) to increased activity (+1, labeled as high activation). Nearly the responses for all 9 types (intention x image valence) are for low activation (Figure 4, below 0, dark to light blue with some white for no change) except for a dash of yellow for type 8. In the discussion, the authors present more results illustrated in their Figure 6, showing that the decision to donate (presumably in response to exposure to valenced images) was associated with reduced prefrontal hemodynamic activity whereas the decision to shop was associated with increased prefrontal hemodynamic activity. More discussion is needed about the meaning of this difference. Are the positive and negative valenced images just weak and unexciting? Does donation generally induce a state of calm rest from engagement with a charitable cause? Is anticipation of shopping more rewarding than helping others because the subjects in this study were self-preoccupied and not altruistic? What can be said about the meaning of this study without knowing more about the personality and motivations of the subjects studied?

� Response: The purpose of this study is not to investigate the brain condition according to the subject's personality and motivation. The purpose of this study is to prove that there is little correlation between donation intention and brain activity between negative and positive project images. Also, the main focus of this section is to show the difference in brain activation between donation and shopping. Thus, we discussed the prior studies, and added it as follows;

“This phenomenon is consistent with previous research results [32], indicating a decrease in frontal brain waves in people who make voluntary donations. Saffari et al. also confirmed that while shopping in a online shopping mall, people's brain activation increases [33].”

6) The authors have emphasized their findings about functional connectivity in relation to donation in their title and conclusions, and this is potentially their most interesting observation, as described in Figure 5. They say that “regardless of task type, the correlation map indicates that a higher FC correlation results in higher intentions to donate, whereas a lower FC correlation indicates lower intentions to donate or the inability to make decisions about donations.” However, inspection of the color bars show that nearly all 9 intention types have high functional connectivity, indicated red to yellow. There are channels with no detectable functional connectivity associated with shopping (why is this black instead of white as shown in the legend?).

� Response: Our response is as follows.

White here is not a channel without functional connectivity, it just means the mid-range between high and low blood flow.

7) However, no statistical results are presented to indicate that the results are significant to justify the qualitative statements and conclusions.

� Response: The functional connectivity (FC) method is already a principle that works based on statistics. Specifically, we explain this as follows

“FC works based on statistics, which maps the correlation between responses shown in the prefrontal cortex of a subject brain.”

8) In the discussion, Pages 13 and 14 (related to Figure 6), the authors state that donation has been associated with activation of the medial prefrontal cortex in other prior research, but that the activation of the medial prefrontal cortex “is not observed in our experiment.” (page 13, line 173). They go on to say that the observed deactivation of the entire PFC, including the medial PFC” (page 13, line 176). However, Figure 2 shows the placement of the fNIR spectroscopy channels, leads, and detectors, which appear to be mostly located in what is usually called the anterior cortex or frontal poles (BA 10). This includes anterior aspects of the medial PFC but it seems an overstatement to say that the entire PFC can be measured by such placement using fNIRS. Perhaps the authors could be more clear about what brain regions are actually measured in this experiment.

� Response: We supplemented the manuscript as follows

“The medial parts including the overall PFC associated with the compensation circuit are not activated in our experiment because it may or may not affect the neurological compensation circuits depending on the intention to donate.”

9) If the authors did record, subjects’ intentions prior to experimental manipulation, why didn’t they present any information about whether the baseline intentions were modified by their manipulation. That is, if someone set out to shop, was that changed by any of the experimental conditions? Or if they set out to donate, was that changed? If they had no preferred intention, did the intervention change that? Is the intention prior to experimental manipulation, a crude proxy for a measurement of their personality and whether they are self-centered, empathic, or charitable. This seems to be addressed to some extent by the results they report of short interviews of some donors after the experiment who reported that positive images had maximized their sympathy (page 12, line 149). Such a conclusion would require statistical evidence that positive images had changed intention to donate from its baseline following a planned intervention, but it is not clear that this is what the authors have reported. I cannot be sure because I still have questions about their design despite studying the paper carefully. This is an interesting study and I hope the authors will be able to answer my questions and obtain more data about who their subjects are in future work. As they say, the PFC has a key role in the regulation of emotional reactions, and its functional connectivity is strongly associated with individual differences in temperament and character (Zwir, I., Arnedo, J., Mesa, A. et al. Temperament & Character account for brain functional connectivity at rest. Mol Psychiatry (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-023-02039-6).

� Response: The presurvey conducted in this experiment is a series of studies that lead to brain measurement experiments as soon as participants respond. As a result, it is carried out with the assumption that the subject's intention has not changed. Before experimental manipulation, it is a proxy for brain signal measurement by participants' propensity. This is supported by the results of short interviews with some donors after the experiments, showing that positive images maximize empathy. These short interviews are one of our detailed findings. However, Interviews were conducted with 15 donors at random among participants, and statistical results are unfortunately non-existent. Instead, we modified these as follows.

“We conducted a short interview with fifteen donors randomly among participants and found that the positive images in this experiment maximized their sympathy”

* Also, we cited the mentioned paper as a reference [12] to support for our research results.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0303144.s002.docx^{(115.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303144.r003

Decision Letter 1

Holger A Rau

22 Apr 2024

Charitable crowdfunding donation-intention estimation depending on emotional project images using fNIRS-based functional connectivity

PONE-D-23-35092R1

Dear Dr. Bak,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Holger A. Rau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I follow the recommendation of the reviewer to accept the article. However, please address a last clarification mentioned by the reviewer: "The authors have clarified the questions raised in my initial review adequately. However, on page 4, line 86 there refer to "in a month way". It is unclear what this means: does it mean they advertized for volunteers for one month? This can be clarified in preparing the article in its final form."

You should do this before you submit your final version of the manuscript to the journal.

Congrats and all the best!

Holger

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors have clarified the questions raised in my initial review adequately.

Howevr, on page 4, line 86 there refer to "in a month way". It is unclear what this means: does it mean they advertized for volunteers for one month? This can be clarified in preparing the article in its final form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303144.r004

Acceptance letter

Holger A Rau

26 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-35092R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bak,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. Holger A. Rau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File

(ZIP)

pone.0303144.s001.zip^{(57.2MB, zip)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0303144.s002.docx^{(115.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0303144.ref001] 1.Kenworthy N., et al., A cross-sectional study of social inequities in medical crowdfunding campaigns in the United States. PLoS One, 2020. 15(3): p. e0229760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref002] 2.Hou J.-R., Zhang J., and Zhang K., Pictures that are worth a thousand donations: How emotions in project images drive the success of online charity fundraising campaigns? An image design perspective. MIS Quarterly, 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref003] 3.Carvalho S.W., Hildebrand D., and Sen S., Dressed to impress: the effect of victim attire on helping behavior. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2019. 4(4): p. 376–386. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref004] 4.Bagozzi R.P. and Moore D.J., Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of marketing, 1994. 58(1): p. 56–70. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref005] 5.Burt C.D. and Strongman K., Use of images in charity advertising: Improving donations and compliance rates. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 2005. 8(8): p. 571–580. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref006] 6.Small D.A. and Verrochi N.M., The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref007] 7.Fisher R.J., Vandenbosch M., and Antia K.D., An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals. Journal of consumer research, 2008. 35(3): p. 519–531. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref008] 8.Kwon J., et al., Computerized emotional content analysis: empirical findings based on charity social media advertisements. International Journal of Advertising, 2022. 41(7): p. 1314–1337. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref009] 9.Birkwood S., Beneficiaries’ don’t want pictures to show them suffering all the time’, says save executive. 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref010] 10.Li D. and Atkinson L., Effect of emotional victim images in prosocial advertising: the moderating role of helping mode. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2020. 25(4): p. e1676. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref011] 11.Sciulli L.M., Bhagat P.S., and Bebko C.P., Eye tracking analysis: Engagement levels and donor tendencies using print advertisements with emotional appeals. Innovative Marketing, 2012. 8(2). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref012] 12.Zwir I., et al., Temperament & Character account for brain functional connectivity at rest: A diathesis-stress model of functional dysregulation in psychosis. Molecular psychiatry, 2023. 28(6): p. 2238–2253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref013] 13.Duan L., et al., Intrinsic organization of cortical networks predicts state anxiety: an functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study. Translational psychiatry, 2020. 10(1): p. 402. doi: 10.1038/s41398-020-01088-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref014] 14.Liu Z., et al., A systematic review on hybrid EEG/fNIRS in brain-computer interface. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 2021. 68: p. 102595. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref015] 15.Zhu H., et al., Decreased functional connectivity and disrupted neural network in the prefrontal cortex of affective disorders: a resting-state fNIRS study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2017. 221: p. 132–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref016] 16.Cohen J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). 1977, New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref017] 17.Donaldson A., Andrade D., and Das M.. Sensitivity of functional near-infrared spectroscopy to optical properties in brain imaging. in Multiscale Imaging and Spectroscopy IV. 2023. SPIE. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref018] 18.Chang C.T. and Lee Y.K., Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 2009. 39(12): p. 2910–2935. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref019] 19.Huang Q., et al., Multivariate pattern analysis of electroencephalography data reveals information predictive of charitable giving. NeuroImage, 2021. 242: p. 118475. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref020] 20.Zemack-Rugar Y. and Klucarova-Travani S., Should donation ads include happy victim images? The moderating role of regulatory focus. Marketing Letters, 2018. 29: p. 421–434. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref021] 21.Baberini M., et al., Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual communication quarterly, 2015. 22(2): p. 118–128. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref022] 22.Dyck E.J. and Coldevin G., Using positive vs. negative photographs for third-world fund raising. Journalism Quarterly, 1992. 69(3): p. 572–579. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref023] 23.Van Kleef G.A., Van den Berg H., and Heerdink M.W., The persuasive power of emotions: Effects of emotional expressions on attitude formation and change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015. 100(4): p. 1124. doi: 10.1037/apl0000003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref024] 24.Wadlinger H.A. and Isaacowitz D.M., Positive mood broadens visual attention to positive stimuli. Motivation and emotion, 2006. 30: p. 87–99. doi: 10.1007/s11031-006-9021-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref025] 25.Fox M.D. and Raichle M.E., Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature reviews neuroscience, 2007. 8(9): p. 700–711. doi: 10.1038/nrn2201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref026] 26.Lu C.-M., et al., Use of fNIRS to assess resting state functional connectivity. Journal of neuroscience methods, 2010. 186(2): p. 242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref027] 27.Horwitz B., The elusive concept of brain connectivity. Neuroimage, 2003. 19(2): p. 466–470. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00112-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref028] 28.He B.J., et al., Electrophysiological correlates of the brain’s intrinsic large-scale functional architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008. 105(41): p. 16039–16044. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807010105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref029] 29.Biswal B., et al., Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo‐planar MRI. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 1995. 34(4): p. 537–541. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910340409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref030] 30.Auer D.P., Spontaneous low-frequency blood oxygenation level-dependent fluctuations and functional connectivity analysis of the ‘resting’brain. Magnetic resonance imaging, 2008. 26(7): p. 1055–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref031] 31.Dunn E.W., Aknin L.B., and Norton M.I., Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 2008. 319(5870): p. 1687–1688. doi: 10.1126/science.1150952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref032] 32.Harbaugh W.T., Mayr U., and Burghart D.R., Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 2007. 316(5831): p. 1622–1625. doi: 10.1126/science.1140738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref033] 33.Tusche A., et al., Decoding the charitable brain: empathy, perspective taking, and attention shifts differentially predict altruistic giving. Journal of Neuroscience, 2016. 36(17): p. 4719–4732. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3392-15.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref034] 34.Zhang H., et al., Neural Responses to Mandatory and Voluntary Donation Impact Charitable Giving Decisions: An Event-Related Potentials Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021. 12: p. 783825. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.783825 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303144.ref035] 35.Saffari F., et al., The Role of Stimuli-Driven and Goal-Driven Attention in Shopping Decision-Making Behaviors—An EEG and VR Study. Brain Sciences, 2023. 13(6): p. 928. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13060928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Charitable crowdfunding donation-intention estimation depending on emotional project images using fNIRS-based functional connectivity

SuJin Bak

Minsun Yeu

Dongwon Min

Jaehoon Lee

Jichai Jeong

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participant demographics

Table 1. Summary of demographic subject information.

fNIRS device specification and data preprocessing

Fig 1. fNIRS system composition in prefrontal cortex(PFC) brain areas.

Emotional preferences depending on the victim images

Questionnaire on whether to donate or shop

Online donation task protocol

Fig 2. Overall experimental procedure.

Experimental results

Valence rating results

Table 2. Survey results quantifying the valence rating for emotional images in each task.

Responses on deciding whether to donate or shop

Fig 3. Valence rating survey results.

PFC activity differences

Fig 4. Hemodynamic responses by prefrontal cortex activities.

Channelwise functional connectivity

Fig 5. Channelwise functional connectivity (FC) maps in the prefrontal cortex through grouped-averaged correlation matrices.

Discussion

Effect of emotional image on donation intention

Functional connectivity as biomarkers determining donation intentions

Necessity for an innovative donation incentivepolicy to promote and incentivize donations

Fig 6.

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Holger A Rau

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Holger A Rau

Roles

Acceptance letter

Holger A Rau

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases