{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039755351681957186, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01452599388379205, 'mean_word_length': 5.293269230769231, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“More” is less: Why multiple payment mechanism impairs individual donation

2 ( N = 298) further confirmed the robustness of the main effect for different receiving targets with a 2 (number of payment mechanism: one vs. four) × 2 (target: person vs. organization) between-subjects design. Study 3 ( N = 140) examined the serial mediating effect of perceived commercialization and moral suspicion. Studies 4 ( N = 173) and 5 ( N = 224) identified the moderating effect of the diagnosticity of “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief by using different manipulations of diagnosticity. Specifically, Study 4 was a field study in which we measured people’s real donation behavior. To document a robust effect, we varied the context of donation and payment methods across all studies. Our investigation suggests that relative to one payment mechanism, multiple payment mechanism may dampen individual donate. This effect would be attenuated when the “multiple payment mechanism = commercialization” lay belief is not used (i.e., low diagnosticity). These findings offer novel insights on literature regarding donation, payment, number effect, and metacognition inference, while practically suggesting that sponsor of donation activities must carefully consider the number of payment mechanism.