Meaningful vs. hedonic consumption: The effects of elevation on online sharing and information searching behaviors

Journal Pre-proofs Meaningful vs. Hedonic Consumption: The Effects of Elevation on Online Sharing and Information Searching Behaviors Wonseok (Eric) Jang, Joon Sung Lee, Dae Hee Kwak, Yong Jae Ko PII: DOI: Reference:

S0736-5853(19)30790-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101298 TELE 101298

To appear in:

Telematics and Informatics

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

18 February 2019 25 September 2019 28 September 2019

Please cite this article as: (Eric) Jang, W., Sung Lee, J., Hee Kwak, D., Jae Ko, Y., Meaningful vs. Hedonic Consumption: The Effects of Elevation on Online Sharing and Information Searching Behaviors, Telematics and Informatics (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101298

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Meaningful vs. Hedonic Consumption: The Effects of Elevation on Online Sharing and Information Searching Behaviors Wonseok (Eric) Jang, Sungkyunkwan University, Republic of Korea Joon Sung Lee, University of Florida, USA Dae Hee Kwak, University of Michigan, USA Yong Jae Ko, University of Florida, USA *****

Running head: Meaningful Online Video and Sharing Intentions -

*Corresponding author Wonseok (Eric) Jang (Assistant Professor) College of Sport Science, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066, Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, 16419 Phone: 82.31.299.6920, Email: [email protected]

-

Joon Sung Lee (Assistant Professor) College of Health and Human Performance, Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management, University of Florida Phone: 1.352.294.1654, Email: [email protected]

-

Dae Hee Kwak (Associate Professor) School of Kinesiology, Department of Sport Management, University of Michigan Phone: 1.734.615.2884, Email: [email protected]

-

Yong Jae Ko (Professor) College of Health and Human Performance, Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management, University of Florida Phone: 1.352.246.4771, Email: [email protected]

Meaningful vs. Hedonic Consumption: The Effects of Elevation on Online Sharing and Information Searching Behaviors

Abstract Sharing has become one of the most prevalent behaviors in the online environment as the rise of social media enables individuals to share content (e.g., videos and pictures) more easily with others on social networking sites. Sharing has been mainly investigated from a reciprocal standpoint (exchange-based sharing), and there has been a lack of effort to expand our knowledge of sharing from prosocial and morality perspectives. In this regard, based on the dual process theory and the dual model of entertainment media, the current study examines the role of elevation in determining individuals’ online sharing and information searching behaviors. The results indicate that participants exhibited greater intentions to share a meaningful video online and search for more information about the actor compared with a hedonic video (Experiment 1), and this effect was further moderated by participants’ moral identity (Experiment 2) and different mindsets associated with a prosocial action (beneficiary vs. benefactor; Experiment 3). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed related to online sharing and entertainment media literature. Keywords: meaningful online video; elevation; moral identity; video sharing and information seeking behavior

1.1. Introduction Sharing is one of the most fundamental and universal forms of human behavior in our society. People often share products, services, and foods with their family and close friends, or even with strangers (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Sharing is also prevalent in the online environment, and the concept of online sharing has been examined from various academic perspectives. The Internet helps people to easily connect with others using social networking sites (SNSs) or email, which enables them to actively share content (e.g., pictures and personal life stories) (Kaur, Balakrishnan, Rana, & Sinniah, 2019; Malik, Dhir, & Nieminen, 2016). In this sense, sharing has several functions that benefit senders. From a social psychology perspective, sharing helps senders create certain images from others; thus, such sharing behavior often determines the quality of social relationships and ultimately affects their level of subjective well-being (SWB; Jang, Bucy, & Cho, 2018). From a marketing perspective, video sharing is more interactive and engaging than text sharing (Clarine, 2016). Hence, video sharing leads to 1,200% more shares in SNSs than text and image sharing (Nelson, 2017). This is because the video format is better able to stimulate multiple senses (e.g., hearing and seeing) simultaneously compared to other types, such as text or picture. This leads to stronger engagement and provides more in-depth experiences for users (Appiah, 2006). Because of the increasing popularity of sharing in the online environment, the underlying mechanisms and social meanings of online sharing have become an important topic for research (Ahmed, Ahmad, Ahmad, & Zakaria, 2019; Cha, 2014; Chung, Lee, & Han, 2015). Particularly, online sharing has been primarily conceptualized from a reciprocal standpoint (Lee & Ma, 2012; Malik et al., 2016). People tend to share content with others in anticipation of monetary or reciprocal return, such as gaining popularity (Lai & Yang, 2014), exchanging information (Park,

Gu, Leung, & Konana, 2014; Yang & Wang, 2015), or enhancing their reputation (Park & Gabbard, 2018). On the other hand, some scholars have posited that sharing can be also conceptualized as a non-reciprocal activity. People often forward content to others online as a form of altruism (Belk, 2007; Ho & Dempsey, 2010) and due to moral motivations (Bucher, Fieseler, & Lutz, 2016). For example, Belk (2007) argued that people share content with others due to feelings of caring and love without expecting any reciprocal return. Bucher et al. (2016) also found that online sharing is driven by moral motivations, especially when the media content portrays a meaningful story. Although the key motivations that facilitate online sharing have been identified in the existing literature, a lack of effort has been made to understand which online content becomes more viral and the specific mechanisms that drive individuals’ online video sharing behavior from a non-reciprocal standpoint. The entertainment media literature provides interesting insights into the relationships between online sharing behavior and the nature of media content (i.e., hedonic vs. meaningful). Recent theories suggest that people consume media content not only to gain immediate pleasure and amusement but also to find deeper meaning in their lives, a new experience that has been conceptualized as meaningful consumption (Oliver & Raney, 2011). Through such meaningful consumption, people often experience greater self-development and create purpose and meaning in their lives (Oliver, Hartmann, & Woolley, 2012). In particular, people experience a feeling of meaningfulness by viewing a story that highlights an act of moral excellence and moral virtue, and such a meaningful experience can create a feeling of elevation in viewers, which is often called “other-praising emotion.” Consequently, these altruistic experiences encourage people to engage in prosocial actions (Haidt, 2003; Oliver et al., 2012). Based on this notion, this study conceptualized meaningful videos from a eudaimonic

perspective where viewers find greater purpose and deeper meaning in their life through otherpraising emotions. In contrast, hedonic video is conceptualized as a form of media content that simply leads viewers to immediately experience positive emotions (Oliver et al., 2012). Based on the dual model of entertainment media, we posit that online video sharing could be conceptualized from prosocial action, defined by distributing social goods and a worthy cause to others without expecting any return (Belk, 2007), especially when the story in a video is meaningful. In addition, by using the dual processing theory and the concept of other-praising emotion as another key theoretical framework, we explore the psychological mechanism that explains the impact of moral motivations on video sharing and information searching behaviors. The dual process theory suggested that people process information differently via two different systems (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). System 1 is automatic processing that can be performed with less cognitive effort, whereas system 2 facilitates a systematic processing of information and requires a greater amount of cognitive effort (Evans, 2011). Meaningful experience is associated with eudaimonic experiences, which provide an opportunity for personal growth (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014). Thus, the greater amount of cognitive resources that individuals devote to watching meaningful videos may function by motivating them to improve themselves from a moral perspective through an experience of other-praising emotions (Greene, 2007). Based on this reasoning, we posit that the elevated experience undergone when watching meaningful videos will encourage individuals to share such videos with others and search for information about the actor more than after watching hedonic videos. We conducted three experiments to test these predictions. In Experiment 1, we examined the effects of two types of videos (meaningful vs. hedonic) on individuals’ online sharing behaviors, as well as their intentions to search for more information about the actor online. To

provide direct evidence regarding whether sharing becomes a form of prosocial action through the experience of other-praising emotions, we further investigated the mediating effect of elevation in the relationship between the types of videos and outcome measures. In Experiment 2, we examined whether individuals’ level of moral identity, which is defined as “a selfconception organized around a set of moral traits” (Aquino & Reed, 2002, p.1424), either enhances or decreases the elevation effects on their sharing and information searching intentions. We expect that elevation effects on online sharing and information searching behaviors would be found only for individuals with high moral identity. Additionally, Experiment 2 provided more direct evidence regarding whether sharing becomes a form of prosocial action through an experience of elevation by testing the moderated mediation model. Lastly, Experiment 3 proposes that different mindsets associated with prosocial behavior (benefactor vs. beneficiary) would further moderate the effects of video type and individuals’ level of moral identity on their sharing and information searching behaviors. Because individuals experience different types of moral emotions depending on whether they give help (i.e., benefactor mindset) or receive help from another person (i.e., beneficiary mindset; Grant & Dutton, 2012), we expect that different perspectives would further determine the elevation effects on individuals’ online sharing and information searching behaviors. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. The Meaning of Sharing In the existing literature, sharing has been conceptualized based on either exchange-based sharing or non-exchange-based sharing (Belk, 2010). The first viewpoint has considered sharing an act of exchanging commodities from an economic standpoint; thus, sharing is explained by a “reciprocal-balanced exchange activity” where givers and receivers explicitly measure what they

give and receive through sharing (Becker, 2005). On the other hand, the second viewpoint has considered sharing a means of prosocial action and defined it as a non-exchange activity in which an individual shares information or a commodity with others due to love and caring without expecting any reciprocation (Belk, 2007). In online communication literature, a majority of research has considered online sharing behavior from a commodity exchange standpoint (Park et al., 2014). When people share content with friends online, they expect to receive some sort of reciprocal return, such as exchanging information (Yang & Wang, 2015), gaining reputation or popularity from their online community (Lai & Yang, 2014; Park et al., 2014), or developing social capital within the online community (Lee & Ma, 2012). However, consistent with the second viewpoint, scholars have suggested that sharing could also be conceptualized as a prosocial action (i.e., a non-exchangebased perspective). Such scholars have suggested that moral motivation often encourage people to share media content with others on SNS to spread social goods and worthy causes via a feeling of love (Bucher et al., 2016; Ho & Dempsey, 2010). Based on the second viewpoint, this study particularly focuses on non-exchange-based online sharing behavior from a meaningful consumption standpoint. 2.2. Meaningful Videos and Feelings of Elevation The entertainment media literature has predominantly focused on two types of media consumption: (a) hedonic and (b) meaningful (Oliver et al., 2012). The traditional view has highlighted the hedonic dimension of media consumption and suggested that people watch media to seek immediate pleasure and enjoyment (Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld, 2004). However, recent empirical efforts have also focused on the role of the meaningful dimension in entertainment consumption, which was largely overlooked in previous literature (Bartsch &

Schneider, 2014). A growing body of literature has indicated that people often watch media that depicts a meaningful story to observe an act of moral-excellence and human virtue, which fosters deeper meaning and greater purpose in individuals’ lives (Oliver & Raney, 2011). The difference between hedonic and meaningful entertainment has been well documented in the current literature. Hedonic entertainment is more strongly associated with positive affective responses, while meaningful entertainment is more strongly associated with both positive and negative affective responses (i.e., mixed affect; Krämer et al., 2016; Oliver & Raney, 2011). Most importantly, a key finding is that meaningful experiences induce a feeling of elevation, which is mostly experienced after observing other individuals’ kindness, unselfishness, and benevolent actions (Haidt, 2003). Additionally, an elevation experience increases individuals’ warm feelings and moral motivation (Schnall, Roper, & Fessler, 2010), encourages them to help others (Bailey & Wojdynski, 2015), and reduces stereotypes (Krämer et al., 2016). 2.3. Dual Process Theory, Elevation, and Online Sharing and Information Searching Behaviors Two distinctive systems guide individuals’ information processing behaviors (Kahneman, 2003). System 1 is strongly associated with heuristic and peripheral processing, whereas system 2 is strongly associated with elaborative and central processing (Evans, 2011). Particularly, system 1 encourages individuals to process information in a shallower and more automatic manner without deliberative processing (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). In contrast, system 2 involves systematic processing, which requires greater attention and cognitive effort (Kahneman, 2003). The current study expects that the dual process theory provides a sound theoretical framework to explain how the experience of other-praising emotions after watching a video

determines whether individuals will use either a system 1 or 2 processing and further shape their video sharing and information searching behaviors. Dual process theory has been adopted to explain how individuals make moral decisions through the experience of other-praising emotions (Greene, 2007). Individuals engage in either system 1 or 2 processing depending on whether they experience other-praising emotions while watching videos; such experiences subsequently determine their information-processing and prosocial behaviors (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014). Evidence has suggested that the experience of other-praising emotions inspires individuals to utilize system 2 processing, which facilitates them to exert greater motivation and effort while watching meaningful videos (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014). This pattern appears because other-praising emotions provide viewers with an opportunity to enjoy eudaimonic experiences, which challenge their life meaning and provide an opportunity for personal growth (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014). Greater cognitive effort derived from system 2 processing might motivate individuals to search for more information about the video content. Watching meaningful videos leads to greater interest in such videos and further encourages individuals to engage in prosocial actions. Because the greater cognitive effort that individuals devote to watching meaningful videos functions as a motivational force for personal growth, they often attempt to help others as a mean of moral development, especially after experiencing other-praising emotions (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014). For instance, Silvers and Haidt (2008) found that elevation, induced by watching a morally uplifting video, prompted more nurturing behavior in nursing mothers compared to mothers who watched an amusing video. Similarly, in the online environment, altruistic need, which was a key facilitator of otherpraising emotions, significantly predicted online sharing behavior as a form of expressing love (Ho & Dempsey, 2010). In addition, video that induced awe (a mixed state of elevation and

admiration) in people went viral more easily than videos that induced other affects (Berger & Milkman, 2012). These findings collectively suggest that meaningful videos motivate system 2 processing and likely trigger feelings of elevation in individuals, and in turn enhance their intentions to share such videos as a form of prosocial action as well as their intention to search about the actor online more than hedonic videos. Collectively, we proposed the following hypotheses: H1a: People will exhibit greater intentions to share meaningful videos online than hedonic videos. H1b: Feelings of elevation will mediate the effects of video types on online video sharing intentions. H2a: People will exhibit greater information search intentions online after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. H2b: Feelings of elevation will mediate the effects of video types on information search intentions. 3. Experiment 1 3.1. Participants and Design A single-factor, two-level (different types of video: hedonic vs. meaningful) betweensubjects design was used in Experiment 1. A total of 51 U.S. residents1 were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (M-Turk), and each participant received $0.75 as monetary compensation. We excluded three participants before analyzing the data because two individuals had already participated in the pilot study and one participant had seen the video before

1

In all experiments, the HIT approval rate for M-Turk workers was equal or higher than 95%.

participating in this study. The final sample size was 48. The average age was 33.81 (SD: 9.60; ranging from 19 to 65 years old), and 58.3% (n = 28) were male. 3.2. Procedure Two videos (one hedonic and one meaningful) were chosen from the video sharing site (i.e., YouTube) because their stories were well-matched to the concepts of either meaningful or hedonic consumption. Both videos featured the same actors, which aided in controlling for the identification level with the actor. In the first stage, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions: (1) meaningful or (2) hedonic video. In the meaningful video condition, participants viewed a video depicting a meaningful story about a college football player (CFP) and a boy named Bo Paske (BP) who has autism. In this video, the CFP visited a local high school with other football players. While eating lunch with students, the CFP found that BP was having lunch by himself. Thus, the CFP sat with BP and they had lunch together. The story depicted in the video is well-matched with the concept of meaningful experience because the CFP’s action reflects moral beauty and human kindness. The video lasts 2 minutes and 38 seconds, and the story was covered by the local news. In the hedonic video condition, participants viewed a highlight reel of the CFP during the 2016 and 2017 season, which included clips of touchdowns and several remarkable catches. Audio commentary was also included in the video to make the experience of watching the highlights more enjoyable and exciting. The existing literature suggests that the sport spectating experience generally evokes a positive affect in viewers (Jang, Ko, Wann, & Chang, 2017). This video lasts 3 minutes and 8 seconds. After viewing the assigned video, participants answered a questionnaire. 3.3. Measures

We adapted existing three-item scales to measure positive (α = .97; e.g., fun and entertaining; Bartsch & Hartmann, 2017; Oliver & Bartsch, 2010) and meaningful affects (α = .96; e.g., meaningful and moving; Slater, Oliver, & Appel, 2016). Additionally, negative affect was measured using a four-item scale (α = .85; e.g., sad and gloomy; Krämer et al., 2016). The feeling of elevation was measured using a 10-item scale (α = .97; Krämer et al., 2016). Furthermore, we measured participants’ intentions to search online for information about the actor in the video with a three-item scale (Bartsch & Schneider, 2014; α = .98). Participants’ video sharing intention was also measured using a three-items scale (Myrick & Oliver, 2015; α = .93). Furthermore, we used a behavioral measure of sharing. At the completion of the survey, just before thanking subjects for their participation in the study, we showed them a fictitious social media campaign using the CFP as a spokesperson. The fictitious social media campaign was described as being run by the New York Giants, a National Football League team that drafted the CFP in the 2017-2018 season. We informed participants that if the video was shared on SNS by more than 100,000 individuals, the Giants would donate $100,000 to a charitable foundation for children’s education. Subsequently, we asked participants whether they would like to receive the link to the video so that they could share the video on their SNS. This methodological approach helped us to examine participants’ actual sharing behaviors after watching the assigned video. Submitting an answer to this question was voluntary and was not attached to incentivizing. Participants could simply ignore the question and finish the survey without any penalty. Moreover, we used another question to examine whether a meaningful video leads to a greater intention to help others. We asked participants whether they would like to answer an additional three-minute survey, which contained several questions that would help the NY Giants create a promotional video for the CFP (Bailey & Wojdynski, 2015). For both the social media campaign

and the helping behavior, the response was coded as “1” if participants answered “yes,” and “0” if participants answered “no”. Moral Identity. Following suggestions from previous research (Lee, Winterich, & Ross, 2014), this study measured and used individuals’ moral identity, especially the internalization dimension, as a covariate (α = .69; Aquino & Reed, 2002). The moral identity scale consists of two-sub dimensions: internalization and symbolization. Particularly, the internalization dimension focuses on whether moral traits are essential part of one’s self-identity, whereas the symbolization dimension focuses on a person’s moral identity expressed in public settings (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Consistent with past research (e.g., Lee et al., 2014.), this study used only the internalization dimension as a covariate due to our intentions to control whether individuals’ moral identity that is related to self-identity affects their online sharing and information searching behavior. All measures used a 7-point Likert type scale. 4. Results 4.1. Manipulation Check We used a single item to examine whether the story of the video was pleasurable or meaningful (1 = pleasurable vs. 7 = meaningful). After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that the meaningful experience was highlighted more in the meaningful video (M = 5.04; SE: .33) than in the hedonic video (M = 3.82; SE: .29), F(1,45) = 7.60, p < .01, η² = 0.14. 4.2. Affective Responses After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the ANCOVA indicated that participants in the meaningful video condition (M = 5.15; SE: .39) exhibited a greater degree of meaningful affect than those in the hedonic video condition (M = 3.74; SE: .34), F(1,45) =

7.44, p < .01, η² = .13. Meanwhile, participants exhibited a greater degree of positive affect in the hedonic video condition (M = 5.96; SE: .32) compared with the meaningful video condition (M = 3.96; SE: .37), F(1,45) = 4.12, p < .05, η² = .08. Participants exhibited a similar degree of negative affect between the hedonic video (M = 1.43; SE: .16) and meaningful video conditions (M = 1.55; SE: .18), F(1,45) = .24, p = .63. It seems that participants in the meaningful video condition found the story (e.g., CFP helped an autistic child) to be uplifting and positive rather than saddening or negative. 4.3. Hypotheses Testing After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of ANCOVA indicated that participants showed greater intentions to share the meaningful video (M = 3.78; SE: .41) than the hedonic video (M = 2.34; SE: .37), F(1,45) = 6.76, p < .05, η² = .13. Furthermore, participants exhibited greater intentions to search for more information online about the actor in the story after watching the meaningful video (M = 4.49; SE: .43) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.09; SE: .38), F(1,45) = 5.93, p < .05, η² = .11. However, none of the actual behavioral measures were significant. Thus, H1a and H2a were partially supported. A series of Hayes PROCESS (2013; Model 4) macros was performed to test the mediation effect of elevation. The results of the bootstrap analysis with 5,000 resamples indicated that the feeling of elevation mediated the effect of different types of videos on online sharing intentions (effect = .85, 95% CI: .29 to 1.66) and intentions to search for more information about the actor (effect = .95, 95% CI: .38 to 1.70) with a 95% interval not including zero. We did not test the mediation effect of elevation for the behavioral measure because the main effect was not significant. Thus, H1b and H2b were partially supported. 5. Discussion

Consistent with the non-exchange-based perspective, the results indicated that a meaningful video leads to greater intentions to share the video and search online for more information about the actor in the story than does a hedonic video, especially through feelings of elevation. However, the meaningful video did not lead to a greater intention for participants to help others than did the hedonic video. This unexpected finding may be due to the characteristics of M-Turk. Because the amount of compensation that workers received was determined based on the time they spent completing the study, they may have wanted to finish the survey as quickly as possible without completing any additional tasks. In Experiment 2, therefore, we used a more immediate behavioral measure that did not require additional time. We also made several other improvements in Experiment 2. First, we used a different set of videos to increase the generalizability of the finding. Second, to provide additional evidence of the proposed elevation mechanism, we added moral identity as a key moderator that determines the effects of different types of videos on individuals’ online sharing and information searching intentions. 6. Experiment 2 Prior research has shown that not all individuals experience the same level of moral emotions after watching a meaningful clip. Individuals with high moral identity (HMI) undergo a greater feeling of elevation after viewing a meaningful video when compared to those with low moral identity (LMI; Aquino, McFerran, & Laven, 2011). Based on this notion, we extend the findings from Experiment 1 by incorporating individual differences on moral identity into the process. Experiment 2 investigated the moderating role of individuals’ moral identities on the effects of video type on online video sharing and information searching intentions. In particular, we predicted that the positive effects of a meaningful video on online video sharing and information searching intentions would be magnified for HMI individuals compared with LMI

individuals, especially through feelings of elevation. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses: H3: HMI individuals will exhibit a greater intention to (a) share the video and (b) search online for more information about the actor in the story after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. H4: The feeling of elevation will mediate the effects of video types on (a) online video sharing and (b) information searching intentions among HMI individuals, but not among LMI individuals. H5: LMI individuals will exhibit a similar degree of intention to (a) share the video and (b) search online for more information about the actor in the story after watching both meaningful and hedonic videos. 6.1. Participants and Design Experiment 2 utilized a 2 (types of video: hedonic vs. meaningful) × 2 (level of moral identity: high vs. low) between-subjects design. A total of 160 U.S. residents were recruited from M-turk. After utilizing the same data exclusion criteria, the final sample size was 148. Each participant received $.75 as monetary compensation. The average age was 35.46 (SD = 11.53), ranging from 19 to 76, and 58.8% (n = 87) were male. 6.2. Procedure Once participants agreed to take part in the experiment, they were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (meaningful vs. hedonic video). Both videos featured the same a real celebrity athlete, Dwyane Wade (DW), a professional basketball player. In the meaningful video condition, participants viewed a story involving DW and a fan, Michael. The first part of the video described how Michael lost his hand and feet and the ways in which he

suffered from his disability early in his life. The video then showed how Michael fought through his difficulties and finally met his favorite basketball player, DW. Furthermore, DW continuously demonstrated acts of moral-excellence by helping Michael and offering personal encouragement. The video lasts 3 minutes and 47 seconds. In the hedonic video condition, participants watched a video in which DW went undercover at a Dick’s Sporting Goods store and offered customers a free sample of a sports drink. He dressed in a wig and glasses and asked people to do funny things for a free sample of the drink. At the end of the video, the customers learned that the undercover man was DW and left the store very excited and happy. The video lasts 3 minutes and 35 seconds. After viewing the video, participants answered a questionnaire. 6.3. Measures All measures were identical to those in Experiment 1, except the behavioral measure of sharing and prosocial action. In terms of sharing, we informed participants that if they shared the video on their social media (e.g., Facebook or Twitter), the Dwyane Wade Foundation would give $1 to kids in need. In terms of prosocial action, we asked participants to complete a ‘raffle task’ (Piff, Dietze, Feinberg, Stancato, & Keltner, 2015). After watching the assigned video, we told participants that they would receive six raffle tickets which can be entered into a drawing for a small amount of compensation ($1). Participants were then informed that they could either keep all six raffle tickets for themselves for the random drawing or contribute any amount of the raffle tickets to DW’s charitable organization. After reading the instructions, participants indicated how many raffle tickets they would like to donate to DW’s charitable organization. The possible answers were as follows: 1 = None, 2 = 1 raffle ticket, 3 = 2 raffle tickets, 4 = 3 raffle tickets, 5 = 4 raffle tickets, 6 = 5 raffle tickets, and 7 = 6 raffle tickets. All multi-item scales indicated good reliability scores (i.e., positive affect: α = .96; meaningful affect: α = .96;

negative affect: α = .93; elevation: α = .97; sharing intention: α = .88; information search intention: α = .96, and moral identity: α = .82). 7. Results 7.1. Manipulation Check After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the ANCOVA indicated that meaningful experience was more highlighted in the meaningful video (M = 5.58; SE: .18) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.78; SE: .16), F(1,145) = 55.98, p < .001, η² = .28. 7.2. Affective Responses After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the ANCOVA indicated that participants in the meaningful video condition (M = 4.91; SE: .20) exhibited a greater degree of meaningful affect than those in the hedonic video condition (M = 3.81; SE = .18), F(1,145) = 17.14, p < .001, η² = .10. In addition, participants experienced a greater degree of positive affect in the hedonic video condition (M = 5.11; SE: .16) compared with those in the meaningful video condition (M = 3.03; SE: .18), F(1,145) = 75.19, p < .001, η² = .32. Furthermore, participants exhibited a greater degree of negative affect in the meaningful video condition (M = 2.24; SE: .15) compared with those in the hedonic video condition (M = 1.76; SE: .14), F(1,145) = 5.59, p < .05, η² = .04. 7.3. Hypotheses Testing The current study employed simple slope analysis (Hayes PROCESS Model 1; 2013) to examine the proposed hypotheses. The results indicated that the main effect of moral identity (b = -.05, t = -.41, p = .68) was not significant, whereas the main effect of types of video (b = -4.27, t = -2.86, p < .01) and the interaction between those two variables (b = .76, t = 3.09, p < .01) were significant for online sharing intentions. The model explained 7% of the total variance.

Specifically, the simple slope analysis further indicated that HMI participants (standard deviation above 1) showed greater intentions to share the video online after viewing the meaningful video (M = 3.75) compared with the hedonic video (M = 2.72; b = 1.04, t = 2.73, p < .01). In contrast, LMI participants (standard deviation below 1) exhibited a similar degree of sharing intentions after viewing the hedonic video (M = 3.66) compared with the meaningful video (M = 3.04; b = .62, t = -1.53, p = .13). In terms of actual sharing behaviors, the results of logistic regression using the Hayes PROCESS (Model 1) indicated that the main effect of video type (b = -7.00, z = -1.95, p = .052) and moral identity (b = .90, z = 3.27, p < .01), as well as the interaction effect between those two variables were significant (b = 1.13, z = 2.05, p < .05). However, none of the further analysis was significant. In terms of the behavioral measure of helping others, the results of the simple analysis indicated that the main effect of moral identity was significant (b = .36, t = 2.38, p < .05) while the main effect of video type (b = .08, t = .04, p = .97) and the interaction effects between those two variables were not significant (b = .03, t = .11, p =.91). Thus, H3a was partially supported and H5a was supported. In terms of information searching intentions, the simple slope analysis indicated that the interaction effects between moral identity and video type were significant (b = .60, t = 2.30, p < .05). In addition, the main effect of video type was significant (b = -3.08, t = -1.95, p = .053), while the main effect of moral identity was not significant (b = .18, t = 1.39, p = .17). The model explained 6% of the total variance. The results further indicated that HMI participants (standard deviation above 1) showed greater intentions to search online for information about the actor after watching the meaningful video (M = 4.87) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.78; b = 1.09, t = 2.71, p < .01). In contrast, LMI participants (standard deviation below 1) exhibited

similar intentions to search online for information about the actor after watching the hedonic video (M = 4.04) compared with the meaningful video (M = 3.83; b = -.21, t = -.49, p = .62). Thus, H3b and H5b were supported. In terms of moderated mediation effects, the PROCESS model 58 (Hayes, 2013) was used to test H4. The results of the biased corrected bootstrap analysis (with 5,000 resamples) demonstrated that for HMI participants, the feeling of elevation mediated the effects of different types of video on online sharing (effect = .97; 95% CI: .51 to 1.50) and information searching intentions (effect = 1.02; 95% CI: .52 to 1.61) with a 95% interval not including zero. However, for LMI participants, the feeling of elevation did not mediate the effects of video types on online sharing (effect = .33; 95% CI: -.13 to .77) and information searching intentions (effect = .34; 95% CI: -.15 to .83) with a 95% interval including zero. Thus, H4 was supported. [Place Table 1 Here] [Place Figure 1 Here] 8. Discussion The results of Experiment 2 provided more evidence for our conceptualization of sharing from a non-reciprocal standpoint. Specifically, HMI individuals experienced a greater feeling of elevation and thus exhibited greater online video sharing and information searching intentions after watching the meaningful video compared with the hedonic video. Meanwhile, LMI individuals showed similar degrees of online video sharing and information searching intentions between hedonic and meaningful video conditions. However, consistent with Experiment 1, the meaningful video did not influence the behavioral measures of prosocial action among HMI individuals. The findings from Experiments 1 and 2 collectively suggest that a behavioral

measure that focuses on financial incentive may not be suitable for M-Turk because the majority of the workers participate in research to receive momentary compensations. It is also important to note that both sharing and prosocial actions involve two types of agents: (1) a receiver and (2) a giver (Flynn & Brockner, 2003). A person who provides help (or shares content) to another person is considered a giver, while a person who receives help (or content) from another person is considered a receiver (Zhang & Epley, 2009). Researchers have used the terms ‘benefactor’ and ‘beneficiary’ to manipulate individuals’ mindsets into being either a giver or a receiver, respectively (Grant & Dutton, 2012). In this regard, it is important to examine the effect of different mindsets on online sharing intentions because if sharing is considered a prosocial action, the type of mindset that individuals establish before watching a video may influence their online sharing intentions. Thus, we further propose that either a benefactor or a beneficiary mindset would moderate the interaction effects of video types and moral identity on individuals’ online video sharing and information searching intentions. 9. Experiment 3 Experiment 3 is conducted to further extend online sharing and information searching behavior by examining the impact of the giver vs. receiver perspective in the process. This allows us to understand whether different perspectives prompt individuals to experience a greater feeling of elevation and thus show greater sharing and information searching behaviors. Consistent with Experiment 2, we predicted that HMI individuals would experience a greater feeling of elevation and thus exhibit greater online sharing and information searching intentions after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video, regardless of whether their mindset is framed as a benefactor or a beneficiary. Previous studies have found that people generally experience positive feelings (e.g., self-efficacy: Alessandri, Caprara, Eisenberg, &

Steca, 2009; social worth: Grant & Gino, 2010) when they recall giving experiences (i.e., the benefactor mindset), regardless of their level of moral identity. Consequently, such positive feelings encourage these individuals to engage in prosocial actions (Grant & Dutton, 2012). We further posited that recalling receiving experiences (i.e., the beneficiary mindset) would also enhance online sharing and information searching intentions for HMI individuals after watching a meaningful video. When people receive benefits from others, they often experience feelings of appreciation and gratitude (Algoe, Kurtz, & Hilaire, 2016). Subsequently, such positive feelings encourage individuals to view others in a more positive manner and thus exhibit greater prosocial actions (Grant & Dutton, 2012). In this regard, we proposed the following hypothesis: H6: For HMI individuals, both benefactor and beneficiary mindsets will lead to greater (a) online sharing and (b) information searching intentions after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. On the other hand, we proposed that a benefactor mindset would only enhance the feeling of elevation for LMI individuals and thus increase their online sharing and information searching intentions after viewing a meaningful video. Recalling receiving experiences (beneficiary mindset) does not necessarily enhance individuals’ intentions to engage in prosocial actions (Grant & Dutton, 2012). Indeed, some individuals experience negative feelings such as incompetence, helplessness, or embarrassment when they receive help from others (Fisher, Nadler, & Whicher-Alagna, 1982; Liang, Krause, & Bennett, 2001). Based on this notion, we proposed that when LMI individuals are prompted to recall experiences of receiving benefits from others, the elevating effect of being a recipient in a reciprocal relationship might be limited. This pattern may occur because moral values are not an integral part of LMI individuals’ identities (Aquino et al., 2011). However, consistent with HMI individuals, we proposed that a

benefactor mindset would enhance online sharing and information searching intentions for LMI individuals after they watch a meaningful video. Grant and Dutton (2012) found that the benefactor mindset makes the benevolence values salient in individuals’ minds regardless of their level of moral identity and in turn encourages them to engage in prosocial behaviors in the future. In this regard, we proposed the following hypotheses: H7: For LMI individuals, a benefactor mindset will lead to greater (a) online sharing and (b) information searching intentions after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. H8: For LMI individuals, a beneficiary mindset will lead to a similar degree of (a) online sharing and (b) information searching intentions after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. 9.1. Participants and Design Experiment 3 used a 2 (video type: hedonic vs. meaningful) × 2 (moral identity: high vs. low) ×2 (mindset: benefactor vs. beneficiary) between-subjects design. A total of 309 participants were recruited from both M-Turk (n = 142) and a public university (n = 167). MTurk workers received $0.75 as momentary compensation, while students received extra credit for their class. After using the same data exclusion criteria, the final sample size was 269. The average age was 27.61 (SD: 9.78; ranging from 18 to 67), and 36.1% (n = 97) were male. 9.2. Procedure In the first stage, participants completed a “Recall Task,” a manipulation of the beneficiary and benefactor mindset. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions. In the benefactor condition, participants recalled and typed in three recent life experiences of giving benefits to others in an online environment. In the beneficiary

condition, participants recalled and typed in three recent life experiences of receiving benefits from others in an online environment (Grant & Dutton, 2012). In the second stage, participants were randomly assigned to watch either the meaningful or the hedonic video that was used in Experiment 1, and then completed a questionnaire. 9.3. Measures All measures were consistent with Experiment 1 and 2 (i.e., positive affect: α = .96; meaningful affect: α = .96; negative affect: α = .94; elevation: α = .97; sharing intention: α = .91; information search intention: α = .94, and moral identity: α = .78). 10. Results The Hayes’s PROCESS (Model 3; 2013) was used to test all hypotheses. 10.1. Manipulation Check for Video Type After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the ANCOVA indicated that the meaningful experience was more emphasized in the meaningful video (M = 5.64; SE: .13) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.42; SE: .13), F(1,266) = 147.18, p < .001, η² = .38. 10.2. Manipulation Check for Different Mindsets A single item scale was used to measure whether the recall task framed participants’ mindsets into either a beneficiary or benefactor (1 = beneficiary, 7 = benefactor). After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the ANCOVA indicated that recalling a giving experience framed participants’ mindsets into that of benefactors (M = 6.03; SE: .15) rather than beneficiaries (M = 2.22; SE: .14), F(1,266) = 343.02, p < .001, η² = .56. 10.3. Affective Responses After controlling for individuals’ moral identities, the results of the ANCOVA indicated that participants in the meaningful video condition (M = 5.27; SE: .15) exhibited a greater degree

of meaningful affect than those in the hedonic video condition (M = 3.58; SE: .14), F(1,266) = 68.06, p < .001, η² = .20. In addition, participants experienced a greater degree of positive affect in the hedonic video condition (M = 4.73; SE: .15) compared with those in the meaningful video condition (M = 3.76; SE: .16), F(1,266) = 20.16, p < .001, η² = .07. Furthermore, participants exhibited a greater degree of negative affect in the meaningful video condition (M = 1.97; SE: .10) compared with those in the hedonic video condition (M = 1.45; SE: .09), F(1,266) = 15.52, p < .001, η² = .05. 10.4. Hypotheses Testing In terms of sharing intentions, the results indicated that none of the main effects were significant (moral identity: b = -.11, t = -1.13, p = .26; mindset: b = .05, t = .04, p = .96; video type: b = -1.54, t = -1.26, p = .21). However, two-way interaction between mindset and video type (b = 7.58, t = 3.10, p < .01) and video type and moral identity (b = .47, t = 2.34, p < .05) was significant, whereas two-way interaction between mindset and moral identity was not significant (b = -.03, t = -.16, p = .87). Most importantly, three-way interaction was significant for sharing intentions (b = -1.23, t = -3.07, p < .01). The model explained 17% of the total variance. Specifically, further analysis indicated that HMI participants exhibited greater intentions to share the video online after viewing the meaningful video (M = 4.46) compared with the hedonic video (M = 2.21) (b = 2.24., t = 5.58, p < .001) when their mindset was framed as a beneficiary. Similarly, when their mindset was framed as a benefactor, HMI participants showed greater intentions to share the video online after viewing the meaningful video (M = 3.79) compared with the hedonic video (M = 2.55) (b = 1.24, t = 2.89, p < .01). On the other hand, LMI participants exhibited greater intentions to share the video online after viewing the

meaningful video (M = 4.21) compared with the hedonic video (M = 2.67) (b = 1.55, t = 3.38, p < .001) when their mindset was framed as a benefactor. In contrast, when their mindset was framed as a beneficiary, there was no significant difference on sharing intentions between the meaningful video (M = 3.52) and the hedonic video (M = 3.56) (b = -.04, t = -.10, p = .92). Thus, H6a, H7a, and H8a were supported. In terms of information searching intentions, the results indicated that none of the main effects were significant (moral identity: b = .11, t = 1.16, p = .25; mindset: b = .36, t = -.30, p = .76; video type: b = .01, t = .01, p = .99). However, two-way interaction between mindset and video type (b = 5.44, t = 2.25, p < .05) was significant, while two-way interaction between video type and moral identity (b = .16, t = .82, p = .41) as well as between mindset and moral identity was not significant (b = -.05, t = -.24, p = .81). Most importantly, three-way interaction was significant for intentions to search online for more information about the actor (b = -.85, t = 2.14, p < .05). The model explained 10% of the total variance. Specifically, further analysis indicated that HMI participants exhibited greater intentions to search online for information about the actor after watching the meaningful video (M = 4.77) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.38) (b = 1.39, t = 3.50, p < .001) when their mindset was framed as a beneficiary. Similarly, when their mindset was framed as a benefactor, HMI participants showed greater intentions to search online for information about the actor after watching the meaningful video (M = 4.57) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.66) (b = .90, t = 2.12, p < .05). On the other hand, LMI participants exhibited greater intentions to search online for more information about the actor after watching the meaningful video (M = 4.65) compared with the hedonic video (M = 3.19) (b = 1.45, t = 3.21, p < .01) when their mindset was framed as a benefactor. In contrast, when their mindset was framed as a beneficiary, there was no

significant difference in information searching intentions between the meaningful video (M = 3.86) and the hedonic video (M = 3.71) (b = .15, t = .35, p = .72). Thus, H6b, H7b, and H8b were supported. In terms of the behavioral measure of prosocial and sharing behavior, none of the effects were significant (ps > .05). Thus, H8, H9, and H10 were rejected for the behavioral measures. 10.5. Additional Analysis To test whether the finding in Experiment 3 was responsible for the feeling of elevation, we ran an additional simple slope analysis using the feeling of elevation as a dependent variable. The results demonstrated that the main effect of moral identity was significant (b = .29, t = 4.06, p < .001), whereas the main effects of mindset (b = -.31, t = -.35, p = .73) and video type (b = .80, t = -.91, p = .36) were not significant. Additionally, two-way interactions between video type and mindset (b = 6.24, t = 3.55, p < .001) and between video type and moral identity (b = .37, t = 2.56, p < .05) were significant while the two-way interaction between mindset and moral identity (b = .07, t = .47, p = .64) was not significant. Most importantly, three-way interaction was significant for elevation (b = -1.13, t = -3.92, p < .001). The model explained 33% of the total variance. Further analysis indicated that HMI participants experienced a greater feeling of elevation after viewing the meaningful video (M = 6.77) compared with the hedonic video (M = 4.17) (b = 2.61, t = 9.02, p < .001) when their mindset was framed as a beneficiary. When their mindset was framed as a beneficiary, HMI participants also experienced a greater feeling of elevation after watching the meaningful video (M = 6.10) compared with the hedonic video (M = 5.16) (b = .95, t = 3.07, p < .01). On the other hand, LMI participants exhibited a greater feeling of elevation after viewing the meaningful video (M = 5.62) compared with the hedonic video (M

= 4.26) (b = 1.36, t = 4.15, p < .001) when their mindset was framed as a benefactor. In addition, when their mindset was framed as a beneficiary, the meaningful video (M = 5.24) also led to a greater feeling of elevation than the hedonic video (M = 4.61) (b = .64, t = 2.03, p < .05). These patterns collectively suggest that the feeling of elevation was responsible for the findings in Experiment 3. [Place Table 2 Here] [Place Figure 2 Here] 11. General Discussion Discussion in the current literature has mostly conceptualized sharing from an exchangebased perspective (Lee & Ma, 2012; Malik et al., 2016). Accordingly, scholars have examined the type of benefit that people obtain from others by sharing videos or images on their SNS, and the specific motivations that derive such sharing behavior (Lai & Yang, 2014). Research has demonstrated that by sharing content on their SNS, some people derive a positive self-image, enhance popularity and reputation with others, as well as gain a feeling of belonging with their online community (Malik et al., 2016; Park et al., 2014). However, a few studies have suggested that people often share videos on their SNS without expecting to receive any benefit from others, especially if the video induces moral motivation (Belk, 2007; Bucher et al., 2016). In this regard, our study attempted to provide a deeper understanding of the differing responses to hedonic and meaningful videos, and how such responses further determine viewers’ online sharing and information searching behaviors. In particular, our findings extend the existing literature by identifying the specific mechanism by which moral motivation facilitates online sharing and information searching behaviors from a non-reciprocal standpoint. Specifically, we demonstrated that when the story of the video induces other-praising emotions (i.e., elevation), people often

share videos with others without expecting to obtain any reciprocal benefits and are more likely to search for the actor. In addition, we provide the first empirical evidence regarding how different types of mindsets, either a benefactor or beneficiary, further determine individuals’ sharing and search behaviors from a non-reciprocal standpoint. Moreover, our findings also provide several meaningful practical suggestions for individuals and organizations that with to boost engagement. Several prominent organizations and celebrities often run campaigns via social media to promote good causes. Our findings suggest that videos which are created to promote a prosocial campaign should focus more on the meaningful perspective of the story rather than the fun aspect to make the video more viral and generate interest from people. In particular, the results of Experiment 1 indicated that a meaningful video that depicts human beauty and moral virtues motivated individuals to share the video on SNS, as well as increased their interest in the actor through a feeling of elevation. Elevation is often conceptualized from a moral perspective; individuals experience this feeling after witnessing the moral actions of others (Oliver et al., 2012). Consequently, elevated experiences encourage individuals to engage in various forms of prosocial actions (Schnall et al., 2010). Consistent with this notion, the finding of Experiment 1 provides initial evidence regarding when online sharing behavior is derived from a moral perspective through an experience of other-praising emotion. This finding is not only consistent with the existing literature that has found that online sharing is often driven by moral motivations but also extends existing literature by identifying a specific form of other-praising emotions (i.e., elevation) that facilitates individuals’ online sharing and information searching behaviors. Experiment 2 showed that individual’s moral identities play a crucial role in their experience of elevation. Specifically, HMI individuals experienced a greater feeling of elevation

after viewing a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. As a result, the heightened elevation experience led to a greater intention to share the video and search for more information about the actor. In contrast, LMI individuals did not show an increased feeling of elevation after watching a meaningful video and exhibited similar degrees of online sharing and information searching intentions compared with a hedonic video. This finding demonstrated that moral identity, which is strongly associated with moral sensitivity (Sparks, 2015), empathy (Detert, Trevino, & Sweitzer, 2008), and the act of moral goodness (e.g., volunteerism; Aquino & Reed, 2002), is an important personal trait that either amplifies or lessens elevation experiences and further influences individuals’ online sharing and information searching behaviors. Experiment 3 demonstrated that different mindsets of individuals in which they conceive of themselves as either benefactor or beneficiary further moderated the effects of video types and individuals’ moral identity on online sharing and information searching behaviors. Particularly, the results indicated that both beneficiary and benefactor mindsets led to greater online sharing and information searching intentions for HMI individuals after they watched a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. In the field of social psychology, Hofmann and colleagues (2014) claimed that morality is contagious—that is, when a person receives help from another person, their own moral action is enhanced in the future. As the initial work done by Hofmann et al. (2014) did not consider the role of individuals’ levels of moral identity, our results extend their work by demonstrating that the contagious effect not only occurred when HMI individuals imagined a moment of giving help to others but also happened when they imagined a moment of receiving help from others. People often experience positive affective states, such as appreciation and gratitude, when they recall experiences of receiving help (i.e., beneficiary) from others or giving help (i.e., benefactor) to them (Algoe et al., 2016). In this regard, such positive affective

states induce a feeling of elevation from HMI individuals and in turn encourage them to share meaningful videos and search online for more information about the actor in a meaningful video. On the other hand, the results indicated that when LMI individuals recalled receiving experiences, the beneficiary mindset did not increase online sharing and information searching intentions after watching a meaningful video. When another person gives help, some people may not only appreciate this prosocial action but also experience negative feelings (e.g., uncomfortableness and embarrassment; Fisher et al., 1982; Liang et al., 2001). In particular, we believe that such mixed feelings were more pronounced among LMI individuals because they have less of a tendency to help others in their daily lives (Aquino et al., 2011). In this regard, when LMI individuals’ mindsets were framed as beneficiaries, the meaningful video did not lead to greater online sharing and information search intentions. Meanwhile, when LMI individuals recalled a moment of giving help to others, they showed greater intentions to share the video and search online for information about the actor after watching a meaningful video compared with a hedonic video. This finding is also consistent with the moral contagious effect (Hofmann et al., 2014). Regardless of individuals’ level of moral identity, once participants recalled an experience of giving help to another person, they also became interested in sharing and learning about the actor in the meaningful video with others online. By incorporating two important concepts (i.e., the benefactor and beneficiary) in the moral judgment literature, the results of Experiment 3 not only demonstrated how HMI individuals become motivated to share and search for information about the actor after watching a meaningful video, but they also show how LMI individuals are encouraged to share and search online for more information about the actor after watching a meaningful video. 11.1. Practical Implications

Our findings indicate that a video with meaningful or morally motivated content will become more viral than a video with primarily hedonic content. If an organization wishes to create a message to be shared on social media, then focusing on creating meaningful content that resonates with target audiences would be more effective than just focusing on the fun aspect. In addition, our findings indicate that positioning the audience as the benefactor of a prosocial action can be an effective strategy to further motivate individuals to share the content and search for information about the content. Recalling being a giver, rather than a receiver, had a significant effect on the willingness of viewers to share the video and search for information, even for those with a lower identification with a moral identity trait. For instance, if a celebrity endorser wants to encourage his/her followers on social media to take certain action (e.g., vote in the upcoming election, volunteer for a local event, support a cause, etc.), then the video content should tease out how taking certain action can benefit not just the individual but also the community at large. Given that our findings showed that recalling as a ‘giver’ (benefactor) was positively associated with sharing the content and searching for more information, messaging can portray how a certain action taken by the individual can have a lasting impact. Therefore, positioning each viewer as a giver or an influencer (rather than a beneficiary) could be effective in spreading a message on social media platforms. Suppose that a local professional sports team is initiating a food drive for a local food bank. The team can post a message on social media to encourage fans to also contribute to the campaign. Based on our findings, it is important that messages should emphasize how individuals’ giving can have an immediate impact on the community. If the goal is to spread information to a wider audience and help them to find out more about the initiative, the team should be strategic in creating content directed at their target audience. Perhaps the team can use

testimonials from local food banks or individuals who have benefitted from the initiative on how individual support on food donations has benefited their local community and families. Such content will help position the audience as a ‘giver’ in a prosocial context, which our findings indicate as an important driver for online sharing and search behavior. 11.2. Limitations and Future Research We would like to acknowledge some limitations of the current research. First, the results of the present study are limited to online behaviors in the sports-related context. While we carefully selected a content topic (i.e., sports) deemed acceptable for testing our hypotheses, we did not intend to generalize the findings to other contexts less relevant to the experiential consumption. In addition, we used real athletes (i.e., CFP and DW) and a real organization (New York Giants) in the social media campaign to measure actual online sharing and prosocial behavior. This may have resulted in some unintended confounding effects (e.g., identification level with the athletes and team). Although we attempted to control these confounding effects by featuring the same athletes across the experimental conditions, a non-significant effect on behavioral measures may have been caused by these confounding variables. Future research should carefully develop the stimuli by eliminating these types of potential confounding variables. Second, in Experiment 3, we mentioned that participants would experience either negative (e.g., uncomfortableness or embarrassment) or positive feelings (e.g., gratitude or appreciation) depending on whether their mindset was framed as either a benefactor or a beneficiary, which in turn determined the elevation effect on online sharing and information searching behaviors. However, we did not directly measure those feelings in Experiment 3. Thus, future research should examine whether recalling either a receiving or giving experience induces different types of feelings depending on the participants’ moral identity and subsequently

determines the elevation effect. Third, while we measured intentions to search for the actor, future studies may also examine intentions to search for the cause or the story itself. Depending on the purpose of communication (e.g., enhancing cause awareness, promoting athletes), different information searching behaviors may be implemented to extend the current findings. People often post content (e.g., images or videos) or share information from their personal lives on their SNS, such as Facebook and Instagram, or share such information with friends online (Bucher et al., 2016). Research has found that the type of content that people share on their SNSs significantly affects their level of SWB (Jang et al., 2018). In this regard, it would be interesting to examine how online sharing behaviors affect individuals’ level of SWB depending on the type of content they shared on SNSs. In other words, future research should explore the key consequences of sharing behaviors in the online environment, such as SWB, in addition to their antecedents. In conclusion, we believe our findings contribute to the communication and social media literature by demonstrating how online sharing and information searching behaviors may be shaped by video types, viewers’ level of moral identity, and mindsets associated with prosocial and sharing behaviors. We hope that our findings encourage other researchers to investigate how elevating experience plays a unique role in affecting other types of human behaviors in an online environment.

References Ahmed, Y. A., Ahmad, M. N., Ahmad, N., & Zakaria, N. H. (2019). Social media for knowledge-sharing: A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 37, 72112. Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., Eisenberg, N., & Steca, P. (2009). Reciprocal relations among self‐efficacy beliefs and prosociality across time. Journal of Personality, 77, 1229-1259. Algoe, S. B., Kurtz, L. E., & Hilaire, N. M. (2016). Putting the “You” in “Thank You”: Examining other-praising behavior as the active relational ingredient in expressed gratitude. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 658-666. Appiah, O. (2006). Rich Media, poor Media: The Impact of audio/video vs. text/picture testimonial ads on browsers' evaluations of commercial web sites and online products. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28(1), 73-86. Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703-718. Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440. Bailey, E., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2015). Effects of “meaningful” entertainment on altruistic behavior: Investigating potential mediators. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59, 603-619. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881-898.

Bartsch, A., & Hartmann, T. (2017). The role of cognitive and affective challenge in entertainment experience. Communication Research, 44, 29-53. Bartsch, A., & Schneider, F. M. (2014). Entertainment and politics revisited: How non‐escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. Journal of Communication, 64, 369-396. Becker, G. S. (2005). A Treatise on the Family. Harvard university press. Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 126-140. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715-734. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 192-205. Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Lutz, C. (2016). What’s mine is yours (for a nominal fee)–Exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for Internet-mediated sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 316-326. Cha, J. (2014). Usage of video sharing websites: Drivers and barriers. Telematics and Informatics, 31, 16-26. Chung, N., Lee, S., & Han, H. (2015). Understanding communication types on travel information sharing in social media: A transactive memory systems perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 564-575. Clarine, B. (2016). 11 Reasons why video is better than any other medium. Retrieved from https://www.advancedwebranking.com/blog/11-reasons-why-video-is-better/

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374391. Evans, J. S. B. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31, 86-102. Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223-241. Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 27-54. Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers’ and receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1034-1045. Grant, A., & Dutton, J. (2012). Beneficiary or benefactor: Are people more prosocial when they reflect on receiving or giving?. Psychological Science, 23, 1033-1039. Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 946-955. Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 322-323. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. Handbook of Affective Sciences, 11, 852-870. Ho, J. Y., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1000-1006. Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345, 1340-1343.

Jang, W. E., Bucy, E. P., & Cho, J. (2018). Self-esteem moderates the influence of selfpresentation style on Facebook users’ sense of subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 190-199. Jang, W., Ko, Y. J., Wann, D. L., & Chang, Y. W. (2017). The relative effects of game outcome and process on fans’ media consumption experiences. European Sport Management Quarterly, 17, 635-658 Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720. Kaur, W., Balakrishnan, V., Rana, O., & Sinniah, A. (2019). Liking, sharing, commenting and reacting on Facebook: User behaviors’ impact on sentiment intensity. Telematics and Informatics. Doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.005. Krämer, N., Eimler, S. C., Neubaum, G., Winter, S., Rösner, L., & Oliver, M. B. (2016). Broadcasting one world: How watching online videos can elicit elevation and reduce stereotypes. New Media & Society, 19, 1349-1368. Lai, C. Y., & Yang, H. L. (2015). Determinants of individuals’ self-disclosure and instant information sharing behavior in micro-blogging. New Media & Society, 17, 1454-1472. Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 331-339. Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross Jr, W. T. (2014). I’m moral, but I won’t help you: The distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 678-696. Liang, J., Krause, N. M., & Bennett, J. M. (2001). Social exchange and well-being: Is giving better than receiving?. Psychology and Aging, 16, 511-523.

Malik, A., Dhir, A., & Nieminen, M. (2016). Uses and gratifications of digital photo sharing on Facebook. Telematics and Informatics, 33, 129-138. Myrick, J. G., & Oliver, M. B. (2015). Laughing and crying: Mixed emotions, compassion, and the effectiveness of a YouTube PSA about skin cancer. Health communication, 30, 820829. Nelson, K. (2017). Facebook news feed algorithm unlocked: Optimizing for greater reach, engagement. Retrieved from: https://www.adweek.com/digital/kristoffer-nelson-sraxguest-post-facebook-news-feed-algorithm/ Oliver, M. B., & Bartsch, A. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36, 53-81. Oliver, M. B., Hartmann, T., & Woolley, J. K. (2012). Elevation in response to entertainment portrayals of moral virtue. Human Communication Research, 38, 360-378. Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61, 984-1004. Park, J., & Gabbard, J. L. (2018). Factors that affect scientists’ knowledge sharing behavior in health and life sciences research communities: Differences between explicit and implicit knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 326-335. Park, J. H., Gu, B., Leung, A. C. M., & Konana, P. (2014). An investigation of information sharing and seeking behaviors in online investment communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 1-12. Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 883-899.

Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. (2010). Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 315-320. Silvers, J. A., & Haidt, J. (2008). Moral elevation can induce nursing. Emotion, 8, 291-295. Slater, M. D., Oliver, M. B., & Appel, M. (2016). Poignancy and mediated wisdom of experience: Narrative impacts on willingness to accept delayed rewards. Communication Research, Doi: 10.1177/0093650215623838 Sparks, J. R. (2015). A social cognitive explanation of situational and individual effects on moral sensitivity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 45-54. Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14, 388-408. Yang, H. C., & Wang, Y. (2015). Social sharing of online videos: Examining American consumers’ video sharing attitudes, intent, and behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 907-919. Zhang, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). Self-centered social exchange: Differential use of costs versus benefits in prosocial reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 796810.

Table 1. The Effects Different Types of Video and Moral Identity on the Feeling of Elevation and Online Sharing and Information Seeking Intentions Dependent Variables

Mean Different Types of Video Hedonic Video

Meaningful Video

Online Sharing Intention

2.34 (SE: .37)

3.78 (SE: .41)

Information Searching Intention

3.09 (SE: .38)

4.49 (SE: .43)

Experiment 1

Experiment 2

Moral Identity Trait

Online Sharing Intention

HMI

2.72

3.75

LMI

3.66

3.04

HMI

3.78

4.87

LMI

4.04

3.83

Information Searching Intention

Note. SE = Standard Error, HMI = High Moral Identity, LMI = Low Moral Identity, HAYESS PROCESS MACRO does not provide the value for the standard deviation.

Table 2. The Effects Different Types of Video, Moral Identity, and Different Types of Mindset on the Feeling of Elevation and Online Sharing and Information Seeking Intentions Dependent Variables

Mean Different Types of Video

Feeling of Elevation

Moral

Different Types

Identity Trait

of Mindset

HMI LMI

Online Sharing Intention

HMI LMI

Information Searching

HMI

Intention LMI

Hedonic Video

Meaningful Video

Beneficiary

4.17

6.77

Benefactor

5.16

6.10

Beneficiary

4.61

5.24

Benefactor

4.26

5.62

Beneficiary

2.21

4.46

Benefactor

2.55

3.79

Beneficiary

3.56

3.52

Benefactor

2.67

4.21

Beneficiary

3.38

4.77

Benefactor

3.66

4.57

Beneficiary

3.71

3.86

Benefactor

3.19

4.65

Note. HMI = High Moral Identity, LMI = Low Moral Identity, HAYESS PROCESS MACRO does not provide the value for the standard deviation.

Figure 1. Two-way Interaction Effects between Different Types of Video and Moral Identity on Online Sharing Intention for Experiment 2

Figure 2. Three-way Interaction Effects between Different Types of Video, Different Types of Mindset, and Moral Identity on Online Sharing Intention for Experiment 3

Conflict of Interest: There is no conflict of interest in this article.

Highlights 

This study examined individuals’ online sharing behavior



This study examined individuals’ online information search behavior



Meaningful video was more likely to share by individuals than hedonic video



Meaningful video created more interest from individuals than hedonic video