literature review table

literature review table

No.

Review of Money Donation Behaviour

Anther

Year

Independent Variables country methodology Findings
1 Kottasz,

2004

Gender UK

(Young wealthy professionals)

Quantitative (Questionnaire) Significant differences emerged between the donor behaviour characteristics of males and females. Whereas men were more interested in donating to the arts sector in return for “social” rewards, women had strong predilections to give to “people” charities and sought personal recognition from the charity to which they donated.

On average, the respondents preferred attribute combinations involving donations to very well-established and well-known charities.

2 Sargeant, , West and Ford,

2004

Perception of benefits.

Perceptions of COs.

Perception of fundraising organisation in question.

UK

(Active and lapsed donors)

8 Focus groups

and 2300 Questionnaire

The results suggested that the more favourable the public perception of charities, the greater will be the level of support.
3

Burgoyne, Young and Walker,

2005

Household’s financial behaviour UK

Households

6 Focus groups The study confirmed that our knowledge of the ways people negotiate and discuss money matters in the household can be applied to that part of financial decision-making that covers charitable giving. Styles of money management seem to encompass ways of negotiating and discussing giving to charity. The use of ‘mental accounts’ for household money extends to resources for charitable giving.
4 Venable, Rose, Bush and Gilbert,

2005

CO brand personality USA

(Current and potential donors

4 Focus groups, 18 interviews and 3214 questionnaire Charities brand personality may influence potential donors’ likelihood to contribute.

The results yield four dimensions of brand personality for COs. Integrity, Nurturance, Sophistication, Ruggedness

5 Lyons and Nivison,-Smith

2006

Individuals’ religious characteristics Australia

(Public)

Database

Analysis

(6209)

People who identify themselves as having a religion are more likely to donate than people who do not, but that this relationship is produced by a subset of this group; namely, people who regularly attend religious service. The likelihood of donation and average amount donated by individual over a year increase with level of attendance at religious services. The relationship holds even after allowing for other factors that affect the likelihood of a person donation and the amount given. It also holds for donating to nonreligious causes.
6 Sargeant, Ford and West, 2006b Individual: Perceived demonstrable utilities, Perceived emotional utilities, Perceived Familial utilities

Organisational: Performance, Responsiveness, and Communication.

Mediator: Trust and commitment

UK

(Donors)

Mixed

Focus groups (8) and Questionnaire (1000)

Positive causal link shown between the degree of trust in the COs and the degree of commitment to the CO. There is a significant positive causal link between the degree of commitment and donor monetary donation behaviour. Significant positive causal links were identified between emotional/familial utility and commitment, but there was no causal link identified for demonstrable utility. Significant positive causal links were identified between performance of the CO, communication and trust. While there was no significant correlation found between responsiveness
7 Ting-Yuan Ho,

2006

Donors demographic characteristics USA

(Donors)

Database

Analysis

(4216)

Belonging to a religious congregation had the greatest impact on charitable donation, followed by whether they volunteered within the past year. Other variables such as home ownership, marital status, and education also had positive effects on charitable giving. When the study examined charitable donation in terms of absolute amounts, variables most closely linked to higher income had the strongest influence on monetary donation.
8 Treiblmaier and Pollach, 2006 The impact of charitable project, CO and the internet on individuals attitudes towards online donation Austria

(students and member in charities)

Questionnaires

(222)

The developed scale shoed significant differences between the two groups.

The study’s results demonstrate the applicability of the instrument to segment user groups according to their preferences

9 Pentecost and Andrews,

2007

Perceived importance of CO.

Attitude towards charity.

Importance of need.

Australia

(Students and non- students)

Questionnaire

(776)

Students were found to rate the importance of the charity to be significant for all forms of donation behaviour. Attitude towards the charity is also a significant factor for money and time but not for goods. Importance of need has significant influence, whereas attitude towards the charity does not. For non-student, importance of the CO and attitude towards the charity bore no significance on any charitable behaviour.
10 Smith and McSweeny, 2007 Revised model of TPB (attitudes, norms, injunctive, descriptive and moral norms), PBC, and past behaviour) Australia

(public)

Questionnaire

(227)

Attitudes, PBC, injunctive norms, moral norms and past behaviour all predicted charitable giving intentions; however, descriptive norms did not predict donating intentions. Donating intentions were the only significant predictor of donating behaviour at Time 2.
11 Piper and Schnepf,

2008

Individuals gender UK

(Public )

Database Analysis

(12,679)

Results indicate that women are more likely to donate to charitable causes and more generous than men. Men and women appear to have different preferences for charitable causes, with a notably higher support among women for animal welfare, education, and the elderly. For men, the support for religious organisations is also related to marital status, with married men nearly twice as likely as single men to support such organisations. Women also tend to support more causes.
12 Ranganathan and Henley,

2008

Religiosity, Attitude towards helping others, Attitude towards charitable organizations, Attitude towards the advertisement USA

(Students)

Questionnaire

(240)

Attitude towards helping others by itself does not cause charitable donation intention. Religiosity is an important determinant of Attitude towards helping others, Attitude towards charitable organizations, Attitude towards the advertisement, and charitable donation intention.
13 Bennett and Choudhury,

2009

Charity image and reputation, Image congruence, Personal Inertia, Information overload, Emotional uplift

Social influences, Communications from charities

UK

(University students)

Questionnaire

(551)

Nearly 85% of the people who had in fact given went on to make a second gift to the same or to a different charity. The majority (78%) of second gifts benefited charities other than the organisation that received the first gift. The median value of second gifts

to different charities was (at £12.50) higher than the median value of initial donations. A person’s decision to donate to a different charity was also influenced positively and significantly by self-image and organisation reputation and negatively by the individual having felt pressurised by others to give to the first organisation.

People who were inert by nature were less inclined to bother switching charities for the second donation. Seventy-five per cent of the sample made their second gift within a year of making the first.

14 Lwin and Phau, 2009 Existential guilt appeal Australia

(Students)

Questionnaire

(220)

The findings show that when the audience feel existential guilt they will attempt to minimise the feeling of guilt by possibly donating to charity.
15 Oosterhof, Heuvelman, and Peters, 2009 The impact of social-cognitive factors (self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, indirect influencing factors, moral obligation, trust in the organisation, individualist explanation for poverty, need for donation, past donation, awareness of the disaster and income) on donating money to charity UK, France, Belgium,

Australia, New Zealand, France, and Switzerland

Online Questionnaire

(290)

The greatest predictor of the intention to donate proved to be ‘‘Past donation’’ The factor ‘‘News exposure’’ was indicated to be a valuable additional factor, as it had a significant direct effect on ‘‘Awareness of a disaster relief campaign’’ and was the only factor that had a total effect on all other factors, including ‘‘Intention to donate to a disaster relief campaign.’’
16 Shanka and Oroz,

2009

(Adopting Sargeant et al. 2006a model):

Individual factors: Perceived demonstrable utilities, Perceived emotional utilities, Perceived Familial utilities

Organisational factors: Performance, Responsiveness, Communication.

Mediate factors: Trust and commitment

Australia

(public and Students )

Questionnaire

(400)

The general public participants scored significantly higher on trust, performance, communication, and commitment constructs while the student sample scored significantly higher means on the emotional and familial utilities constructs

Female participants from both groups tend to be more positive towards donating to COs.

Trust, emotional utility and familial utility were significant predictors of commitment that leads to future donation behaviour.

17 Croson, Handy, and Shang, 2009 Differential sensitivities to social norm among donors to a public radio station USA

(donors)

Questionnaire

(975)

The study results suggested that temporarily created social norm influence giving by men significantly more than by women.
18 Bekkers,

2010

The impact of material, social, psychological incentives, socio-demographic and personality characteristics. Netherlands Database analysis

(1248)

The study found Social incentives for giving strongly increase intentions to give money and time. More highly educated and more empathic respondents were more likely to intend giving and volunteering.
19 Bertacchini, Santagata, and Signorello,

2010

Intrinsic Motivations, Extrinsic Motivations and Reputational Motivations Italy

(museum visitors)

Online Questionnaire

(1000)

The study findings revealed that intrinsic motivations and accountability of the recipient institutions may be more effective drivers for eliciting charitable giving than the usually proposed fiscal incentives.
20 Su, Chou and Osborne, 2011 Revised model of TPB (attitude, subjective norm, PBC, religiosity and financial information) Taiwan

(Public)

Questionnaire

from different religions (410)

Although charitable giving may reasonably be viewed as a rational behaviour, it is influenced much more by religiosity than by financial information. Religious belief moderates the effect on both the decision and amount to give (strongest in Christian).
21 Van Der Linden 2011 Revised model of TPB (attitude, descriptive norm prescriptive norm, moral norm PBC, past behaviour) UK

(students)

Online questionnaire

(143)

Both descriptive and prescriptive norms did not explain any of the variance in intention; moral norms accounted for a significant amount of the overall variance and were in fact identified as the strongest (relative) predictor of charitable giving intentions. In addition to moral norms, ‘attitude’, ‘PBC’ and ‘past behaviour’ were also identified as significant predictors.
22 Michel and Rieunier, 2012 Examines the influence of non-profit brand image and typicality on giving behaviours France

(public)

484 Questionnaire 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 behaviours. Typicality explains up to 29% of intentions to give money and 23% of intentions to give time.
23 Ein-Gar and Levontin, 2013 The paper shows that people are more willing to donate to a charitable organization when they are temporally or socially distant from the population in need. Willingness to donate to a specific person in need is higher when donors are temporally or socially close to the donation target. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates that (a) empathy mediates donations to a single victim, yet does not mediate donations to charitable organizations; (b) that donation giving to charitable organizations is unique and is not similar to donations to a

group of victims


Comments are closed.