Skip to main content
Log in

Generous But Not Morally Obliged? Determinants of Dutch and American Donors’ Repeat Donation Intention (REPDON)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Next to attracting new financial donors, the need to forge first-time donors’ willingness to continue donating is a critical concern for charitable organizations. This study examined the differences in repeat donation intention (REPDON) of Dutch and American donors and the factors influencing such intention. Results showed that REPDON is significantly higher among American than among Dutch respondents. Furthermore, REPDON among Dutch and America donors depends on their affinity with the cause of the charitable organization. Trust in the charitable organization is only relevant for Dutch respondents, while for American donors belief in the efficacy of their contribution predicts their intention to continue donating. Although a moral obligation to donate is known to influence first time donation, the variable was not found to affect REPDON in both countries.

Résumé

Outre le fait d’attirer de nouveaux donateurs financiers, le besoin de susciter l’intention de ceux qui donnent pour la première fois à continuer de le faire est une préoccupation critique pour les organisations caritatives. Cette étude s’intéresse aux différences de l’intention de refaire un don parmi les donateurs néerlandais et américains ainsi qu’aux facteurs exerçant une influence sur cette intention. Les résultats ont indiqué que l’intention de renouveler un don est significativement plus importante chez les répondants américains que les répondants néerlandais. De plus, l’intention de réitérer le don parmi les donateurs néerlandais et américains dépend de leur affinité avec la cause soutenue par l’organisation caritative. La confiance dans ladite organisation est pertinente uniquement pour les répondants néerlandais, alors que pour les donateurs américains la conviction que leurs contributions sont efficaces permet d’anticiper leur intention de continuer à donner. Bien qu’une obligation morale de donner soit connue pour influer sur un premier don, il n’est pas apparu que cela affectait l’intention de renouveler le don dans les deux pays.

Zusammenfassung

Für gemeinnützige Organisationen ist es neben der Gewinnung neuer Geldgeber äußerst wichtig, erstmalige Spender zu weiteren Spenden zu bewegen. Die vorliegende Studie untersuchte die Unterschiede zwischen der wiederholten Spendenbereitschaft niederländischer und amerikanischer Spender sowie die Faktoren, die Einfluss auf die Spendenbereitschaft nahmen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass bei den amerikanischen Teilnehmern eine erheblich höhere wiederholte Spendenbereitschaft vorliegt als bei den niederländischen Teilnehmern. Darüber hinaus hängt die wiederholte Spendenbereitschaft bei niederländischen und amerikanischen Spendern von ihrer Verbundenheit mit dem Zweck der gemeinnützigen Organisation ab. Vertrauen in die gemeinnützige Organisation hingegen ist nur für die niederländischen Teilnehmer relevant, während die weitere Spendenbereitschaft der amerikanischen Spender davon abhängt, ob sie von der Wirksamkeit ihrer Spenden überzeugt sind. Bekannterweise führt eine moralische Verpflichtung häufig zu einer erstmaligen Spende; doch den Ergebnissen zufolge ist diese in keinem der beiden Länder für eine wiederholte Spendenbereitschaft ausschlaggebend.

Resumen

Después de atraer nuevos donantes financieros, la necesidad de forjar la disposición de los donantes por primera vez para continuar donando es una preocupación crítica de las organizaciones benéficas. El presente estudio examinó las diferencias en la intención de repetir la donación de donantes holandeses y americanos y los factores que influyen en dicha intención. Los resultados mostraron que la intención de repetir la donación es significativamente más elevada entre los americanos que entre los encuestados holandeses. Asimismo, la intención de repetir la donación entre los donantes holandeses y americanos depende de su afinidad con la causa de la organización benéfica. La confianza en la organización benéfica es solamente relevante para los encuestados holandeses, mientras que para los donantes americanos, la creencia en la eficacia de su contribución predice su intención de seguir donando. Aunque se sabe que una obligación moral para donar influye en la donación la primera vez, no se encontró que esto afecte a la intención de repetir la donación en ambos países.

摘要

除了吸引新的财务捐助者之外,强化首次捐助者愿意继续捐助的需求是慈善组织的重要关注方面。本研究检查了荷兰和美国捐助者的重复捐助意愿差别,以及影响此类意愿的因素。结果显示,美国的重复捐助意愿比荷兰参与者要高很多。此外,荷兰和美国捐助者的重复捐助意愿取决于他们与慈善组织目的的吸引力。对慈善组织的信任仅与荷兰参与者相关;而对于美国捐助者,对捐助效率的信仰影响他们继续捐助的意愿。尽管已知捐助的道德义务会影响首次捐助,但未发现这会影响这两个国家的重复捐助意愿。

ملخص

يأتي بعد جذب مانحين ماليين جدد، أن الحاجة إلى تشكيل مانحين للمرة الأولى لديهم رغبة في مواصلة التبرع هو مصدر قلق بالغ للمنظمات الخيرية. فحصت هذه الدراسة الإختلافات في تكرارالرغبة في التبرع من الجهات المانحة الهولندية والأمريكية والعوامل التي تؤثر على هذه الرغبة. أظهرت النتائج أن تكرار الرغبة في التبرع هو أعلى بكثير بين الأمريكان عن المجيبين الهولنديين. علاوة على ذلك، تكرار نية التبرع بين الجهات المانحة الهولندية و الأمريكية يعتمد على الإنجذاب مع السبب من المنظمة الخيرية. الثقة في المؤسسة الخيرية ذو صلة فقط للهولنديين المجيبين، في حين أن الإعتقاد في فعالية المانحين الأمريكيين يتوقع عزمهم على مواصلة التبرع. على الرغم من أن الإلتزام الأخلاقي للتبرع معروف إنه يؤثرعلى التبرع لأول مرة هذا لم يتم العثور أنه يؤثرعلى تكرارالرغبة في التبرع في كل من البلدين.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adloff, F. (2009). What encourages charitable giving and philanthropy? Ageing and Society, 29, 1185–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. & De Hart, J. (2006). Godsdienstige veranderingen in Nederland. The Hague, NL: Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP).

  • Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 74–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beldad, A., Snip, B., & Van Hoof, J. (in press). Generosity the second time around: Determinants of individuals’ repeat donation intention. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

  • Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertacchini, E., Santagata, W., & Signorello, G. (2011). Individual giving to support cultural heritage. International Journal of Arts Management, 13(3), 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2000). Explaining gendered responses to “help-self” and “help-others” charity ad appeals: The mediating role of worldviews. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoyne, C. B., Young, B., & Walker, C. M. (2005). Deciding to give to charity: A focus group study in the context of the household economy. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology, 15, 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. E. Borgata (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charities Aid Foundation. (2012). World giving index 2012: A global view of giving trends. Kent, UK: CAF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, C. K., & Chan, C. M. (2000). Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N. G., & Chou, R. J. (2010). Time and money volunteering among older adults: The relationship between past and current volunteering and correlates of change and stability. Aging & Society, 30, 559–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuskelly, G. (2004). Volunteer retention in community sports organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuskelly, G., Taylor, T., Hoye, R., & Darcy, S. (2006). Volunteer management practices and volunteer retention. A human resource management approach. Sports Management Review, 9, 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Telegraaf (2013). Vertrouwen onder donateurs blijft dalen. http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21997514/__Vertrouwen_donateurs_laag__.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2013.

  • Diamond, W. D., & Kashyap, R. K. (1997). Extending models of prosocial behavior to explain university alumni contributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159–2180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Daily News. (2011). Dutch are the most charitable in Europe. http://www.dutchdailynews.com/most-charitable-in-europe. Accessed 20 Mar 2013.

  • Einolf, C. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin, K. (1999). Blurred vision: Public trust in charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(2), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GfK Gruppe. (2011). Germans donate less money on average than other Europeans (Press Release). http://www.gfk.com/group/press_information/press_releases/008209/index.en.print.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2013.

  • Gittell, R., & Tebaldi, E. (2006). Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. states. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 721–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giving USA. (2012). Giving USA: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2011. Chicago, IL: Giving USA Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L., & Ortberg, J. (1983). Moral obligation and attitudes: Their relation to behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1025–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guy, B. S., & Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding why people help. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 61(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, R., Street, M. D., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment, moral obligation, and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankinson, P. (2001). Brand orientation in the top 500 fundraising charities in the UK. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10, 346–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbert, S. A., & Horne, S. (1997). Donation dilemmas: A consumer behavior perspective. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2, 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethnics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, R. N., & Jones, K. S. (2011). Tithing and religious charitable giving in America. Applied Economics, 43, 2441–2450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, N. K., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004). What influences IT ethical behavior intentions—Planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual characteristics? Information & Management, 42, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 64, 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A., & Price, M. K. (2011). Charitable giving around the world: Thoughts on how to expand the pie. CESifo Economic Studies, 58(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2002). What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. (1999). Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 152–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melendez, S. (2001). The nonprofit sector and accountability. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 31, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musick, M. A., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. B. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, 78(4), 1539–1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. R., Brunel, F. F., Supphellen, M., & Manchanda, R. V. (2006). Effects of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • nos.nl. (2010). Beleggingen goede doelen omstreden. http://nos.nl/artikel/201800-beleggingen-goede-doelen-omstreden.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2013.

  • nu.nl. (2010). Goede doelen beleggen in foute bedrijven. http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2390320/goede-doelen-beleggen-in-foute-bedrijven.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2013.

  • Oosterhof, L., Heuvelman, A., & Peters, O. (2009). Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roats, M. M., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1995). Including moral dimensions of choice within the structure of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 484–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. (2001). Mapping donor defection: Why should donors stop giving? New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 32, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Hudson, J. (2008). Donor retention: An exploratory study of door-to-door recruits. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2002). Improving public trust in the voluntary sector: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1), 68–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 613–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. B. (2004). Does perception matter? An empirical analysis of donor behaviour. Service Industries Journal, 24(6), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Building donor loyalty: The antecedents and role of commitment in the context of charity giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8, 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuyt, T. N. M., Gouwenberg, B. M., & Bekkers, R. H. F. P. (2011). Geven in Nederland 2011: Giften, Nalatenschappen, Sponsoring en Vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam, NL: Reed Business bv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuyt, T., Gouwenberg, B., Meijer, M.-M., Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Geven in Nederland 2007 Giften, legaten, sponsoring en vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam, NL: Reed Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior: An experimental study of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends or victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 363–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, R., & Wilhelm, M. (2005). Religious and secular giving, by race and ethnicity. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 48, 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonkiss, F., & Passey, A. (1999). Trust, confidence and voluntary organizations: Between values and institutions. Sociology, 33, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Moraga, E., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., & Barra, C. (2010). Antecedents of donor trust in an emerging charity sector: The role of reputation, familiarity, opportunism, and communication. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 29, 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Current Psychology, 30, 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, C. E., Reid, J., & Homewood, J. (2011). Religious and ethnic influences on willingness to donate organs and donor behavior: An Australian perspective. Progress in Transplantation, 21(2), 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, M. O., Rooney, P. M., & Tempel, E. R. (2007). Changes in religious giving reflect changes in involvement: Age and cohort effects in religious giving, secular giving, and attendance. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1978). Comparison of three models for predicting altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 498–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ardion Beldad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beldad, A., Gosselt, J., Hegner, S. et al. Generous But Not Morally Obliged? Determinants of Dutch and American Donors’ Repeat Donation Intention (REPDON). Voluntas 26, 442–465 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9419-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9419-9

Keywords

Navigation