The article by Masser B., Ferguson E., Merz E.-M., Williams L. entitled “Beyond Description: The Predictive Role of Affect, Memory, and Context in the Decision to Donate or Not Donate Blood” [Transfus Med Hemother. 2019, DOI: 10.1159/000501917] was published with an error.
The first three sentences of the “Introduction” should read as follows:
“In this paper, we set out the case for blood donor researchers to broaden their focus and engage in a greater consideration of the affective, cognitive (e.g., memory), and contextual (i.e., anything external to the individual) processes (would-be) donors experience that impact donor recruitment and retention. Human decision-making is driven by 2 inter-related systems: system 2 comprises cold cognitions and invokes rational, slow, and more deliberative processing, and system 1 comprises hot cognitions, prompting intuitive, fast, and reactive decision making [1]. We argue that research on donor behavior has primarily focused on system 2 processes (Table 1), with the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [2] as the dominant theoretical framework.”
Table 1.
Reasoned and reactive approaches, theories, and/or constructs predicting blood donor/nondonor intentions and behavior
| Framework | Construct(s) | Source*, 1 | Published studies identified2, n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System 2: reasoned approaches to blood donor decision-making | ||||
| Theory of reasoned action | Attitude, subjective norm, intention, behavior | Google Scholar “theory of reasoned action” AND “blood donation” AND “blood donors” (n = 165 records) Web of Science TS = (“theory of reasoned” OR “reasoned action”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 12 records) |
3 | |
| Theory of planned behavior | Attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control/efficacy, intention, behavior | Google Scholar “theory of planned” AND “blood donation” AND “blood donors” (n = 532 records) Web of Science TS = (“theory of planned”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 60 records) |
18 | |
| Extended TPB | Standard TPB constructs + additional constructs | As above | 45 | |
| Self-determination theory | Web of Science TS = (“self determination theory” OR “self-determination theory”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 8 records) | 7 | ||
| Transtheoretical model | Web of Science TS = (“transtheoretical model” OR “trans-theoretical model” OR “stages of change”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor1”) (n = 5 records) | 4 | ||
| Identity theory (if not already included as part of an extended TPB) | Self-identity, role identity | Web of Science TS = (“role identity” OR “role-identity” OR “self-identity” OR “self identity” OR “identity theory” OR “donor identity” OR “role theory”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 31 records) | 4 | |
| Perceived moral obligation (if not already part of an extended TPB) | Moral values, moral norms, doing the “right” thing | Web of Science TS = (“moral norm” OR “perceived moral obligation” OR “moral obligation” OR “right thing to do” OR “moral value*”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 27 records) | 7 | |
| Affect (if not already part of an extended TPB) | Affective component of attitude Web of Science TS = (“affective attitude*” OR [affect AND attitude*]) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 48 records) |
6 | ||
| Anticipated response to a future event (if not already included as part of an extended TPB) | Anticipated affect, anticipated regret | Web of Science TS = (“anticipated regret” OR “anticipatory regret”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 18 records) Web of Science TS = (“anticipated affect*” OR “anticipatory affect”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 1 record) |
1 | |
| Self-efficacy (if not already part of an extended TPB) | Blood donor self-efficacy, interventions designed to enhance self-efficacy | Google Scholar “blood donor self-efficacy” (n = 6 records) Web of Science TS = (“self-efficacy” OR “self efficacy”) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 52 records) |
9 | |
| Memory | Memory about blood donation or the blood donation experience | PubMed (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor” OR “blood donors”) AND memory (n = 111 records) Web of Science (TS = “donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR blood donor*”) AND memory (n = 110 records) Google Scholar cited reference search of Breckler (n = 47 records) |
3 | |
| Total number of published studies taking a reasoned or deliberative approach to donor decision-making | 107 | |||
| System 1: reactive approaches to blood donor decision-making | ||||
| Emotions related to donation/nondonation | Warm glow, gratitude, awe, shame, guilt, disgust, reluctant altruism, impure altruism | Google Scholar search “warm glow” AND “blood donation” AND “blood donors” (n = 284 records) Search “impure altruism” AND “blood donation” AND “blood donors” (n = 155 records) Google Scholar search “reluctant altruism” AND “blood donation” AND “blood donors” (n = 55 records) PubMed search (emotions OR emotion OR feelings) AND (“blood donation” OR “blood donor” OR “blood donors”) (All in title/abstract) (n = 211 records) Web of Science search TS = (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) AND (emotion OR emotions OR feelings) (n = 67 records) |
24 | |
| Fear, anxiety, distress |
Web of Science TS = (anxiety OR anxious* OR fear* OR distress*) AND (“donating blood” OR “blood donation” OR “blood donor*”) (n = 248 records) |
30 |
||
| State-based reactions | Reactions to contextual features of the blood donation collection facility | As per the searches above | 6 | |
| Blood donor/donation reaction inventory (if not already captured in fear/anxiety studies) | Blood donation/donor reaction inventory used to measure reactive responses Web of Science TS = (“blood donation reactions inventory”) (n = 6 records) Google Scholar “blood donor reactions inventory” (n = 3 records) |
7 | ||
| Total number of published studies taking a reactive approach to donor decision-making | 67 | |||
Searches were conducted on June 5–10, 2019.
The reference lists of the review papers by Bednall et al. [112], Piersma et al. 18], and Thijsen and Masser [71] were also checked to ensure that all relevant articles were included.
Excludes review articles.
The 3rd paragraph, right column on page 2 should read as follows:
“We acknowledge that blood donation is a planned behavior in the sense that donors have to make appointments, organize getting to the donor center, and so on. However, there is increasing recognition that affective states play a key role in translating this ‘planning’ into action [20–22]. Indeed, there is a growing realization that prosocial emotions (e.g., gratitude, shame, guilt, warm glow, and awe) are also important [21]. Behaviorally, blood donation is an archetypal prosocial behavior [23, 24], and there is growing evidence that prosocial acts are determined by intuitive, fast, and reactive (i.e., system 1) processes that are context dependent [25, 26].”
Table 1 should read as follows: