ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The objective of this research was to identify what the personal characteristics are that lead individuals to make a donation of money and / or goods. To accomplish this objective, the literature was reviewed and 57 variables were identified that were related to personal characteristics explaining the donation of money and / or goods behavior. These variables were grouped into four factors and resulted in the proposal of a model that was later tested with 22 individual donors who make frequent donations of money and / or goods. This research was characterized as exploratory and qualitative. Data were collected from -semistructured interviews, recorded and then transcribed and analyzed using the Atlas.ti software. It was concluded that the proposed model from the personal characteristics, composed of four factors (demographic, socioeconomic, psychological and behavioral), was evidenced by the interviewees and a new variable has been identified and added to the demographic factor, the variable “be healthy.”
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
What motivates an individual to make donations
of money and / or goods?
Emerson Wagner Mainardes
1
&Rozélia Laurett
1
&
Nívea Coelho Pereira Degasperi
1
&
Sarah Venturim Lasso
1
Received: 25 June 2015 / Accepted: 12 November 2015
#Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract The objective of this research was to identify what the personal characteristics
are that lead individuals to make a donation of money and / or goods. To accomplish this
objective, the literature was reviewed and 57 variables were identified that were related
to personal characteristics explaining the donation of money and / or goods behavior.
These variables were grouped into four factors and resulted in the proposal of a model
that was later tested with 22 individual donors who make frequent donations of money
and / or goods. This research was characterized as exploratory and qualitative. Data were
collected from -semistructured interviews, recorded and then transcribed and analyzed
using the Atlas.ti software. It was concluded that the proposed model from the personal
characteristics, composed of four factors (demographic, socioeconomic, psychological
and behavioral), was evidenced by the interviewees and a new variable has been
identified and added to the demographic factor, the variable Bbe healthy.^
Keywords Philanthropy.Money and goods donation .Personal characteristics
1 Introduction
Due to the importance of philanthropy, which is developed by organizations that are
part of the third sector, such as religious, educational, scientific, health and charity
Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark
DOI 10.1007/s12208-015-0145-4
*Emerson Wagner Mainardes
emerson@fucape.br; emainardes@kesservice.com.br
Rozélia Laurett
rozelialaurett@gmail.com
Nívea Coelho Pereira Degasperi
ncdegasperi@gmail.com
Sarah Venturim Lasso
sarahvlasso@gmail.com
1
FUCAPE Business School, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 1358, Boa Vista, Vitória/ES 29.075-505, Brazil
entities (Payne 1998), it has been the subject of research in several countries such as the
Netherlands, the UK, the USA, Spain, Sweden, France, Japan (Wiepking and Maas
2009; Michel and Rieunier 2012;VanLeeuwenandWiepking2013). It has also been
the study subject in study areas such as marketing, economics, social psychology,
neurology, sociology, political science, biology and anthropology (Bendapudi et al.
1996; Bekkers and Wiepking 2007; Wiepking and Maas 2009; Bekkers and Wiepking
2011b,d; Scaife et al. 2012).
Philanthropy can be inspired by the concern for the welfare of others, religiousness,
politics, and by altruistic values that are characteristic of the donation process (Bekkers
and Wiepking 2011c).Thesedonationscanbemadebyindividuals,familiesorprivate
companies, through blood and organs donation, money, goods and / or time (Bekkers
and Wiepking 2011b; Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011;Bachkeetal.2014.). In the case
of this research, it is intended to address only the behavior of the individual who is a
donor of money and / or goods.
Understanding the behavior of these donors is relevant to the charitable sector itself
and for society as a whole, which depends in part on these social services (Wiepking
and Maas 2009; Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011). Bekkers and Wiepking (2007)stated
that understanding the individual donor behavior is useful to professional fundraising,
as it can use this information to identify the profile of its donors in order to target its
campaigns for those that are most likely to donate and be more generous. Thus, this
research aims to answer the following question: What are the personal characteristics
that lead an individual to make donations of money and / or goods? And to answer this
question, the main objective was to define the personal characteristics that motivate
individuals to make a donation of money and / or goods.
This study is relevant because of the need to develop a model to understand the
individual donors behavior and in this particular case, the Brazilian donor. It is an area
that requires further studies in general (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011c), and in Brazil in
particular, in order to develop this behavior in the country. In 2012, Brazil was ranked
83rd in the World Giving Index in general terms of donations, while it was in 68th
place in the case of monetary donations (Charities Aid Foundation 2012). Despite the
academic interest in donor behavior, identifying new features as relevant variables in
the donation process becomes important (Smith and McSweeney 2007), as well as
organizing and grouping the many variables already tested in order to create more
robust models of donor behavior.
Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b) agree that exploring new donation mechanisms, with
the inclusion of new variables, is important because the current models of individual
donors behavior still require more theoretical foundations, which justifies its potential
for research and theoretical progress. In another research, Bekkers and Wiepking
(2011d) suggest the need for new research to better understand philanthropic behavior,
testing the mechanisms that explain, for example, relationships of sociodemographic
characteristics with philanthropy. Verhaert and Van den Poel (2011) reinforce the fact
that there are many studies investigating donation behavior through experiments and
simulations and that there is a growing interest in field studies because of the possible
inconsistency between a simulated environment and a field research.
This study is also justified in seeking to understand the individual donorsbehavior
due to the alterations in social, political and economic environments in many countries
around the world, which have resulted in the decline in the support for charities by
E.W. Mainardes et al.
governments and individuals, and as a consequence, the financial resources are smaller
(Grace and Griffin 2006). Thus, marketing efforts should be directed to the develop-
ment and implementation of strategies for raising revenue for charitable organizations
in order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of these organizations (Grace and
Griffin 2006,2009). According to Bachke et al. (2014), charitable organizations have
extensive experience in collecting money from the public sector, but there is little
empirical research on the preferences of individual donors. They consider that,
although it is already established that companies, other organizations and individuals
donate to charities, there is a need to know better the preferences of individual
donors, which makes it relevant to study the behavior of this type of donor.
2 Personal characteristics that favor donation
A wide range of studies has focused on the research into the personal characteristics that
shape donor behavior. According to Grace and Griffin (2006), the individual charac-
teristics can provide a prediction on the donors donation behavior. Bekkers and
Wiepking (2011d) also corroborate this finding by guiding researchers and the
professionals in the field of philanthropy on the individual characteristics that are
predictive of charitable donation. Following the logic proposed by Bekkers and
Wiepking (2011b) that new proposal models must be formulated, in this research the
personal characteristics were grouped into four factors: demographic, socioeconomic,
psychological and behavioral.
Regarding the demographic factor, in the study by Bennett (2003), demographic
variables were identified influencing both the inclination to donate at the level of
contribution offered, and included, among other characteristics, age, income, number
of children, social class and educational level. Grace and Griffin (2009), for example,
mentioned that in Hungary the best donors are middle-aged, married, with a high
education, with two or three children at the most, high social status and are members of
civil society organizations. These and other studies (see Table 1) highlighted the
importance of the demographic factor in the donation behavior of individuals.
From another point of view, studies by Amato (1985) and Bekkers and Wiepking
(2011b) introduced socioeconomic variables such as social status, reputation, social
responsibility, being employed or unemployed and social justice. These variables, and
others (Table 1), comprise the socioeconomic factor, which seeks to explain the
behavior of individual donors through social and / or economic variables.
On the other hand, Bekkers and Wiepking (2007) and Sargeant and Woodliffe
(2007) stated that donating does not only bring social benefits. They point out that
individuals can donate for intrinsic reasons, which can provide psychological benefits,
such as satisfaction, self-esteem, empathy, forgiveness, compassion, fear and pity. In
another study, Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b) grouped these variables around a group
called Bpsychological benefits,^referring to the intangible benefits that donors give to
themselves: Feelings like the joy of donating, feeling good about making donations,
relieving feelings of guilt. From this perspective, the psychological factor is formed,
composed of several variables (Table 1).
Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007) also studied individual behaviors, such as the
perception of donors that if their contribution can make a difference to the cause they
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
Tab le 1 Personal characteristics preceding the act of donating money and / or goods
Factors Variables Definition of variables Authors
Demographic
factor
Age Elderly individuals tend to
donate more than young
people (Apinunmahakul
and Devlin 2008).
Guy and Patton (1989); Amato
(1985); Eckel and Grossman
(1998); Banks and Tanner
(1999); Sargeant (1999);
Bennett (2003);Schuytetal.
(2004); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2006); Gittell and Tebaldi
(2006); Grace and Griffin
(2006); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2007); Germain et al. (2007);
Lee and Chang (2007); Smith
and McSweeney (2007);
Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007);
Apinunmahakul and Devlin
(2008); Bekkers and Schuyt
(2008); Wiepking and Maas
(2009); Wiepking (2009);
Bekkers (2010); Wiepking
(2010); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2011a,b,d); Verhaert and Van
den Poel (2011); Wiepking and
Breeze (2012); Wiepking and
Bekkers (2012); Yöruk (2012);
Bachke et al. (2014);
Gender Women tend to donate more than
men (Eckel andGrossman 1998).
Live in rural /
urban area
People living in small towns and
rural areas tend to be more willing
to help than the residents of large
cities (Guy and Patton 1989).
Citys size Individuals living in larger cities
tend to give less (Bekkers and
Wiepk ing 2007).
Religion Individuals who practice a religion
tend to be more involved in acts
of donation (Bekkers and
Wiepking 2011d).
Income Higher income families tend to give
higher values than the families
with lower income (Bekkers and
Wiepking 2007).
Education level Individuals with higher levels of
education tend to make more
generous donations (Wiepking
2010).
Marital status Married individuals tend to donate
more than single individuals
(Wiepking and Maas 2009).
Number of
children
The number of children influences
the donation process; many
individuals after having
children are more sensitive to
making donations to charity
organizations (Bekkers and
Wiepking 2007).
Social class Higher social class individuals
tend to donate less because they
are less engaged with social
problems (Wiepking and Breeze
2012).
Ethnic origin White individuals are more likely to
donate tha n others (Yörük 2012).
Socioeconomic
factor
Social justice Individuals can choose to make a
donation with the desire to create
amorejustandequalworld
(Bekkers and Wiepking 2011b).
Amato (1985); Guy and Patton
(1989); Sargeant (1999);
Bennett (2003);Schuytetal.
(2004); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2006); Gittell and Tebaldi
(2006); Grace and Griffin
(2006); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2007); Sargeant and Woodliffe
(2007); Bekkers and Schuyt
Social reputation The search for social reputation can
be antecedent to the realization
of donations (Bekkers and
Wiepking 2011c).
E.W. Mainardes et al.
Tab le 1 (continued)
Factors Variables Definition of variables Authors
(2008); Grace and Griffin
(2009); Wiepking (2009);
Wiepking and Maas (2009);
Bekkers (2010); Bekkers and
Wiepking (2011b,c,d);
Wiepking and Breeze (2012);
Social responsibility Pe ople with a sense of social
responsibility tend to donate
more (Schuyt et al. 2004).
Financial security Individuals who feel financially
secure tend to be potential
donors (Wiepking and Breeze
2012).
Social status Individuals with more social status
tend to donate more (Bekkers
and Wiepking 2011b).
Be recognized Individuals can donate with a desire
for public recognition (Bekkers
and Schuyt 2008).
Home ownership Individuals who own their own
homes tend to donate more
(Bekkers and Wiepking 2007).
Be employed Employed individuals are more
likely to donate than the
unemployed (Bekkers and
Wiepking 2007).
Helping profession Individuals in a helping profession
(nurses, social workers) tend to
donatemore(Amato1985).
Psychological
factor
Personal satisfaction Indiv iduals d onate fo r per sonal
satisfaction (Grace and Griffin
2009).
Cunningham et al. (1980); Amato
(1985); Guy and Patton (1989);
Hibbert and Horne (1996);
Balabanis et al. (1997); Sargeant
(1999); Bennett (2003); Bekkers
(2006); Grace and Griffin
(2006); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2007); Germain et al. (2007);
Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007);
Bekkers and Schuyt (2008);
Grace and Griffin (2009);
Wiepking and Maas (2009);
DeHaven (2010); Bekkers and
Wiepking (2011b,c); Verhaert
and Van den Poel (2011); Mews
and Boenigk (2013);
Altruism Individuals with altruistic feelings
tend to make charitable donations
(Germain et al. 2007).
Ego The individual tends to make a
donation to enhance his ego
to society (Bennett 2003).
Empathy Empathy can evoke altruistic
behavior and consequently
influence the realization of
donations (Lee and Chang
2007).
Humor The individual with positive
mood tends to donate more
(Cunningham et al. 1980).
Joy in donating Joy in donating tends to produce
positive psychological effects
and influences on donations
(Bekkers and Wiepking 2011b).
Self-esteem Individuals may be motivated to
donate to improve their self-
esteem (Sargeant 1999).
Calm / Peace
of spirit
The individual may feel calmer, at
peace with himselfwhen making
a donation (Bennett 2003).
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
Tab le 1 (continued)
Factors Variables Definition of variables Authors
Hedonism The individual tends to feel pleasure
in donating (Bennett 2003).
Compassion People with a sense of compassion
tend to donate (Bennett 2003).
Pity Individuals can make a donation
through feeling pity (Sargeant
1999).
Guilt Individuals can donate to charity to
relieve feelings of guilt (Hibbert
and Horne 1996).
Personal distress Individuals tend to donate when
they are distressed (Verhaert and
Van den Poel 2011).
Fear Individuals may be motivated to
donate more when they are
going through a situation that
involves the feeling of fear
(Sargeant and Woodliffe
2007).
Anxiety The individual when faced with
people in need, tends to feel
anxiety and wants to help
through donation (Verhaert and
Van den Poel 2011).
Sadness When confronted with people in
need, the individual may feel
sadness and want to help through
donation (Verhaert and Van den
Poel 2011).
Forgiveness Individuals tend to donate when
they need forgiveness (Bekkers
and Wiepking 2007).
Behavioral
factor
Self-image Individuals tend to donate to create
a positive external image before
others (Bennett 2003).
Guy and Patton (1989); Andreoni
(1990); Hibbert and Horne
(1996); Bendapudi et al. (1996);
Sargeant (1999); Bennett
(2003); Gittell and Tebaldi
(2006); Grace and Griffin
(2006); Bekkers and Wiepking
(2007); Sargeant and Woodliffe
(2007); Smith and McSweeney
(2007); Grace and Griffin
(2009); Wiepking and Maas
(2009); Konow (2010); Bekkers
and Wiepking (2011b,d);
Verhaert and Van den Poel
(2011); Michel and Rieunier
(2012); Scaife et al. (2012);
Mews and Boenigk (2013);
VanLeeuwenandWiepking
(2013); Bachke et al. (2014).
Identification with
the cause
The donation tends to be linked to
identification with the cause
(Bachke et al. 2014).
Obligation Individuals tend to make donations
because they feel obligated to
donate (Hibbert and Horne
1996).
Desire to help Desire to contribute to the general
welfare of society can lead to
donation (Michel and Rieunier
2012).
Generosity The generosity of the individual
tends to influence them in the
donation process (Konow 2010).
E.W. Mainardes et al.
Tab le 1 (continued)
Factors Variables Definition of variables Authors
Similarity between
donor and
beneficiary
Individuals are more likely to
comply with requests from
other individuals who are
similar to themselves (Bennett
2003).
Be Respected Individuals can make donations to
feel respected (Andreoni 1990).
Materialism Materialistic values may influence
donor charitable behavior,
motivating an individual to
donate to certain charities
(Bennett 2003).
Sympathy When the individual feels sympathy
with the cause of the charity they
have decided to help (Sargeant
1999).
Need perception The individual has the perception
of the need for a philanthropic
organization to receive help
(Bachke et al. 2014).
Personal fulfillment Individuals tend to make a donation
to seek personal fulfillment
(Bennett 2003).
Concern Donates because of a concern to be
seen as an individual who cares
about others (Verhaert and Van
den Poel 2011).
Thinking about
death itself
Individuals tend to give more when
they see death up close (Bekkers
and Wiepking 2007).
Public prestige The individual is motivated by a
desire to achieve public prestige
as a result of their contributions
to charity (Andreoni 1990).
Desire to make
adifference
Individuals tend to make a donation
with the desire to make a
difference in society (Sargeant
and Woodliffe 2007).
Volunteering Suggests that volunteering can
contribute to building
relationships with the charitable
organization and can increase
the likelihood of a donation
(Gittell and Tebaldi 2006).
Family tradition A family history with donation
tends to influence individuals
in the donation process, where
children of parents who make
donations also tend to make
donations in the future (Sargeant
and Woodliffe 2007).
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
are supporting, they increase the propensity to donate. Other variables were family
tradition and sympathizing with the organization receiving the donation. In the evi-
dence found by Grace and Griffin (2006), the type of monetary donation behavior
depends on the degree of identification with the cause. For Guy and Patton (1989),
individuals can help each other, due to the fact they receive a reward for providing help.
According to DeHaven (2010), it is up to marketing to understand the behavioral
variables of individuals, creating and maintaining exchanges that satisfy the needs of
individuals and the charity organizations themselves. In addition to these examples,
several other studies (Table 1) have addressed behavioral variables, forming the
behavioral factor.
In summary, after reviewing the literature, it was possible to identify 57 personal
characteristics that have influence on money/ or goods donation behavior. As already
demonstrated, to facilitate the understanding and the feasibility of using all these
variables, it became necessary to perform the grouping of these variables into four
factors. This systematization is presented in Table 1.
2.1 Explanatory model of money and / or goods donorsbehavior
According to what has been presented so far, individual donor behavior tends to be
influenced by personal characteristics of individuals that motivate them to donate
money and / or goods, as relevant to understand the major internal variables that
precede the act of donation. In this sense, in the researched academic literature variables
were identified that aim to explain the behavior of the individual donor of money and /
or goods. All of these studies (Table 1) showed the variables in a fragmented way or
individually. But none of these, so far, has combined all of these variables in a single
model, which organizes and arranges the different variables that explain the personal
characteristics that motivate the behavior of money and / or goods individual donors.
Thus, this study presents a model (Fig. 1), which provides a theoretical contribution
to marketing studies in the third sector, specifically on consumer behavior (donor).
Thus, 57 personal characteristics that are antecedents to the donation of money and / or
goods were grouped by affinity and consistent with the literature surveyed in four
factors (demographic, socioeconomic, psychological and behavioral).
Tab le 1 (continued)
Factors Variables Definition of variables Authors
Donation history An individual who already makes a
donation tends to be more likely
to donate again in the future
(Guy and Patton 1989).
Loyalty to the
organization
The loyalty of the individual with
the beneficiary organization tends
to influence the maintenance of
donation (Sargeant 1999).
Interest in leaving
a legacy
Individual donates to leave a charity
a legacy (Sc aife et al. 2012).
Source: By the authors
E.W. Mainardes et al.
The demographic factor includes variables related to demographic characteristics of
donors, such as age, gender, place of residence, education, religion, marital status,
number of children, social class and ethnicity. These characteristics were grouped earlier
by Guy and Patton (1989); Eckel and Grossman (1998); Bekkers and Wiepking (2007);
Apinunmahakul and Devlin (2008); Wiepking and Maas (2009); Wiepking (2010);
Bekkers and Wiepking (2011d); Wiepking and Breeze (2012) and Yörük (2012), all
of whom proposed a grouping similar to that proposed here.
The socioeconomic factor brought together variables such as social justice, social
reputation, social responsibility, financial security, social status, being recognized,
home ownership, being employed, in a helping profession, which are related to social
and economic characteristics that motivate the individual to the act of donating These
variables were previously grouped by Amato (1985); Schuyt et al. (2004); Bekkers and
Wiepking (2007); Bekkers and Schuyt (2008); Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b,c,d);
Wiepking and Breeze (2012) who recommended such a grouping.
Following the same reasoning, the psychological factor grouped the variables related to
the feelings of donors in relation to the act of donation, both positive (getting satisfaction,
calm / peace of mind, practicing altruism, hedonism, compassion and empathy, mood
improvement and self-esteem, feeling joy) and negative (enhance of the ego, shame,
anguish, fear, sadness, anxiety and the search for forgiveness). These feelings were studied
together by several researchers (Cunningham et al. 1980; Hibbert and Horne 1996;
Sargeant 1999;Bennett2003; Bekkers and Wiepking 2007; Germain et al. 2007;Lee
and Chang 2007; Sargeant and Woodliffe 2007;GraceandGriffin2009; Bekkers and
Wiepking 2011b; Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011).
In the last factor were grouped the variables that influence the behavior of donors in
relation to the act of giving, as the desire to help and make a difference, seeking to be
respected, to be generous, self-realization, empathizing and identifying with the cause,
verify that there is a similarity with the recipient of the donation notice the need to
help (Andreoni 1990; Sargeant 1999;Bennett2003; Sargeant and Woodliffe 2007;
Konow 2010; Michel and Rieunier 2012;Bachkeetal.2014). The donor also behaves
favorably to the act of donation when he/she seeks prestige, is materialistic, wants to
improve their image, feels obliged, is loyal to the cause, is concerned about contributing
to the cause, thinks about death itself, has a tradition in the family and donation history,
Fig. 1 Model for individual donor of money and / or goods behavior. Source: By the authors
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
or even has an interest in leaving a legacy for society (Guy and Patton 1989; Andreoni 1990;
Hibbert and Horne 1996; Sargeant 1999;Bennett2003; Bekkers and Wiepking 2007;
Sargeant and Woodliffe 2007; Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011;Scaifeetal.2012). The
behaviors cited, according to studies, may lead to the act of donation, explaining the
grouping of variables into a single factor. In addition, donors who volunteer also behave
favorably to the act of donation (Bennett 2003; Gittell and Tebaldi 2006).
3 Research methodology
To achieve the objectives of this study, a research was initially performed into national
and international literature in order to identify the variables that can influence the
behavior of money and / or goods individual donors. From these findings, an initial
model was proposed that presents the factors that tend to affect the behavior of such
donors. To empirically verify the proposed model, an exploratory and qualitative
research was conducted through semistructured interviews to identify the model factors
and their corresponding variables.
Regarding the target population of this study, individual Brazilian donors of money
and / or goods were considered as research subjects. The sample was made up of 22
selected individualswho reported being regular donors of money and / or goods,
performing frequent donations in the last 12 months of money and / or goods. It was
necessary to define what these individuals take into account when making their
donations. Individuals with different characteristics were chosen. First, different geo-
graphical regions sought. Then, the sample group was divided by gender and age. The
purpose of these choices was to obtain the most diverse sample possible, avoiding
trends or biases. Table 2shows the profile of interviewees and research participants.
The money and / or goods donors were contacted personally and / or by phone and
they were presented with the research objective. Then they were invited to participate in
interviews. After receiving the agreement of the donor, the interviews were conducted,
following the necessary confidentiality protocols and authorization for recording. To
ensure anonymity of respondents, they were named in this study from E1 to E22.
Data collection was conducted through in-depth interviews (semistructured), with the
aid of a script, which served as the basis for the interviews. The script was formulated
from the personalcharacteristics and external motivators for individual donation behavior
identified in the literature (Fig. 1). The script was divided into two parts. The first part
consisted of the four factors (57 variables) of the personal characteristics group (Table 1)
and the second part included the five factors (46 variables) regarding the external
motivators (Table 2). It is assumed that all variables tend to influence individual behavior
in relation to the donation of money and / or goods.
Interviews are conducted through a casual conversation. First, respondents reported
their personal data necessary to describe the sample profile and agreed with the
recording of the interview. Then they reported their money and / or goods donation
history, and the interviewer inserted in the conversation, when necessary, the factors
and corresponding variables, listed in the proposed script.
The interviews lasted 3080 min; they were recorded and transcribed and then
analyzed in full. The first data collection (11 interviews) was held in November
2014. After this first data collection, data were analyzed and the initial findings were
E.W. Mainardes et al.
Tab le 2 Research participants
Name in the study Age Gender Profession Formation Number of children Marital status City Location
E1 44 years M Agricultural technician Agricultural technician 3 children Married Santa Maria de Jetibá Rural area
E2 39 years F Bank manager Accounting 1 child Married Santa Maria de Jetibá Rural area
E3 38 years F Professor Pedagogy 2 children Married Santa Maria de Jetibá Rural area
E4 54 years F Education manager Management 2 children Married Vitória Grande Vitória
E5 40 years F Public school director Pedagogy 2 children Married Vila Velha Grande Vitória
E6 55 years F Architect Architecture 2 children Married Vitória Grande Vitória
E7 55 years F Professional education manager Social service 2 children Married Vitória Grande Vitória
E8 62 years F Retired Nurse No children Single Itaguaçu Rural area
E9 85 years F Retired Peasant 8 children Widow Itaguaçu Rural area
E10 37 years F Banking Management 1 child Divorced Santa Maria de Jetibá Rural area
E11 59 years M Retired Agricultural technician 2 children Married Santa Maria de Jetibá Rural area
E12 60 years M Businessman High school 2 children Married Santa Maria de Jetibá Rural area
E13 42 years M Businessman Elementary school 1 child Married Santa Leopoldina Rural area
E14 62 years M Retired Civil engineer 2 children Divorced Vitória Grande Vitória
E15 63 years M Retired Social service 2 children Married Vitória Grande Vitória
E16 45 years M Real-estate agent Incomplete management 2 children Married Vila Velha Grande Vitória
E17 36 years M Businessman High School No children Married Cariacica Grande Vitória
E18 44 years F Accountant Accounting 2 children Married Itarana Rural area
E19 61 years M Businessman Elementary School 3 children Married Itarana Rural area
E20 54 years M Pharmacy attendant Elementary School 2 children Married Itarana Rural area
E21 64 years F Businessman and politician Pedagogy 2 children Married Itarana Rural area
E22 58 years F Seamstress Elementary School 3 children Married Santa Leopoldina Rural area
Source: by the authors
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
obtained, and there were other variables that were not part of the initial model. Because
of this, there was a second data collection stage in February 2015 (11 interviews). This
second stage clarified the outstanding points of the first collection, used triangular
data between the various interviews, verified the adherence of the proposed model
to the behavior of respondents and validated new variables. Therefore, it was
considered that the theoretical saturation was reached with the completion of two rounds
of interviews.
At each step, with the interviews completed, transcriptions were performed followed
by the analysis of the data using the Atlas.ti Software. Data were entered into the
Atlas.ti and codes simultaneously defined for the variables that constitute the nine
factors and that tend to explain the behavior of an individual donor of money and / or
goods (Fig. 1). First, in the interviews all the variables listed in the model were
highlighted and new variables were identified. Then, the variables evidenced in all
the interviews were grouped into nine factors and, finally, the interpretation of the
interviews was carried out, comparing them with the definitions of each variable
(Tables 1and 2). From the content analysis of two rounds of interviews, it was possible
to pinpoint the four factors of personal characteristics and the five factors of external
motivators of the individual money and or / goods donors behavior model, as well as
identify and add to the model new variables that were not listed in the literature. The
results of the analysis are presented and discussed in the next section.
After each step, transcriptions were performed and followed by the data analysis with
the aid of the Atlas.ti software. Data were entered into the Atlas.ti and codes simulta-
neously defined for the variables that make up the four factors of personal characteristics
that tend to explain the behavior of an individual donor of money and / or goods (Fig. 1).
First, all the variables listed in Table 1were highlighted in the interviews, but a new
variable was mentioned by respondents, this variable not having been previously
identified in the literature. The resultant variables were grouped according to the four
factors (demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral and psychological) suggested in the
proposed model (Fig) and an interpretation of the content of the two rounds of
interviews was performed. Thus, it was possible to observe the four factors of personal
characteristics, comparing them with each variable setting (Table 1).
4Dataanalysis
4.1 Demographic factor
It can be noticed from the interviews that demographic variables may be directly related
to the donation behavior. With the exception of variables Bcitys size,^Beducation
level,^Bgender^and Bsocial class^(see definitions in Table 1), the other eight variables
from the demographic factor were found in the reports of the respondents.
Among the variables that compose this factor, religion is highlighted, reported by 10
respondents and investigated previously by Bekkers and Wiepking (2011d). This
evidences that individuals who practice a religion are more likely to donate, as the
respondent E4 reports BIve had some experience in relation to donations; then in the
Catholic church, which is the one I go to, for example, we work with donations, and we
do a lot of this, to help others, I feel good about it, so I still practice until today .^
E.W. Mainardes et al.
Another variable highlighted by nine donors and studied by Bekkers and Wiepking
(2007) was the number of times children featured, as seen in the responseof respon-
dent E18 BAfter we have kids, we see life differently. I always think, what if it was
one of my children in need, then thats one of the reasons that leads me to help .^
Another variable mentioned in speech of respondents was marital status, highlighted
together with the number of children, as E1 Bwhen you think about the kids, you
are just, even more sensitive, you know, to the needs of childrenthen you end
up raising awareness a bit more so than when you are single and such then you tend
not to think about it .^Just as the number of children and marital status of the
individual, cited in studies of Wiepking and Maas (2009) and Wiepking (2010), tend to
influence the act of giving, Bekkers and Wiepking (2007) identified that income is also a
donation predictor and was evidenced in the report of E7 as follows: BI had no income,
I did not have money to give (referring to the fact that they could not donate) .^
Another variable that tends to influence the act of donating is age (Apinunmahakul
and Devlin 2008), evidenced in interviews E2, E7 and E14. The variable live in
rural / urban area, studied by Guy and Patton (1989), was evidenced by the E21
interviewee. as Also, ethnic origin, investigated by Yörük (2012), was cited by
interviewees E7 and E13, and the variable gender, studied by Eckel and Grossman
(1998), was mentioned by E7.
In addition to the variables that compose the demographic factor, a new variable was
identified in the reports of respondents , which also belongs to the demographic factor,
Bbeing healthy.^. This was evidenced by E10 (BThe satisfaction of being healthy and
able to help, because I underwent heart surgery when very young, then at that moment I
have this satisfaction that I have good health and I can work and that means a lot to you
to be able to help someone else B). So Bbeing healthy^was incorporated as an
antecedent in the donation demographic factor. In short, in this sense, it is proposed:
Proposition 1 Demographic variables are associated with the donation of money and /
or goods behavior.
4.2 Socioeconomic factor
Several studies (Table 1) considered that socioeconomic variables can interfere with the
individuals decision to donate money and / or goods to charity, which has also been
identified here by nine variables. According to the interviewees, the fact that individ-
uals consider they have financial stability tends to be a variable associated with the
decision to donate to charity, cited by eight respondents (E1, E2, E3, E5, E7, E13, E14
and E15). Another variable that was highlighted in the reports of the respondents was
social responsibility, mentioned by six donors (E1, E4, E8, E11, E16 and E21),
indicating that individuals with a social sense of responsibility tend to donate more
(Schuyt et al. 2004), as narrated by one of them, E11 BI must think I can help, you
know, I also have the responsibility to help too, so Ill help, Ill do my part .^In
Amato research (1985), individuals in a helping profession (nurses, social workers)
tend to donate more when compared to other professions. This was evidenced by E6
Bthere are professions where the person has to give. So I think yes, most are
predisposed, doctors and nurses have to give.^The E7, E8, E15 and E17 interviewees
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
also mentioned in their speeches that there is a relationship between having a helping
profession and the act of donating money and / or goods.
It is important to highlight that, the variable Bbe recognized^was evidenced by E3,
E11, E12, E13, E15, E19 and E20. However, there was a consensus among the
respondents that went against what was found in the literature, which suggests that
individuals tend to donate in the desire for public recognition (Bekkers and Schuyt
2008). E19 disagrees: BNo. The donor has to be neutral and well hidden, donate
without choosing to whom donate....^
The other variables contained in the socioeconomic factor were also mentioned by
respondents. The variable social justice was evidenced by E6, E11, E15, E16 and E19,
as well as social reputation and home ownership by E15. The variable social status was
indicated by respondents E13, 15, 19 and 21, and being employed by E3 and E15.
Thus, it is possible to draw the following proposition:
Proposition 2 Socioeconomic variables are associated with the donation of money and /
or goods behavior.
4.3 Psychological factor
Based on the studies cited in Table 1was created, in this study, the psychological
factor consisting of 17 variables. All variables of this factor were highlighted by
the 22 interviewees. Altruism, previously studied by Germain et al. (2007), was the
most cited variable of the psychological factor among respondents (E2, E4, E5, E6,
E11, E12, E13, E15, 16, E17 and E18). It is estimated that individuals with
altruistic feelings tend to make more charitable donations, as E2 reports (Blook,
so I think these are very personal values, so you know, I do so, for example ,
becase I like helping others^)andE11(BI think, when you help, you have to think a
lot of others first^).
The variable joy of donating, studied by Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b), was the
second most cited variable by respondents (E1, E2, E5, E8, E9, E11, E17, E19, E21),
where E2 said that Bdonors are benefit more than the person who receives the
donation, and the feeling that remains is a great joy .! According to Grace and
Griffin (2009), individuals also donate for personal satisfaction, which was mentioned
in interviews E3, E4, E5, E6, E10, E15 and E20. In addition, the ego, studied by
Bennett (2003), was evidenced by respondent E13 and the variable empathy (Lee and
Chang 2007) was cited in the interviews of E2, E3, E6, E7, E9, E11 and E18.
Another variable identified in the literature is the sense of calm / peace of spirit, by
which the individual may feel calmer, Bat peace with themself^, by making a donation
(Bennett 2003). This was reported by E2, E8, E10, E12, E17, E18, and E16, which
affirm that the act of donating brings you Bpeace and quiet. It makes me more
relaxed .^Hedonism, with regard to the pleasure of donating, was appointed by E8,
E9, E12, E13, E15, E16, E17, E18 and E21, where E9 said, BI like donating, Im
happy to help people who are most in need, I like to help .^Respondents also cited
the variable humor, studied by Cunningham et al. (1980) and reported by E4.
Intervieweea E7 and E8 evidenced in their speech that individuals may be motivated
to donate to improve their self-esteem (Sargeant 1999).
E.W. Mainardes et al.
Other feelings that tend to influence donor behavior were surveyed in the literature,
such as compassion (Bennett 2003), pity (Sargeant 1999), guilt (Hibbert and Horne
1996), personal distress (Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011), fear (Sargeant and Woodliffe
2007), anxiety and sadness (Verhaert and Van den Poel 2011) and forgiveness (Bekkers
and Wiepking 2007). Such sentiments appeared in the speech of the interviewees.
The variable compassion was reported by respondents E2, E8, E9, E13, E16 and
E18. Pity / mercy of the disadvantaged was reported by seven respondents and was
evident in E13sresponse:BI think I help them more out of pity itself, because there
is no one for them, you know, so I feel obliged to do so, because if I dont, no one will
and the person will be in need,^Guilt was observed in E3sresponse:Bwhen I
speak of obligation, it seems like a bad feeling, right, but not that I feel it is on my
obligation, thats what I mean, obligation, on the other hand that I have to get what I
have I feel the obligation to share .^The variable personal distress was indicated by
E11 and E22 and that of sadness was evident in E1, E8 and E21. Finally, the feeling of
fear was evident in E21 and the variables anxiety and forgiveness appeared in the
response of E13. Considering the analysis of this factor, it can be proposed:
Proposition 3 Psychological variables are associated with the donation of money and /
or goods donation behavior.
4.4 Behavioral factor
The behavioral factor represents 20 variables (see Table 1). Considering the variables
that compose this factor, only the variable self-image was not evident in the interviews.
Among the most cited variables, it is possible to highlight family tradition, reported by
21 respondents. It is believed that the fact that the individual belongs to a family with a
tradition of donation tends to influence the donation behavior, to generate the will to
continue this tradition. This was evidenced in E1sresponse(Bmy family always did,
my family always has, we always tried to contribute to some entity, you know, my
father, my sisters, they always had this history of contribution^). These responses
presented evidence that the family history may have a significant relationship with
the decision to donate money and / or goods.
Besides the family tradition variable studied by Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007),
another often quoted variable was that of obligation, studied by Hibbert and Horne
(1996), who identified that individuals tend to make donations because they feel
obliged to donate. When this variable was approached, six respondents (E3, E4, E5,
E6, E10, E13, E18 and E19) showed in their responses the sense of the obligation to
donate. On the other hand, five respondents (E2, E8, E11, E14 and E20) denied that
they make donations because of obligation and diverged from the literature. The desire
to help and contribute to the general welfare of society can lead to donation (Michel and
Rieunier 2012) and was reported by 13 respondents.
As well as the desire to help, the individual may have a perception of the need of the
recipient organization to receive help (Bachke et al. 2014). This was evidenced by the
interviewees E1, E2, E5, E6, E7, E8, E10, E11, E12, E15, E19, E21 and E22,
expressing themselves to be motivated to donate when they realize the need of an
organization to receive help.
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
Similarly, the perception of need may be the antecedent of donation to charity.
Respondents E1, E2, E4, E7, E8, E11, E12, E13 and E21 showed that the desire to
make a difference, studied by Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007), may also cause the
individual to donate. This was made explicit in E5snarrative:BIt is a division, right,
a little shared of what we have can make a big difference to someone else .^
On the other hand, Bachke et al. (2014) identified that donation tends to be linked to
identification with the cause. Reports from E3, E4, E8, E11 and E16 corroborate this
statement by E7 Bthe fact that I have a daughter who is a doctor, right, may have
sensitized me ,^referring to a donation that she makes in favor of a philanthropic
organization that works in healthcare.
Gittell and Tebaldi (2006) concluded in their study that volunteering can contribute
to building relationships with the recipient organization and increase the likelihood of
donation. In this context, E8, E11, E12, E15, E18, E19 and E22 expressed this link
between volunteering and pre-willingness to donate money and / or goods, as men-
tioned by E18 Bso, by volunteering, this leads us to participate. It is very beautiful,
understand .^
The other 12 variables, also part of the behavioral factor, were reported by the
interviewees in this study. The variable generosity was mentioned by respondents E1,
E2, E5, E6, E7, E8 and E12. The similarity between donor and beneficiary was
approached by E7. The variable be respected was evidenced by the response of E6
and that of materialism appeared in E1s narrative. Sympathy was reported by several
respondents (E1, E5, E14 and E17) and personal fulfillment was present in the E15s
response. The variable concern appeared in the interviews with E4, E13 and E21.
Thinking about death itself was observed in the statements of E11, E13 and E2.
Wanting public prestige for their contributions was evidenced negatively by E11,
E13, E18, E21, E22. Donation history was cited by E15, and loyalty to the organization
was discussed in interviews with E1, E5 and E6. Finally the variable interest in leaving
a legacy appeared in the narratives of E5, E15 and E21. In short, the final proposition of
personal characteristics group is presented:
Proposition 4 behavioral variables are associated with the donation of money and / or
goods behavior.
5 Conclusion
This study has as its objective the definition of the personal characteristics of individ-
uals that motivate them to donate money and / or goods. This discussion is based on the
study of Bekkers and Wiepking (2011d), which previously suggested that it would be
appropriate to group the variables that tend to motivate individual behavior to donate
money and / or goods. The purpose of this systematization, in practice, seeks to
facilitate the understanding of donor behavior by managers of charitable organizations,
and, in a theoretical perspective, the creation of new empirical models on the donation
behavior.
In this context, 57 variables related to personal characteristics have been identified in
the literature and with the addition of a new variable, an individual role model for the
donation of money and/or goods is proposed. In a simple way, the model consisted of
E.W. Mainardes et al.
four factors (demographic, socioeconomic, psychological and behavioral). The impor-
tance of the variables that make up these factorspersonal characteristics can be seen, as
shown in the 22 respondents262 quotes.
Thus, to rescue the four proposals suggested in the data analysis, it can be seen that
all were relevant to the motivation of donating money and / or goods, where the first
proposition that demographic variables are associated with the donation of money
and / or goods behavior, was mentioned 30 times and represented by 11.45 % of total
citations. The second factor, socioeconomic, represented 14.89 % of the respondents
responses, getting 39 quotes. The third proposition indicates that psychological vari-
ables are associated with donation behavior, representing 30.53 % of quotes and
mentioned 80 times by respondents. And the last factor, behavioral, through the
variables that comprise it, got 113 quotes, representing 43.13 % of the reports of
respondents, the most cited factor.
As an academic implication, this research can contribute to studies on the donation
of money and / or goods behavior, by having prepared a proposal for a new model,
unprecedented in the literature. Another contribution was the identification of a new
variable that precedes the donation behavior and that has not been investigated in
previous studies. Thus, it is expected that the proposed model and the results of this
investigation provide the area of management of charitable organizations with a deeper
understanding of the reasons that lead an individual to donate money and / or goods.
Understanding what the personal characteristics are that affect the decision to donate
can improve marketing campaigns and help organizations to attract philanthropic
resource.
In practice, it is expected that this research provides relevant information to
managers of charitable organizations who seek to understand the personal charac-
teristics that may lead individuals to the act of donation. This understanding can be
facilitated by the grouping of several variables of personal characteristics into
factors prior to donation. This allows managers to understand that individuals
may have different motives that lead them to give, and thus improve their
marketing strategies, increase the uptake of financial and human resources and
keep current donors.
The limitations of this research, even taking into account that the model showed
that the 57 variables related to personal characteristics of the individuals were
found in the respondents, is that there may be other variables in the literature that
were not included in this model. In this sense, new proposal models can be
suggested and new variables added. Another limitation is that the model has been
tested with Brazilian individual donors, which does not allow the generalization of
donor behavior regarding the donation of money and / or goods. In this sense, it is
recommended to test the model in other cultures. Finally, this study was developed
using a qualitative research, where the number of respondents is relatively small.
To confirm the proposed model, it is suggested that it is tested by a quantitative research
of a confirmatory nature.
In short, the results of this research contribute significantly to improving the
understanding of the individual donor of money and / or goodsbehavior in research
in marketing in the nonprofit sector. After all, the organizations that make up this
sector have an important role and their good performance makes an important
contributions to society.
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico
e Tecnológico (CNPQ) and by Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo (FAPES).
References
Amato, P. R. (1985). An investigation of planned helping behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2),
232252.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The
Economic Journal, 100(401), 464477.
Apinunmahakul, A., & Devlin, R. A. (2008). Social networks and private philanthropy. Journal of Public
Economics, 92(1), 309328.
Bachke, M. E., Alfnes, F., & Wik, M. (2014). Eliciting donor preferences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 465486.
Balabanis, G., Stables, R. E., & Phillips, H. C. (1997). Market orientation in the top 200 British charity
organizations and its impact on their performance. European Journal of Marketing, 31(8), 583603.
Banks, J., & Tanner, S. (1999). Patterns in household giving: evidence from UK data. International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(2), 167178.
Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: the role of resources and personality. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 349366.
Bekkers, R. (2010). Who gives what and when? A scenario study of intentions to give time and money. Social
Science Research, 39(3), 369381.
Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in
charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50,7496.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2006). To give or not to give, that is the question: how methodology is destiny in
Dutchgivingdata.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 533540.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Understanding philanthropy: A review of 50 years of theories and research.
In 35th Annual Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action, Chicago.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011a). Accuracy of self-reports on donations to charitable organizations.
Quality and Quantity, 45(6), 13691383.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011b). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight
mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924973.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011c). Testing mechanisms for philanthropic behaviour. International Journal
of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 291297.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011d). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part
one: religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337365.
Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: an integrative framework
for promotion planning. The Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 3349.
Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 1229.
Charities Aid Foundation. World Giving Index 2012: A global view of giving trends. http://www.cafonline.
org/PDF/WorldGivingIndex2012WEB.pdf. Accessed 01 September 2014.
Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: separate motivations for
positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 181.
DeHaven, B. (2010). Principles of persuasion for nonprofit fundraisers (Doctoral dissertation, The University
of Akron).
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments.
The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726735.
Germain, M., Glynn, S. A., Schreiber, G. B., Gélinas, S., King, M., Jones, M., & Tu, Y. (2007). Determinants
of return behavior: a comparison of current and lapsed donors. Transfusion, 47(10), 18621870.
Gittell, R., & Tebaldi, E. (2006). Charitable giving: factors influencing giving in US states. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 721736.
Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2006). Exploring conspicuousness inthe context of donation behaviour. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 147154.
Grace, D., & Griffin, D. (2009). Conspicuous donation behaviour: scale development and validation. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, 8(1), 1425.
E.W. Mainardes et al.
Guy, B. S., & Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: understanding why people help.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(1), 1930.
Hibbert, S., & Horne, S. (1996). Giving to charity: questioning the donor decision process. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 413.
Konow, J. (2010). Mixed feelings: theories of and evidence on giving. Journal of Public Economics, 94(3),
279297.
Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(9), 11731180.
Mews, M., & Boenigk, S. (2013). Does organizational reputation influence the willingness to donate blood?
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1), 4964.
Michel, G., & Rieunier, S. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving.
Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701707.
Payne, A. A. (1998). Does the government crowd-out private donations? New evidence from a sample of non-
profit firms. Journal of Public Economics, 69(3), 323345.
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management,
15(4), 215238.
Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: an interdisciplinary review. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275307.
Scaife, W., McDonald, K., & Wiepking, P. (2012). Motives and barriers to bequest giving. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 11(1), 5666.
Schuyt, T., Smit, J., & Bekkers, R. (2004). Constructing a philanthropy-scale: social responsibility and
philanthropy. Order, 501,5704.
Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: the effectiveness of a revised theory of planned
behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 17(5), 363386.
Van Leeuwen, M. H., & Wiepking, P. (2013). National campaigns for charitable causes: a literature review.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 219240.
Verhaert, G. A., & Van den Poel, D. (2011). Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal
of Business Research, 64(12), 12881295.
Wiepking, P. (2009). The state of giving research in Europe: Household donations to charitable organizations
in twelve European countries. Amsterdam University Press.
Wiepking, P. (2010). Democrats support international relief and the upper class donates to art? How
opportunity, incentives and confidence affect donations to different types of charitable organizations.
Social Science Research, 39(6), 10731087.
Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part
two: gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217245.
Wiepking, P., & Breeze, B. (2012). Feeling poor, acting stingy: the effect of money perceptions on charitable
giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(1), 1324.
Wiepking, P., & Maas, I. (2009). Resources that make you generous: effects of social and human resources on
charitable giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 19731995.
Yörük, B. K. (2012). Do fundraisers select charitable donors based on gender and race? Evidence from survey
data. Journal of Population Economics, 25(1), 219243.
What motivates an individual to make donations of money
... Given the value of charitable giving to society, it is essential that charitable organizations understand factors that may increase or decrease donor intentions and behaviors (da Silva et al., 2020;James, 2018). Recent research supports the importance of examining donorrelated factors in explaining donation intentions (Mainardes et al., 2016;Maleki & Hosseini, 2020). In the current research, we focus on donors' Implicit Theories (hereafter, "mindsets") as a potential donor-related factor that has largely been unexplored in the area of charitable giving. ...
... Our findings point to the need for nonprofits to consider donors' individual differences, including mindsets (Mainardes et al., 2016;Maleki & Hosseini, 2020). To increase the presence of a growth mindset among potential donors, nonprofits may implement efforts to reach donors who are chronically more growth-oriented and communicate a growth mindset in their messages. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research investigates the impact of peoples’ chronic personality mindsets on charitable giving behaviors (donation intentions) and the process by which it occurs. We expand upon the literature by examining the relationship between mindsets and charitable giving for a social cause (homelessness), the controllability of which may be ambiguous to potential donors. In addition, we show how mindsets influence donation intentions via multiple mediation pathways, which consist of a combination of cognitive and affective mediators. Across two studies that surveyed 791 individuals age 24 + living in the U.S.A. via online questionnaires, we find that a more fixed (vs. growth) personality mindset is significantly associated with lower donation intentions to homelessness charities. A parallel serial mediation model reveals this relationship is mediated by perceived controllability and perceived donation efficacy on one pathway, and attribution and both positive (sympathy) and negative (blame) affect on the other pathways. The results have practical implications for nonprofits and raise awareness of the need to understand the mindsets of potential donors as they devise marketing strategies, programs, and messages. The findings also suggest that nonprofits should consider donors’ perceived controllability of the cause, perceived donation efficacy, and emotions felt towards those in need.
... [11][12][13][14] There are also studies that have adopted a multi-disciplinary approach toward donating behaviors. 11,[15][16][17] Bekkers and Wiepking, after reviewing hundreds of studies on charitable donation, highlighted that making decisions about donations is essentially influenced by the context where the charitable contribution occurs. 18 Donation motivators in Iran are not necessarily the same as other societies because the context (e.g. the culture, religion, political system, health delivery system, and structure of charitable organizations) is different. ...
... These feelings have been pointed out in a previous study. 15 However, some other feelings have been referred to in the literature as motivating factors for donation that our interviewees did not mention. Feelings of guilt 33 and fear 34 are 2 examples of such these feelings. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: There is limited evidence about charitable contribution and donation in Iranian healthcare. The main objective of this study was to investigate the factors that influence and encourage Iranian donors to donate money for healthcare facilities. Methods: Data was gathered through semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 36 donors, fund-raisers, and managers of the Iranian health system. Purposive sampling was used to select the participants. The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis, assisted by MAXQDA 10 software. Results: The factors that affect Iranian donors to donate money for healthcare facilities were (a) feelings of altruism, compassion, concern, pity, sympathy, and obligation; (b) perceptions of difficulties and need in others, similarity with beneficiary, feedback from previous donations, thinking about death, and self-realization; (c) benefits consisted of monetary, social, and psychological benefits; and (d) values including moral, social, and religious values. Conclusion: Better understanding of feelings, perceptions, benefits, and values of donors could improve the fund-raising practices in the Iranian health system.
... Francioni et al. [32] found that commitment to an American university predicted positive attitudes toward donations to the university. Mainardes et al. [44] conducted a qualitative study in Brazil and found that behavioral factors, which included a sense of obligation to the target organization (as well as identification with its causes and its perceived similarity with the donor), were the strongest predictors of charitable donations. Boezeman and Ellemers [45] found that normative organization commitment was positively related to volunteer work for charities and that it mediated the relationship between pride in the charity's mission (conceptually related to values congruence), and volunteering one's time. ...
Article
Full-text available
Many universities around the world depend on financial donations to maintain and enhance their operations. We propose that donating money to an organization is a specific form of organizational citizenship behavior. We theorize that perceived values congruence between alumni and their colleges/universities and normative organizational commitment each provide motivation for people to donate money. We tested our hypotheses using alumni from a private college in the USA, measuring both the amount as well as the frequency of their donations to the college. We also measured alumni self-reports of values congruence and normative organizational commitment. We found empirical support for a positive relationship between values congruence and commitment and between commitment and financial giving. Values congruence, however, was not related to giving behavior; normative organizational commitment fully mediated the relationship between values congruence, and the alumnus’ financial giving behaviors. Higher education organizations that depend on donations from members to sustain their operations might focus advancement efforts on developing a perception of values congruence in potential donors, and/or by stimulating a sense of obligation to give back to the colleges from which they have previously derived benefits.
... The available literature provides countless insights that can allow us to investigate the evolutionary trends and the quality of the flows of donations to non-profit entities over time and under numerous perspectives. Authors such as James (2018); Mainardes et al. (2016); Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) provided important studies on donations flows by analyzing qualitative and quantitative as well as social aspects. Some authors instead pleaded an approach related to psychological principles, often due to the evidence of donations already made (Jacob et al. 2018) or the empathy of donors and the emotions aroused (Dickert et al. 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
The Covid-19 emergency is demonstrating the need to follow new solutions that can support the important role played by non-profit organizations around the world. Contrary to what should have happened to further combat the effect of pandemic, the majority of philanthropic organisations had a negative impact on fundraising, suffering a substantial decrease. Today, the Blockchain can play a pivotal role to re-establish pre-pandemic standards and enhance the development of global philanthropy. However, it is still too little considered due to the criticalities encountered during the launch and development of the initiatives as well as for a general incomprehension of its technology. Therefore, this work aims to demonstrate the Blockchain impact on the development of charity 4.0, especially in an extremely dramatic historical moment marked by the Covid-19 pandemic. The objective is achieved through the case study of Charity Wall, an emerging Italian social marketplace appreciated by important business associations for its innovative solutions in the charity 4.0 sector and for the important support provided to NPOs during their traditional function as well as against Covid-19 in Italy. Through a benchmark analysis, this work succeeds in highlighting the innovative solutions proposed by Charity Wall compared to the charity 4.0 systems on the market. More specifically, through the Charity Wall case study it is possible to demonstrate which aspects of Blockchain technology can be used to strengthen the philanthropic system by avoiding cases of fraud to the detriment of beneficiaries, receivers and donors as well as to create a closer network between the various philanthropic players to support charitable initiatives against the Covid-19.
... Other recent studies focused on particular issues such as donors' personal characteristics as associated with donation behaviour (Mainardes et al., 2016), the impact of donor identity and personality on individual giving behaviour (White et al., 2017), and the public recognition associated with online and offline charitable behaviours (Wallace et al., 2017). Besides, some studies have concentrated on the influence of deception on consumer donation behaviour , the impact of perceived fear and empathy on financial donations (O'Loughlin Banks & Raciti, 2018), and the intrinsic and extrinsic factors which encourage donations to crowd-funding projects (Li et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
The not-for-profit literature has not fully explored the decision-usefulness of financial disclosures with respect to the public’s donation intentions. Engaging with this lacuna, this study proposes that reputation and trust serve as important causal links between donors’ perceptions of the decision-usefulness of financial disclosures and their donation intentions. The study adopts the theory of planned behaviour and applies structural equation modelling to 400 useable responses from an Australian survey. The study finds: (1) a strong link between financial disclosures which donors perceive as decision-useful and their perception of the reputation of the reporting not-for-profit organisation (NFP), (2) a close association between donors’ perception of the reputation of an NFP (that is, their behavioural belief) and their trust in the organisation (their attitude), and (3) a significant link between donors’ trust in an NFP and hence their attitude towards the organisation with respect to their donation intentions. These results imply that the decision-usefulness of an NFP’s financial disclosures make donors more inclined to donate to the NFP via the impact of disclosures on donors’ perceptions of reputation and thence trustworthiness. In addition to contributing to the emergent NFP literature on disclosures and giving behaviour, these findings inform financial disclosure policies and practice by furthering the case for decision-useful financial disclosures among NFPs.
... In this perspective, a strong task orientation may signal deep charitable involvement which connects to positive attitudes and behaviors around giving and social impact (Germak & Robinson, 2014;Mickiewicz, Sauka, & Stephan, 2016). An "ego orientation" has also been found to influence individual giving with underlying objectives of self-promotion and enhancement, praise, and competition (Mainardes, Laurett, Degasperi, & Lasso, 2016). Finally, some scholars (Brown & Ferris, 2007;Waters, 2008) have examined the level of philanthropic engagement and involvement and examined the extent of the link between the individual donor and their charitable activity (e.g., confidence, dedication, vigor, intention to continue giving, capacity, and enthusiasm toward socially responsible/philanthropic actions) to uncover philanthropic sustainability and social impact. ...
Article
Professional athletes are increasingly engaged in social impact efforts via charitable endeavors. Despite seemingly good intentions in these efforts, the media’s representation of athlete philanthropy varies widely. This study examines how discourses of athlete charity are represented in U.S. media coverage. Over 100 newspaper articles were obtained for the period of 2005–2017. The authors conducted a qualitative analysis which consisted of attribute coding for basic article characteristics, identification of both framing and reasoning devices, and deductive coding to identify generic media frames. The authors present an adapted frame matrix highlighting the salient frames in media coverage of athlete philanthropy. Our results show that athlete charitable efforts are related to a personal or emotional connection or linked to an economic perspective around philanthropy. A third frame reflected a moral underpinning to athletes’ charitable work. The authors discuss managerial implications for teams and leagues that provide support for athletes’ charitable work, as well as for the athletes themselves.
... They proposed that new models needed to be developed in other to gauge personal characteristics that affect donor behavior After analyzing the literature review regarding factors and personal characteristics that influence donor behavior, over 40 variables that have an impact on donor patterns were considered for this study. In order to better understand these variables within their own context, they have been grouped into four different categories which are demographic, socioeconomic, psychological or behavioral (Mainardes EW et al, 2016). ...
... The survey, housing the revised scales and items presented in Table 1, was distributed via an established and nationally representative consumer panel, ensuring a balanced sample across demographic criteria such as age, gender and education level. Such factors have been demonstrated to be associated with donation behaviour (Mainardes et al. 2016). The intention of this process is to generate a donor sample that is broadly representative of the UK population. ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite the increased social significance currently attached to national identity, little is known about how national group attachment may correlate with the decision to donate to domestic versus international charities. The current study brings together literature on national identity and charitable giving to empirically validate a model of charitable ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism. The substantive study is based on an online survey administered to a sample of 1004 UK respondents. The findings indicate that internationalism leads to an increased preference for international charities and a negative inclination towards domestic alternatives. Conversely, nationalism leads to a preference for domestic charities, but a surprisingly non-significant view on international causes. This study adds to the limited empirical research on charitable choice, specifically international giving, and has implications for fundraisers of both domestic and international charities. The work also provides valid and reliable scales for the assessment of charitable ethnocentrism and charitable cosmopolitanism.
... In brief, the religious practice, number of children, educational level, ownership of house, paternal influence, and the urban pattern of the area of residence are variables that positively influence the amount donated (Karlan and List 2007;Kovic and Hänsli 2018). Demographic, psychographic, behavioural, and socioeconomic variables are segmentation criteria applied when regarding individual donations to NPOs (Mainardes et al. 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
The motivations for individual and corporate donations to non-profit organisations (NPOs) have been vastly researched. However, companies tend to diversify their donations towards different institutions, hindering the development of substantial and continuous social interventions by charities. Considering the importance of regular support to guarantee NPOs’ sustainability, this study analyses the corporate motivations and the conditions that might favour their propensity for long-term donations. Researchers have conducted twenty semistructured interviews in companies with social responsibility policies and concluded that motivations to donate goes beyond visibility or recognition the donation might bring to the business. Interviewees highlighted the sense of altruism and the perceived importance of their donation for the well-being of people the institutions are supporting. However, managers admitted they diversify their partnerships rather than donate regularly to the same institution and consider that a relationship and proactive marketing approach by NPOs would be a key point to activate long-term donations.
Article
We investigate the effect of model ethnicity (in-group vs. out-group) in a charity appeal and how this interacts with the scope of the charity (local vs. global) on message recipients’ attitude toward and intention to donate money to the charity. We also test the mediating role of the perceived trustworthiness of the models in the appeal and ad skepticism. In a controlled experiment, we exposed Caucasian (French, n = 201) and Indian (n = 194) respondents to a group of Caucasian or Indian models for either a local or a global charity. Models of the same ethnicity as the message recipient (in-group) lead to more positive responses for a local charity, while models of a different ethnicity than the message recipient (out-group) lead to more positive responses for a global charity. As expected, these effects are mediated by the perceived model trustworthiness and ad skepticism.
Article
Full-text available
The authors present the first cross-national comparison of more than 300 national campaigns for charitable causes in the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United States for the period 1950 to 2011. The authors study frequency and amounts raised, discuss successful and failed campaigns, and review the literature with regard to potential determinants of success. The authors group these determinants into three categories: (a) perceived characteristics of recipients, notably their need, agency, and blamelessness; (b) donor characteristics, such as geographical and cultural proximity, a gain in status or reputation, and material incentives; and (c) structural characteristics of the giving regime, such as the frequency and media formats of campaigns, fundraising rules and regulations, and trust.
Article
Full-text available
Charitable organizations play a vital role in our society, as is evidenced by their enormous economic and social impact. Yet, for many of them, soliciting adequate resources to carry out their mandates is a continuing struggle. Confronted with a growing need for their services, fierce competition from other charities, and shrinking support from government agencies, charities may turn to marketers for help in developing effective promotional strategies. Unfortunately, marketing literature is unable to provide meaningful guidance because scant research attention has hampered a fuller understanding of why people help. The authors integrate relevant research in marketing, economics, sociology, and social psychology to advance theoretical understanding of helping behavior. They develop research propositions regarding specific promotional strategies that charitable organizations can employ to elicit help.
Article
Full-text available
This research examines the influence of nonprofit brand image and typicality on giving behaviors. To this end, the researchers create a scale to measure the brand image of charities. Four dimensions of nonprofit brands emerge in the new scale: usefulness, efficiency, affect and dynamism. Brand image explains up to 31 % of intentions to give money and 24 % of intentions to give time. The study also explores the role of typicality in giving behaviors. Typicality explains up to 29 % of intentions to give money and 23 % of intentions to give time. The theoretical contributions, in addition to the comprehensive scale, include the significant role that brand image and typicality play in affecting donation behaviors. The paper concludes with managerial implications and limitations of the study.
Article
Charitable organizations play a vital role in our society, as is evidenced by their enormous economic and social impact. Yet, for many of them, soliciting adequate resources to carry out their mandates is a continuing struggle. Confronted with a growing need for their services, fierce competition from other charities, and shrinking support from government agencies, charities may turn to marketers for help in developing effective promotional strategies. Unfortunately, marketing literature is unable to provide meaningful guidance because scant research attention has hampered a fuller understanding of why people help. The authors integrate relevant research in marketing, economics, sociology, and social psychology to advance theoretical understanding of helping behavior. They develop research propositions regarding specific promotional strategies that charitable organizations can employ to elicit help.
Article
Proposes that charity organizations must adopt a new marketing perspective in order to raise funds. Attempts to provide insight into donor behaviour and suggests ways of translating this insight into marketing practice. Concludes that recognition that the strongest motivating force for giving to charity is the basic need to help others is the most important factor in developing a new marketing perspective.
Article
We study differences in contributions of time and money to churches and non-religious nonprofit organizations between members of different religious denominations in the Netherlands. We hypothesize that contributions to religious organizations are based on involvement in the religious community, while contributions to non-religious organizations are more likely to be rooted in prosocial values such as altruism, equality, and responsibility for the common good, which are socialized in religious traditions. Data from the first wave of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (n=1, 964) support the hypotheses. We find higher levels of volunteerism and generosity among members of Protestant churches than among Catholics and the non-religious. Higher contributions to church among members of Protestant churches are mostly due to higher levels of church attendance and social pressure to contribute. In contrast, higher contributions to non-religious organizations by members of Protestant churches, especially charitable donations, are mostly due to prosocial values.
Article
Charitable giving by households in the United States is significant. More than two thirds of households self-report giving. Private giving represents more than 2% of total gross domestic product (GDP) and is a significant factor in funding the nonprofit sector. This research note documents giving across U.S. states. It adds detailed data and analysis supporting and supplementing research that identifies personal income, capital gains, religious group affiliation, age, volunteerism, and educational attainment as the main factors affecting household giving.
Article
This is the second of two articles in which we present a comprehensive review of the multidisciplinary academic literature on philanthropy. In this article, we identify the following predictors of charitable giving by individuals and/or households: gender, family composition and income. For each predictor, we discuss the evidence for the mechanisms that may explain why the predictor is correlated with giving. We conclude with a brief agenda for future research.
Article
Much is known about motivations for giving to charities generally. However, much less has been identified about bequestors as a unique type of charitable donor. This paper explores the motives and barriers for charitable bequest giving. Hypotheses are drawn from the general philanthropic literature and tested using survey data from Australia, a nation distinguished by very high lifetime (inter vivos) giving but low estate (post mortem) giving. The results show that belief in the efficacy of charitable organizations is requisite for leaving a bequest, as the deceased donor has no control over the enactment of the gift. This effect is mediated by the perceived difficulty of making a charitable bequest, which forms an important barrier for leaving such a legacy. Having family whose financial needs are perceived as not taken care of and the perception of financial inability to make a difference also form barriers for bequest giving. The results confirm that bequests constitute a distinctive charitable behaviour, with unique motives and barriers compared to other types of inter vivos giving. While charitable behaviour in general is driven by altruistic attitudes and political and religious values, as well as social reputation, these factors do not affect charitable bequest making as expected. Surprisingly, we find a negative relationship between financial resources and the inclination to leave a charitable bequest. The article ends with suggestions for ways charities might connect more meaningfully with their bequestors or with donors who might consider bequeathing to them. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
This special issue of the International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing presents a collection of nine papers testing mechanisms that drive philanthropic behaviour. By testing one or more specific mechanisms that were derived from the philanthropic literature, the authors of the papers in this special issue increase our understanding of philanthropic behaviour.