The role of affect, satisfaction and internal drive on personal moral norms during COVID‐19

Abstract

Background and Objective
Societies require prosocial activities during crises. The COVID‐19 pandemic presents individuals with unique challenges that may affect their emotional state leading to reformed personal moral norms. Crucially, personal moral norms are important predictors of moral behaviour. Given the longevity of the pandemic, studying its impact on affect, satisfaction and internal drive of (non‐)donors during COVID‐19 and if personal moral norms are affected is paramount.

Material and Methods
This study relies on longitudinal data, consisting of six waves carried out biweekly. Our panel is representative for the German population, capturing changes in affect, satisfaction, internal drive and personal moral norms. We compare the emotional state and personal moral norms of (non‐)donors in the pandemic to pre‐pandemic phase. Moreover, we analyse changes in emotional state and personal moral norms during the pandemic and investigate the role of emotional state on personal moral norms.

Results
Firstly, our results show that personal moral norms of (non‐)donors drop compared to pre‐pandemic. Within pandemic, personal moral norms of active donors are not further altered. Secondly, we find significant changes of emotional state in the pandemic compared to pre‐pandemic phase, for example individuals feel more optimistic, but less satisfied and less energetic. Thirdly, we find that feeling more grateful increases personal moral norms of non‐donors.

Conclusion
This study provides insights into how crises shape (non‐)donors’ emotional state and its impact on relevant donor motivations, that is, personal moral norms. Blood banks can use this knowledge to enhance recruiting and retention efforts during crises.

Full text

ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
ORIGINAL PAPER ©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion
DOI: 10.1111/voxs.12626
The role of affect, satisfaction and internal drive on
personal moral norms during COVID-19
Besarta Veseli,
1
Elena Koch,
1
Meikel Soliman,
2
Sabrina Sandner,
1
Sinika Studte
1
&MichelClement
1
1
Institute for Marketing, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
2
Faculty of Business and Economics, Leuphana University L€
uneburg, L€
uneburg, Germany
Received: 27 November 2020,
revised 14 January 2021,
accepted 8 February 2021
Background and Objective Societies require prosocial activities during crises. The
COVID-19 pandemic presents individuals with unique challenges that may affect
their emotional state leading to reformed personal moral norms. Crucially, per-
sonal moral norms are important predictors of moral behaviour. Given the long-
evity of the pandemic, studying its impact on affect, satisfaction and internal
drive of (non-)donors during COVID-19 and if personal moral norms are affected
is paramount.
Material and Methods This study relies on longitudinal data, consisting of six
waves carried out biweekly. Our panel is representative for the German popula-
tion, capturing changes in affect, satisfaction, internal drive and personal moral
norms. We compare the emotional state and personal moral norms of (non-)-
donors in the pandemic to pre-pandemic phase. Moreover, we analyse changes in
emotional state and personal moral norms during the pandemic and investigate
the role of emotional state on personal moral norms.
Results Firstly, our results show that personal moral norms of (non-)donors drop
compared to pre-pandemic. Within pandemic, personal moral norms of active
donors are not further altered. Secondly, we find significant changes of
emotional state in the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic phase, for example
individuals feel more optimistic, but less satisfied and less energetic. Thirdly, we
find that feeling more grateful increases personal moral norms of non-donors.
Conclusion This study provides insights into how crises shape (non-)donors’ emo-
tional state and its impact on relevant donor motivations, that is, personal moral
norms. Blood banks can use this knowledge to enhance recruiting and retention
efforts during crises.
Key words: affect, blood donation, COVID-19, personal moral norms, prosocial
behavior.
Introduction
Societies require individuals who are willing to engage in
prosocial activities including volunteering and donating
money or blood, especially during crises [1,2]. The
COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant societal chal-
lenge, including its impact on healthcare systems
worldwide [3] and political decisions (i.e. COVID-19 mea-
sures) aimed to ensure health safety [4]. Apart from the
perceived risk of the disease itself, imposed COVID-19
measures pose a tremendous and unforeseen challenge to
individuals’ emotional state, as they restrict public and
private life. In March 2020, the German government
imposed non-medical measures aimed to reduce infec-
tions, including social distancing and contact restrictions,
hygiene concepts, national and international mobility
restrictions, ban on public gatherings, closure of schools
and non-essential businesses, and other [4]. As COVID-19
Correspondence: Michel Clement, University of Hamburg, Institute for
Marketing, Moorweidenstr. 18, 20148 Hamburg, Germany
E-mail: michel.clement@uni-hamburg.de
1

is still ongoing [5], it is paramount to understand its
impact on (non-)donors’ (e.g. volunteers, money and
whole blood donors) emotional state including affect, sat-
isfaction with various factors in life, and internal drive.
Recent studies indicate a drop in blood donations world-
wide [3,6], similar effects were observed during SARS in
2003 [7]. However, the influence of a long-term crisis like
COVID-19 on donation motivations is unknown. Specifi-
cally, personal moral norms play a crucial role in predict-
ing moral behaviour [8–10]. While moral norms are
defined as perceptions, attitudes and behaviour that are
approved of and expected of members of a group [11,12],
personal moral norms reflect the personal feeling that
one is morally obliged to undertake prosocial actions,
such as donating [9]. In other words, personal moral
norms are tied to the self-concept and current self-expec-
tations, while general social norms are anchored in social
groups [13–15]. Drawing from past experiences and cir-
cumstances, individuals form and internalize personal
moral norms [13]. Thus, personal moral norms do not
have to be constant or firm cognitive structures but can
be reformed due to new situational input. The ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic represents such unforeseen
circumstances –that may both influence the internal
emotional state, as well as lead to reformed personal
moral norms [16].
Prior research states that individuals show higher will-
ingness to help when there is a disaster, for example after
the 2004 tsunami [2] or 11 September 2001 [17]. How-
ever, a pandemic like COVID-19 requires long-term crisis
management, including continuous monetary support,
volunteer assistance and blood donations. Moreover, con-
trary to short-term crises, which do not involve infectious
diseases, COVID-19 poses unique challenges: (1) it is
highly transmissible and a threat to one’s own and
others’ health, (2) it may affect one’s emotional state and
(3) it is likely to be a long-term issue [18]. Blood banks,
as well, have to operate under unprecedented and
increasingly challenging conditions. They must manage a
drop in mobile blood collection events, while at the same
time responding to the easing and tightening of restric-
tions imposed by governments [19]. Retaining donors
during these times is crucial, as the more time that has
passed since a donation, the less likely a donor will be to
redonate [20,21]. Overcoming a long-lasting pandemic
requires a high level of willingness to help beyond the
first external shock, or weeks of crisis.
Thus, the aim of this study is (1) to understand how
individuals respond to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
and the changes in their emotional state and (2) to inves-
tigate if and how personal moral norms are altered during
the pandemic. To this end, we conducted a panel study in
Germany, covering a span of three months (April to June
2020), measuring (non-)donors affect, satisfaction and
internal drive, as well as their personal moral norms with
regard to engaging in prosocial activities. We further dis-
tinguish between donors (active and inactive blood
donors) and non-donors. In doing so, we account for the
systematic differences between individuals, in particular
the differences to blood donors, who have been shown to
be more willing to engage in various prosocial activities
[22].
This research complements previous studies on other
crises finding short-term effects on prosocial behaviour
[23,24] by investigating an ongoing crisis over a period
of 12 weeks. Additionally, while most previous research
thus far neglected affect [25], we highlight the role of
affect in general and especially during a pandemic, and
further investigate the role of satisfaction with various
factors in life, as well as internal drive. While some prior
studies investigate anticipated and experienced affect (i.e.
fear and anxiety) related to prosocial engagement, we
focus on changes in affect in general and independently
of a donation context. Moreover, to our knowledge, we
are the first to investigate changes in personal moral
norms in a setting like the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Given the longevity of COVID-19, it is important to
understand its impact in order to provide guidance and to
be prepared for future pandemics and public health crises
[19,26]. Lastly, our results offer evidence-based grounds
to enhance recruitment and retention of blood donors.
Materials and methods
We use a longitudinal approach (COVID-19 panel) to
investigate changes in affect, satisfaction with various
factors in life and internal drive during the pandemic, as
well as personal moral norms with regard to engaging in
prosocial activities. A demographically representative
sample for the German population was surveyed biweekly
over a course of 12 weeks. The first wave (N=1499)
started on 3rd April 2020 and the last wave (N=818)
ended on 19th June 2020. To answer questions regarding
affect, satisfaction with various factors in life and internal
drive, participants were asked to refer to the prior week.
This ensures that measures are not limited to the respon-
dent’s emotional state on a specific day, and that all par-
ticipants rate their emotional state based on the same
time frame (i.e. prior week). Our observation period covers
the beginning of the imposed restrictions on private and
public life in Germany (end of March), the enforcement
of wearing face masks in shops and public transportation
(end of April), and the first relaxations of measures, that
is re-opening of non-essential businesses and schools
(end of April and May) [4]. Thus, the last two waves of
our panel study cover a time frame with most measures
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
2B. Veseli et al.

relaxed, that is businesses and schools re-opened, travel
warnings to EU countries and Schengen states were lifted,
but social distancing and face mask requirements were
active [4]. A German market research institute (respondi
AG) invited participants, including blood donors and
non-donors. To yield a demographically representative
sample, invitations to the panel were based on age (i.e.
18–75 years old) and gender (i.e. 498% females). We
excluded candidates based on their response time (pro-
cessing time less than half of the average), as this elimi-
nates participants who rushed through the questionnaire,
and based on simple attention checks (e.g. ‘Please select
“I strongly disagree”’) resulting in our final sample for
analysis.
In addition to our COVID-19 panel that captures the
emotional state and personal moral norms during the
pandemic phase, we use data from (1) the German socio-
economic panel (SOEP, N=27 937) and (2) a (non-)donor
survey study that we conducted in 2019 (N =1141) as
baselines and define them as the pre-pandemic phase.
Detailed descriptive statistics can be found in the appen-
dix (Tables S1-S3).
Measurements
Participants provided demographics and information on
blood donation history (i.e. non-donor/ donor), recency
(i.e. inactive/ active donors) and frequency (i.e. one/ up to
four/ more than four donations). We classify donors as
active if they have donated blood at least once in the last
24 months, applying Red Cross classification [27]. We
also control for recent prosocial engagement, that is, vol-
unteering in the past two weeks. As our dependent vari-
able, we measured personal moral norms with four items
(‘I feel a personal responsibility.../ I feel a moral obliga-
tion.../ I feel a social obligation... to engage in prosocial
activities’, ‘Sometimes I feel guilty that I do not engage
in prosocial activities’, [10]) on a 7-point scale
(1 =strongly disagree and 7 =strongly agree). To investi-
gate the role of emotional state in personal moral norms,
we based our measurements primarily on the psycho-
graphic factors used in the SOEP (Table S4) but extended
them with other relevant factors based on the PANAS
scale [28]. Previous research has shown the high rele-
vance of the SOEP scales when analysing prosocial beha-
viour in Germany [22].
Specifically, we measured affect (upset, afraid, happy,
sad, optimistic, concerned, excited, annoyed, euphoric,
grateful and bored), satisfaction (with health, sleep, work,
income, living situation, leisure, family life and standard
of living) and internal drive (feeling rushed, depressed,
balanced and energetic). Furthermore, we consider factors
specific to COVID-19 measures, including the acceptance
of political decisions, perceived current social cohesion
and perceived changes in the number of face-to-face con-
tacts (i.e. compared with an average pre-pandemic week).
We also controlled whether there is a SARS-Cov-2 posi-
tive-tested person among one’s friends. All scales are pro-
vided in the appendix (Tables S5-S8).
Methods
First, to understand the status-quo of (non-)donors’ emo-
tional state in Germany, we compare reported values in
the COVID-19 panel to pre-pandemic (i.e. SOEP wave of
2018). We use the SOEP wave of 2018 as a baseline
because it represents a non-pandemic year and there were
no other social or economic shocks at that time. Addi-
tionally, we rely on a self-conducted study in 2019 as a
baseline for pre-pandemic personal moral norms. Both
pre-pandemic data sets are representative for the German
population. To account for systematic differences in our
samples, we weighted the data in the pandemic phase by
age, gender and donation history based on the respective
pre-pandemic distributions (Tables S1-S3), when compar-
ing it to the pre-pandemic phase. Second, we focus on
within-pandemic analyses. We investigate changes in
emotional state and personal moral norms during the
pandemic and their relationship (Tables S9-S10).
Results
Pre-pandemic vs. pandemic
Emotional state
Comparing affect, satisfaction and internal drive measures
in the COVID-19 panel to the SOEP reveals significant
differences (Table S4). Individuals feel more afraid and
less happy, but also less upset and more optimistic during
pandemic compared with pre-pandemic. While in t
1
indi-
viduals feel sadder, the reported values of this affect mea-
sure return to the baseline level of pre-pandemic in t
6
.
Regarding satisfaction measures, individuals report signif-
icantly lower levels of satisfaction with all aspects in life.
However, many measures of satisfaction (i.e. health,
income, living situation, leisure) are back at a pre-pan-
demic level in t
6
, except for satisfaction with sleep, work,
family life and standard of living. Lastly, individuals
report feeling less rushed in t
1
, but also more depressed,
less balanced and less energetic. In t
6
, however, the
reported values of feeling depressed and balanced are not
significantly different to pre-pandemic anymore.
Personal moral norms
To investigate whether reported personal moral norms
have changed, we compared reported values in the
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
(Non-)donors’ emotional state during COVID-19 3

COVID-19 panel with the pre-pandemic phase (Table S4).
Personal moral norms of non-donors have significantly
decreased in t
1
compared to pre-pandemic (M =308,
SD =157 vs. M =454, SD =148, t(1332) =17300,
P=0000, Fig. 1a) and drop even further in t
6
compared
to pre-pandemic (M =283, SD =168, t(976)=16838,
P=0000, Fig. 1a). We observe a similar drop for donors:
reported values decrease significantly in t
1
compared to
pre-pandemic (M =340, SD =166 vs. M =466,
SD =140, t(1304) =14518, P=0000, Fig. 1b) and
drop even further in t
6
compared to pre-pandemic
(M =325, SD =188, t(963) =13464, P=0000,
Fig. 1b).
1
Within-pandemic analysis
Emotional state
Next, we analyse changes in emotional state within the
pandemic and distinguish by donation history (i.e. non-
donors/ donors) and recency (i.e. active/ inactive donors)
(Table S10). Firstly, we find that both donors and non-
donors stay optimistic over the six waves. Donors report
higher values of feeling happy in t
6
compared to t
1
(M =446, SD =128 vs. M =433, SD =121, t
(1052) =1685, P=0092), although values are not
back at pre-pandemic level. There are no significant
changes in feeling happy for non-donors. While donors
stay at the same level of feeling grateful over the six
waves, non-donors report significantly lower values of
feeling grateful in t
6
compared to t
1
(M =451, SD =130
vs. M =434, SD =140, t(1258) =2182, P=0029).
Reported values of feeling afraid significantly decrease in
t
6
compared to t
1
for both donors and non-donors,
although values are not back at pre-pandemic level.
Regarding satisfaction with leisure, reported values
increase to pre-pandemic level for both groups. Satisfac-
tion with work further decreases significantly within the
pandemic, except for active donors. Satisfaction with
income increases only for donors in t
6
compared to t
1
(M =454, SD =174 vs. M =478, SD =165, t
(1055) =2272, P=0023) returning to a pre-pandemic
level. Donors also report higher values of satisfaction with
family (M =515, SD =162 vs. M =536, SD =146, t
(1055) =2021, P=0044) and standard of living
(M =503, SD =144 vs. M =528, SD =139, t
(1055) =2731, P=0006) in t
6
compared to t
1
, yet these
values are below the pre-pandemic level. However, there
are no changes regarding satisfaction with family and
standard of living for non-donors in t
6
compared to t
1
, that
is values stay below pre-pandemic level. Regarding feeling
depressed, we find that both donors and non-donors report
significantly lower values in t
6
compared to t
1
.
Personal moral norms
To investigate whether COVID-19 alters personal moral
norms, we analyse their development within the pan-
demic (t
1
to t
6
) distinguishing by donation history (i.e.
non-donors/ donors) and recency (i.e. active/ inactive
donors). Personal moral norms of non-donors decrease
from t
4
on when compared to t
1
(e.g. M =286,
SD =160 vs. M =305, SD =157, t(1355) =2092,
P=0037, Fig. 2a). Overall, not distinguishing by dona-
tion recency, reported values of personal moral norms do
not change within the first four waves. However, they
drop significantly in t
5
compared to t
1
(M =336,
SD =166 vs. M =316, SD =178, t(1123) =1916,
P=0056). Distinguishing by donation recency, we find a
significant drop in personal moral norms of inactive
donors in t
6
compared to t
1
(M =286, SD =174 vs.
M=316, SD =160, t(687) =2240, P=0025,
Fig. 2D). However, personal moral norms of active donors
remain at a constant level within the pandemic.
Next, we use regression analysis to investigate whether
personal moral norms are changing during the pandemic
(t
1
and t
6
). Besides emotional state measures, we include
further variables that could potentially impact personal
moral norms during the pandemic. While recent prosocial
Fig. 1 Personal moral norms in pre-pandemic and pandemic phase. Reported mean values of personal moral norms in pre-pandemic and pandemic
phase (t
1
and t
6
). Significant changes between pre-pandemic and pandemic phase (t
1
respectively t
6
) are marked.
1
Comparisons between t
1
and t
6
are presented in the following within-
pandemic analysis (Fig. 2).
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
4B. Veseli et al.

engagement (i.e. volunteering in the past two weeks) and
having a SARS-Cov-2 positive-tested friend remain rather
robust predictors of personal moral norms within the
pandemic, the role of (non-)donors’ emotional state
changes (Table 1). Furthermore, we find that donation
recency is a significant predictor of personal moral norms
(Table S11). Therefore, we ran separate analyses for non-
donors, active and inactive donors. For non-donors, feel-
ing annoyed (b=0103), euphoric (b=0104) and
rushed (b =0102) predict personal moral norms in t
1
,
whereas feeling upset (b=0138), concerned (b=0190)
and satisfied with health (b=0121) are significant pre-
dictors in t
6
. Moreover, we find that while feeling happy
negatively correlates with personal moral norms in both
t
1
(b=0200) and t
6
(b=0258), feeling more grateful
boosts them in t
1
(b =0151) and t
6
(b=0135). For inac-
tive donors, feeling concerned (b=0103), annoyed
(b=0135), grateful (b=0122) and rushed (b=0184)
predict personal moral norms in t
1
.Int
6
, feeling balanced
(b=0265) and energetic (b=0.404) have a significant
influence on personal moral norms (Table 1). However,
personal moral norms of inactive donors are not affected
by satisfaction values. For active donors, feeling opti-
mistic (b=0202) and satisfaction with sleep
(b=0158) predict reported personal moral norms in t
1
,
whereas satisfaction with income (b=0359), family
(b=0489), living standard (b=0530) and health
(b=0284) are significant predictors in t
6
. Additionally,
results show no significant influence of internal drive on
personal moral norms for active donors. Comparing
inactive and active donors, we only find four affective
responses that are significant predictors of personal moral
norms for both donor groups. Feeling bored is positively
correlated for inactive donors (b=0105) but negatively
correlated for active donors (b=0156) in t
1
.Int
6
,we
find different directions of effects for feeling excited and
hopeful between inactive and active donors. Whereas
feeling excited drives personal moral norms of inactive
donors (b=0322), feeling hopeful boosts personal moral
norms of active donors (b=0461). Regarding feeling
afraid, results show that it increases personal moral
norms of inactive donors in t
1
(b =0131) and of active
donors in t
6
(b=0513). Additional to emotional state,
COVID-19 related measures further predict personal moral
norms. Perceived social cohesion drives personal moral
norms of non-donors and inactive donors in both t
1
(non-donors: b=0165; inactive donors: b=0177) and
t
6
(non-donors: b=0159; inactive donors: b=0239),
but for active donors it is only a significant predictor in
t
1
(b=0197). While higher acceptance of political deci-
sions is a significant predictor in t
1
for active (b=0298)
and inactive donors (b=0111), it predicts personal moral
norms for non-donors only in t
6
(b=0148).
Discussion
Prior research has scarcely investigated the impact of a
pandemic on (non-)donors emotional state and, espe-
cially, the effects on personal moral norms are unknown.
However, previous research generally highlights the
Fig. 2 Personal moral norms during COVID-19. Reported mean values of personal moral norms within the pandemic (t
1
to t
6
). Significant changes
between waves are marked.
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
(Non-)donors’ emotional state during COVID-19 5

Table 1 Results of regression analyses in t
1
and t
6
Personal moral norms
Non-Donors Inactive Donors Active Donors
(Model 1) (Model 2) (Model 3) (Model 4) (Model 5) (Model 6)
Pandemic
t
1
Pandemic
t
6
Pandemic
t
1
Pandemic
t
6
Pandemic
t
1
Pandemic
t
6
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Affect
Upset 0018 (0050) 0720 0138 (0073) 0061 0023 (0066) 0731 0002 (0115) 0983 0030 (0097) 0757 0140 (0137) 0309
Afraid 0037 (0049) 0445 0012 (0068) 0863 0131 (0059) 0027 0001 (0143) 0996 0149 (0095) 011 8 0513 (0241) 0037
Happy 0200 (0058) 0001 0258 (0075) 0001 0029 (0079) 0712 0156 (0132) 0239 0022 (0133) 0870 0154 (0224) 0495
Sad 0011 (0052) 0839 0067 (0075) 0368 0034 (0065) 0599 0026 (0134) 0848 0066 (0097) 0498 0215 (0221) 0334
Optimistic 0042 (0062) 0498 0065 (0087) 0455 0048 (0082) 0564 0102 (0149) 0492 0202 (0120) 0092 0332 (0257) 0201
Concerned 0051 (0053) 0332 0190 (0074) 0010 0103 (0062) 0098 0152 (0116) 0191 0127 (0089) 0156 0054 (0159) 0738
Excited 0051 (0044) 0246 0005 (0068) 0942 0085 (0061) 0166 0322 (0112) 0005 0039 (0084) 0642 0286 (0140) 0045
Hopeful 0042 (0056) 0456 0052 (0083) 0531 0035 (0072) 0625 0277 (0144) 0056 0180 (0111) 0107 0461 (0168) 0008
Annoyed 0103 (0048) 0034 0022 (0070) 0749 0135 (0064) 0034 0061 (0114) 0593 0022 (0094) 0813 011 9 (0176) 0500
Euphoric 0104 (0047) 0026 0041 (0064) 0519 0002 (0063) 0979 0058 (0114) 0612 0049 (0099) 0621 0057 (0132) 0668
Grateful 0151 (0048) 0002 0135 (0062) 0029 0122 (0063) 0054 0042 (0089) 0636 0103 (0094) 0279 0055 (0196) 0778
Bored 0018 (0037) 0627 0010 (0055) 0860 0105 (0049) 0032 0047 (0110) 0672 0156 (0073) 0034 0075 (0175) 0669
Satisfaction with
Work 0013 (0033) 0688 0024 (0034) 0488 0051 (0043) 0232 0065 (0059) 0274 0063 (0074) 0400 0001 (0136) 0995
Income 0051 (0037) 0170 0022 (0066) 0735 0069 (0056) 0216 0082 (0094) 0382 0013 (0073) 0858 0359 (0142) 0014
Living situation 0016 (0040) 0682 0021 (0063) 0735 0032 (0055) 0560 0009 (0090) 0919 0042 (0088) 0631 0008 (0162) 963
Leisure 0037 (0036) 0305 0010 (0070) 0888 0053 (0049) 0273 0021 (0094) 0825 0039 (0067) 0560 0128 (0218) 559
Family 0001 (0038) 0988 0034 (0060) 0576 0057 (0048) 0240 0116 ( 0 085) 0171 0017 (0079) 0832 0489 (0254) 0059
Standard of living 0062 (0047) 0187 0082 (0087) 0349 0018 (0068) 0789 0058 (0137) 0670 0007 (0120) 0956 0530 (0228) 0023
Sleep 0028 (0035) 0424 0000 (0049) 0998 0046 (0047) 0320 0018 (0087) 0836 0158 (0077) 0042 0190 (0140) 179
Health 0002 (0040) 0958 0121 (0058) 0038 0043 (0049) 0386 0147 (0094) 0119 0 033 (0093) 0728 0284 (0165) 0089
Internal drive
Depressed 0055 (0055) 0317 0109 (0079) 0170 0010 (0066) 0885 0061 (0127) 0630 0101 (0105) 0338 0020 (0237) 0934
Balanced 0021 (0060) 0729 0003 (0081) 0971 0013 (0078) 0867 0265 (0116) 0024 0135 (0118) 0257 0077 (0166) 0644
Energetic 0041 (0053) 0445 0044 (0078) 0570 0077 (0072) 0287 0404 (0132) 0003 0089 (0122) 0469 0206 (0198) 0302
Rushed 0102 (0040) 0011 0040 (0056) 0470 0184 (0055) 0001 0006 (0110) 0956 0040 (0078) 0611 0196 (0162) 0231
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
6B. Veseli et al.

Table 1 (Continued)
Personal moral norms
Non-Donors Inactive Donors Active Donors
(Model 1) (Model 2) (Model 3) (Model 4) (Model 5) (Model 6)
Pandemic
t
1
Pandemic
t
6
Pandemic
t
1
Pandemic
t
6
Pandemic
t
1
Pandemic
t
6
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Coef (SE)
P
Prosocial history 0512 (0048) 0000 0721 (0061) 0000 0516 (0053) 0000 0597 (0122) 0000 0512 (0074) 0000 0475 (0142) 0001
Political consent 0043 (0040) 0278 0148 (0048) 0002 0111 (0 049) 0023 0064 (0076) 0406 0298 (0078) 0000 0205 (0136) 0138
Social cohesion 0165 (0045) 0000 0159 (0064) 0013 0177 (0059) 0003 0239 (0096) 0014 0197 (0083) 0019 0169 (0126) 0186
Face-to-face contacts 0103 (0039) 0008 0019 (0058) 0740 0019 (0047) 0683 0019 (0093) 0839 0091 (0072) 0207 0052 (0125) 0682
SARS-CoV-2
positive among friends
a
0218 (0211) 0302 0310 (0274) 0258 0673 (0288) 0020 1558 (0527) 0003 0097 (0374) 0797 1056 (0444) 0020
Age 0006 (0004) 0084 0010 (0005) 0042 0009 (0005) 0078 0008 (0008) 0329 0002 (0009) 0843 0024 (0014) 0098
Gender 0122 (0104) 0243 0014 (0138) 0922 0057 (0140) 0682 0230 (0235) 0329 0263 (0201) 0191 0276 (0372) 0460
Donation history  
Donation frequency 0045 (0089) 0611 0216 (0137) 011 7 0085 (0167) 0612 0023 (0274) 0935
Constant 0677 (0675) 0316 0602 (0759) 0428 0387 (0849) 0649 0506 (1448) 0727 1256 (1386) 0366 1042 (1880) 0581
R
2
02718 03696 03585 04109 03582 03847
df 815 491 684 327 451 226
Prob >F00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000
Root MSE 13689 13919 13631 15048 13291 14759
Affect, satisfaction and internal drive influence non-donors’, inactive donors’and active donors’personal moral norms in t
1
and t
6
. Significant results are marked in bold.
a
(1: yes / 0: no).
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
(Non-)donors’ emotional state during COVID-19 7

importance of affect in donation research, as both cogni-
tive and emotional motivations drive donation behaviour
[25,29,30]. Specifically, studies have shown that antici-
pated positive affect significantly influences money dona-
tions [31] as well as blood donation intentions [32]. Other
studies analyse the effects of experienced affect (e.g. feel-
ing nervous, happy or scared while donating) on blood
donation behaviour [33]. While these studies investigate
anticipated and experienced affect related to prosocial
engagement, we focus on changes in affect in general
and independently of a donation context. Specifically, we
analyse changes in affect during a pandemic and distin-
guish between non-donors and blood donors. Addition-
ally, negative affect like fear and anxiety reduces
individuals’ willingness to donate blood in general [34]
and during crises [18,19,26]. Previous findings focusing
on psychographic factors conclude that blood donors are
more satisfied in general [22,35] and feel happier [36].
Results regarding satisfaction with income, however, are
not conclusive [37,38]. To our knowledge, there is no
research on the role of internal drive in the context of
prosocial behaviour, or specifically on donor motivations.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses not only a severe threat
to health, but restrictions on public and private life addi-
tionally challenge individuals’ emotional state. Hence, it
is of utmost importance to understand how the pandemic
shapes (non-)donors affect, satisfaction, and internal
drive, and also to investigate their role on personal moral
norms. Given the exceptional situation that the COVID-19
pandemic poses to every individual, personal moral
norms could be altered. It is unknown if individuals
reform their personal moral norms during a long-term
pandemic, and if so, whether the pandemic boosts or
decreases them. Personal moral norms are crucial, as they
are shown to be important drivers of prosocial engage-
ment. Our results indicate that the pandemic, indeed, has
a significant effect on (non-)donors emotional state.
Moreover, our findings demonstrate, that personal moral
norms can be shaped by a pandemic and thus are not
constant. We find a significant drop in personal moral
norms for both non-donors and donors compared to pre-
pandemic. This finding is crucial, as it can have serious
implications for donation and volunteering behaviour,
especially given the expected longevity of the still ongo-
ing pandemic. Individuals feel less morally obliged and
less personally responsible to undertake prosocial activi-
ties. This applies to both non-donors and donors, that is,
independently of prior blood donation experience. This is
particularly surprising, since blood donors have been
shown to be more willing to engage in various prosocial
activities compared with other individuals [22]. However,
within the pandemic we are able to further distinguish
donors by donation recency and observe notable
differences. Within the pandemic, personal moral norms
only drop for inactive donors in t
6
compared to t
1
, but
they stay constant for active donors. Personal moral
norms of non-donors significantly decrease even within
the pandemic (t
4
,t
5
,t
6
compared to t
1
). Thus our results
indicate that, contrary to inactive or non-donors, personal
moral norms of active donors, i.e. individuals who have
donated blood in the past 24 months, are not further
altered within the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, our
results show that personal moral norms of both donors
and non-donors do not increase or return to a pre-pan-
demic level with the relaxation of measures (i.e. starting
in t
4
). This finding might indicate that personal moral
norms during the COVID-19 pandemic are further affected
by the severity and longevity of the crisis itself.
Regarding the role of emotional state on personal moral
norms during the pandemic, we find significant insights
that differ between target groups. Moreover, (non-)donors
emotional state differs between t
1
and t
6
highlighting the
adjustments and different phases of the pandemic itself.
While t
1
marks the stage of the pandemic where all restric-
tive measures imposed by the government in Germany were
active, easing of measures started from t
4
on (i.e. re-opening
of schools and non-essential businesses). Additionally, in t
5
and t
6
, many measures were relaxed, but requirements of
social distancing and wearing face masks were still active.
Non-donors’ and inactive donors’ personal moral norms are
strongly associated with affective responses in both t
1
and
t
6
, especially feeling grateful is a strong predictor. Crucially,
feeling concerned is positively associated with personal
moral norms of inactive donors in t
1
and non-donors in t
6
.
Blood banks can use these findings in appeals and design
marketing materials that trigger these affects particularly.
Specifically, reactivation and recruiting strategies should
highlight that crises signify an exceptional and concerning
situation calling for their increased support. Interestingly,
results show that feeling happier is negatively associated
with personal moral norms of non-donors. However, for
active donors, who report rather constant personal moral
norms during the pandemic, emotional state does mostly
not predict personal moral norms in t
1,
but it shapes them in
t
6
. For example, feeling afraid and feeling hopeful boosts
personal moral norms of active donors. Furthermore, results
show that active donors’ personal moral norms are signifi-
cantly shaped by satisfaction factors, especially in t
6
(e.g.
satisfaction with health, standard of living, family and
income), while internal drive plays no significant role. Con-
trary, we find that feeling rushed is positively associated
with higher personal moral norms of non-donors and inac-
tive donors in t
1
, but it plays no predictive role in t
6
. Addi-
tionally, inactive donors who report higher levels of feeling
energetic are associated with higher personal moral norms
in t
6
.
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
8B. Veseli et al.

It should be noted that our COVID-19 panel study cap-
tures a time frame of 12 weeks (April to June 2020).
However, as the end of COVID-19 is still unknown, it is
uncertain, how emotional state and personal moral norms
might further alter within the current second wave and
upcoming measures (i.e. vaccinations) or possible future
pandemics. Additionally, our data is limited to the Ger-
man context.
In conclusion, this study highlights that personal moral
norms might be affected by the emotional state, espe-
cially during a pandemic and therefore presents an
important research avenue. Given the crucial role of per-
sonal moral norms in donation motivation, understanding
the impact of a long-term crisis on emotional state and
their role on reforming personal moral norms is impera-
tive. This is particularly the case because blood banks
have to accommodate to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis
and increased willingness to help will be required to
secure blood supply.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1 Piferi RL, Jobe RL, Jones WH: Giving to others during
national tragedy: The effects of altruistic and egoistic motiva-
tions on long-term giving. J Soc Pers Relat 2006; 23:171–
184
2 Feeny S, Clarke M: What determines Australia’s response to
emergencies and natural disasters? Aust Econ Rev 2007;
40:24–36
3 Leung JNS, Lee CK: Impact of the COVID-19 –a regional
blood centre’s perspective. ISBT Sci Ser 2020; 15:362–364
4 IMF Policy Tracker: Policy Responses to COVID-19. https://
www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-
to-COVID-19 [Last accessed on November 26 2020]
5 World Health Organization: WHO Coronoavirus Disease
(COVID-19) Dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/ [Last
accessed on November 26 2020]
6 Wang Y, Han W, Pan L, et al.: Impact of COVID-19 on blood
centres in Zhejiang province China. Vox Sang 2020; 29:502–
506
7 Shan H, Zhang P: Viral attacks on the blood supply: the
impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Beijing.
Transfusion 2004; 44:467–469
8 Manstead ASR: The role of moral norm in the attitude–be-
havior relation; in: Terry DJ, Hogg MA (eds): Applied Social
Research. Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of
Norms and Group Membership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates Publishers, 2000:11–30.
9 Armitage CJ, Conner M: Efficacy of the theory of planned
behavior: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 2001;
40:471–499
10 Lemmens KPH, Abraham C, Ruiter RAC, et al.: Modelling
antecedents of blood donation motivation among non-donors
of varying age and education. Br J Psychol 2009; 100:71–90
11 Baron RSN, Kerr L, Miller N: Mapping Social Psychology Ser-
ies. Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co, 1992
12 Fischer RJ, Ackerman D: The effects of recognition and group
need on volunteerism: a social norm perspective. J Consum
Res 1998; 25:262–275
13 Schwartz SH: Normative Influences on Altruism, in Berkowitz
L (ed): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10th
edn. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1977:221–279.
14 Pruitt DG: Methods for resolving differences of interest: a
theoretical analysis. J Soc Issues 1972; 28:133–154
15 Parsons T: The Social System. Glencoe, Ill, Free Press, 1951
16 Leventhal H: Attitudes: Their nature, growth, arid change; in:
Nemeth C (ed): Social Psychology Classic and Contemporary
Integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974:52–126.
17 Dariotis J, MacPherson J, Bianco C: America’s Blood Centers
and the gift relationship. Transfusion 2001; 41:1181–1184
18 Masser BM, Hyde MK, Ferguson E: Exploring predictors of Aus-
tralian community members’ blood donation intentions and
blood donation–related behavior during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Transfusion 2020; 60:2907–2917.published online first
19 Haw J, Holloway K, Masser BM, et al.: Blood donation and
the global COVID-19 pandemic: areas for social science
research. Vox Sang 2020. published online first. https://doi.
org/10.1111/vox.12974
20 Thomas SA, Feng S, Krishnan TV: To retain? To upgrade?
The effects of direct mail on regular donation behavior. Int J
Res Mark 2015; 32:48–63
21 Ownby HE, Kong F, Watanabe K, et al.: Analysis of donor
return behavior. Transfusion 1999; 39:1128–1135
22 Studte S, Clement M, Soliman M, et al.: Blood donors and
their changing engagement in other prosocial behaviors.
Transfusion 2019; 59:1002–1015
23 Tran S, Lewalski EA, Dwyre DM, et al.: Does donating blood for
the first time during a national emergency create a better com-
mitment to donating again? Vox Sang 2010; 98:e219–e224
24 Kuruppu KKS: Management of blood system in disasters. Bio-
logicals 2010; 38:87–90
25 Masser B, Ferguson E, Merz EV, et al.: Beyond description:
the predictive role of affect, memory, and context in the
decision to donate or not donate blood. Transfus Med
Hemother 2019; 47:175–185
26 Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PS, et al.: Using social and
behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.
Nat Hum Behav 2020; 4:460–471
27 Kessler JB, Milkman KL: Identity in charitable giving. Manag
Sci 2018; 64:845–859
28 Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A: Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS
scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54:1063–1070
29 Ferguson E, France CR, Abraham C, et al.: Improving blood
donor recruitment and retention: integrating theoretical
advances from social and behavioral science research agen-
das. Transfusion 2007; 47:1999–2010
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
(Non-)donors’ emotional state during COVID-19 9

30 Cryder CE, Loewenstein G, Scheines R: The donor is in the
details. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2013; 120:15–23
31 Bergquist M, Nystr€
om L, Nilsson A: Feeling or following? A
field-experiment comparing social norms-based and emo-
tions-based motives encouraging proenvironmental dona-
tions. J Consum Behav 2020; 19:351–358
32 Connor M, Godin G, Sheeran P, et al.: Some feelings are more
important: cognitive attitudes, affective attitudes, anticipated
affect, and blood donation. Health Psychol 2013; 32:264–272
33 Williams LA, Masser B, van Dongen A, et al.: The emotional
psychology of blood donors: a time-course approach. ISBT
Sci Ser 2018; 13:93–100
34 Ferguson E, Murray C, O’Carroll RW: Blood and organ dona-
tion: health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions.
Psychol Health 2019; 34:1073–1104
35 Shehu E, Hofmann A, Clement M, et al.: Healthy donor effect
and satisfaction with health: The role of selection effects
related to blood donation behavior. Eur J Health Econ 2015;
16:733–745
36 Priller E, Schupp J: Social and economic characteristics of
financial and blood donors in Germany. DIW Econ Bull
2011; 1:23–30
37 Boulware LE, Ratner LE, Ness PM, et al.: The contribution of
sociodemographic, medical, and attitudinal factors to blood
donation among the general public. Transfusion 2002;
42:669–678
38 Bekkers R: Traditional and health-related philanthropy: the
role of resources and personality. Soc Psychol Q 2006;
69:349–366
39 Britzke J, Schupp J: SOEP Wave Report 2018. Berlin: DIW
Berlin, 2019
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of the
article.
Table S1. Sample descriptive for the pre-pandemic (SOEP
2018 data) and pandemic phases (t
1
and t
6
), whereby the
pandemic phase consists of the unweighted as well as the
weighted values. We weighted the data by age, gender,
and donation history (based on pre-pandemic phase).
Table S2. Sample descriptive for the pre-pandemic (self-
collected survey data from 2019) and pandemic phases (t
1
and t
6
), whereby the pandemic phase consists of the
unweighted as well as the weighted values. We weighted
the data by age, gender, and donation history (based on
pre-pandemic phase).
Table S3. Sample descriptive for the pandemic phase (t
1
to t
6
). We weighted the cases for age, gender, and dona-
tion history (based on t
1
).
Table S4. Comparison of mean values of reported affect,
satisfaction, and internal drive between pandemic (t
1
and
t
6
) and pre-pandemic phase. We weighted the data for
age, gender, and donation history (based on pre-pandemic
phase).
Table S5. Mean values and standard deviations of non-
donors’ reported personal moral norms, affect, satisfac-
tion, internal drive, prosocial history, political consent,
social cohesion, and face-to-face contacts during the cor-
ona crisis (t
1
to t
6
).
Table S6. Mean values and standard deviations of blood
donors’ reported personal moral norms, affect, satisfac-
tion, internal drive, prosocial history, political consent,
social cohesion, and face-to-face contacts during the cor-
ona crisis (t
1
to t
6
).
Table S7. Mean values and standard deviations of active
donors’ reported personal moral norms, affect, satisfac-
tion, internal drive, prosocial history, political consent,
social cohesion, and face-to-face contacts during the cor-
ona crisis (t
1
to t
6
).
Table S8. Mean values and standard deviations of inactive
donors’ reported personal moral norms, affect, satisfac-
tion, internal drive, prosocial history, political consent,
social cohesion, and face-to-face contacts during the cor-
ona crisis (t
1
to t
6
).
Table S9. T-test (equal variances) results of personal
moral norms within the pandemic phase (t
1
to t
6
).
Table S10. Comparison of mean values of reported affect,
satisfaction, and internal drive between pandemic t
1
and
pandemic t
6
.
Table S11. Affect, satisfaction, and internal drive influ-
ence blood donors’ personal moral norms in t
1
and t
6
.
©2021 International Society of Blood Transfusion, ISBT Science Series (2021) 0, 1–10
10 B. Veseli et al.