Purpose As platform companies increasingly integrate digital philanthropy into corporate social responsibility initiatives, personalizing donation feedback based on user scenarios has become ever more important. However, little is known about whether feedback timing, particularly donors' physiological states, influences feedback effectiveness. Drawing on cognitive accessibility theory and the elaborated intrusion theory of desire, this research examines how donors' momentary hunger state shapes the effectiveness of donation feedback in promoting willingness to donate again. Design/methodology/approach Four experimental studies were conducted with participants recruited from Credamo (N = 883). Hunger was either manipulated or measured to distinguish between hungry and satiated donors. Participants were exposed to donation feedback and reported their willingness to donate again. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted to examine the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions. Findings Donation feedback is more effective at promoting re-donation when donors are relatively hungry than when they are satiated. This effect is driven by an enhanced sense of achievement. Moreover, feedback information framing moderates the effect: other-benefit framing strengthens the positive impact of hunger, whereas self-benefit framing weakens it. Originality/value First, it extends donation-feedback research by identifying state-contingent feedback timing as an important determinant of feedback effectiveness. Second, it advances research on hunger and prosocial behavior by showing that hunger can heighten responsiveness to psychologically-rewarding feedback cues rather than uniformly reducing prosocial motivation. Third, it identifies sense of achievement as the underlying psychological mechanism and feedback framing as a boundary condition, while offering practical guidance for digital platforms seeking to sustain donor engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: