Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Nonprofit Reputation on Charitable Giving: A Survey Experiment

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A nonprofit’s reputation is a crucial intangible asset that can bring significant benefits to the organization. Using a multidimensional framework, this study tested the effects of three dimensions of nonprofit reputation—financial efficiency, media visibility, accreditation status—on charitable giving behavior. The findings of this 2 × 2 × 2 full-factorial survey experiment show that each of the reputation dimensions has a significant individual effect on giving behavior. Furthermore, financial efficiency and accreditation status have an interaction effect on giving behavior. The findings also demonstrate the cross-level interaction between financial efficiency and the real-life giving behavior of individuals and between accreditation and the real-life volunteering behavior. This study provides implications for our understanding of the components of nonprofit reputation and their impact on charitable giving.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The total charitable giving as a share of GDP has remained around 2% over the past half century (Soskis, 2017).

  2. Auspurg and Hinz (2015) recommend, for a vignette containing 7 variables, no more than 10 vignettes should be given to a single respondent, in order to avoid fatigue effects. This study had 3 variables and 8 vignettes, which was within the limit recommended by Auspurg and Hinz (2015).

  3. The parameters for differentiating a high and low level of media visibility were chosen on the following basis. For visibility in traditional media, we conducted a search in the database of LexisNexis Academic (now called Nexis Uni) to obtain the number of news reports of well-known nonprofits (e.g., St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Red Cross USA, Save the Children, Big Brothers Big Sisters) in 2015 and 2016. The number of news report ranged from 900 to 5000. Since some of these organizations had many local branches that might increase the total number of news reports, we chose a lower bound of 950 to illustrate high media visibility. We also looked for the number of Twitter followers of those well-known nonprofits as well as that of small nonprofits. The followers of well-known nonprofits ranged from hundreds of thousands to millions and that of small nonprofits ranged from hundreds to thousands. We chose two million to represent high social media visibility and one thousand to represent low social media visibility.

  4. We did not perform a manipulation check for financial efficiency because our manipulation of financial efficiency was consistent with existing studies (e.g., Gneezy et al. 2014; Metzger and Günther 2019). The manipulation of accreditation status between yes and no was concrete and directly observable; hence, we did not perform a manipulation check of accreditation status. We only checked the manipulation of media visibility because such manipulation is not available in the extant research. The manipulation check helped us to determine whether participants perceived “appeared in news media 950 times in 2016 and 2 million Twitter followers by the end of 2016” as high organizational visibility, and “occasionally appeared in news media in 2016 and 1000 Twitter followers by the end of 2016” as low organizational visibility.

  5. The numerical rating scale was chosen for this study because a rating scale is generally recommended for a factorial vignette experiment that examines attitudes and behavioral intentions (Auspurg and Hinz 2015). Also, this study chose the 0–100 scale in order to give respondents sufficient freedom to discriminate between vignettes.

  6. For more information, please see overheadmyth.com.

References

  • Ali, R., Lynch, R., Melewar, T. C., & Jin, Z. (2015). The moderating influences on the relationship of corporate reputation with its antecedents and consequences: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1105–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial survey experiments. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., Liebig, S., & Sturgis, P. (2014). The factorial survey as a method for measuring sensitive issues. In U. Enge, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, & P. Sturgis (Eds.), Improving survey methods: Lessons from recent research (pp. 137–149). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auspurg, K., & Jäckle, A. (2017). First equals most important? Order effects in vignette-based measurement. Sociological Methods & Research, 46(3), 490–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, H. K., Powell, G. E., & Weaver, D. G. (1998). The effect of NYSE listing on a firm’s media visibility. Journal of Economics and Finance, 22(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantimaroudis, P., Zyglidopoulos, S., & Symeou, P. C. (2010). Greek museum media visibility and museum visitation: An exploration of cultural agenda setting. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, A. (2018). An experimental study of voluntary nonprofit accountability and effects on public trust, reputation, perceived quality, and donation behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 562–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011a). 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 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 276–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caviola, L., Faulmüller, N., Everett, J. A. C., Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? Judgment and Decision Making, 9(4), 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, C., & Kim, M. (2016). Do donors care about results? An analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organization. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(4), 864–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G. (2009). Does meeting standards affect charitable giving? An empirical study of New York Metropolitan area charities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(3), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozby, P., & Bates, S. (2015). Methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, M. J., Golden, P. A., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision to joint venture. Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P., & Kim, M. T. (2001). Strategic positioning and the financing of nonprofit organizations: Is efficiency rewarded in the contributions marketplace? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 266–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346(6209), 632–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenlee, J. S., & Brown, K. L. (1999). The impact of accounting information on contributions to charitable organizations. Research in Accounting Regulation, 13, 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grizzle, C. (2015). Efficiency, stability and the decision to give to nonprofit arts and cultural organizations in the United States. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 20(3), 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogervorst, N., Metz, J., Roza, L., & van Baren, E. (2016). How perceptions of altruism and sincerity affect client trust in volunteers versus paid workers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 593–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INMAN. (2006). Scandal hits Florida Habitat for humanity: Jupiter branch absorbed by another affiliate in wake of probe. INMAN. Retrieved from https://www.inman.com/2006/02/07/scandal-hits-florida-habitat-humanity/. Accessed 22 Mar 2019.

  • Jackson, K. (2004). Building reputational capital: Strategies for integrity and fair play that improve the bottom line. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Jilke, S., Van Ryzin, V., & Van de Walle, S. (2016). Responses to decline in marketized public services: An experimental evaluation of choice overload. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of management, 37(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecy, J., & Searing, E. (2015). Anatomy of the nonprofit starvation cycle. An analysis of falling overhead ratios in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 539–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. Y. (2014). Motivations to pursue accreditation in children’s mental health care: A multiple case study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(3), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, J. (1975). Familiarity, attraction, and charity. Journal of Social Psychology; Worcester, Mass, 95(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marudas, N. P. (2004). Effects of nonprofit organization wealth and efficiency on private donations to large nonprofit organizations. Research in Government and Nonprofit Accounting, 11, 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marudas, N. P., Hahn, T., & Fred, A. J. (2012). An improved model of donations to nonprofit organizations. Proceedings of ASBBS, 19, 545–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougle, L. M., & Handy, F. (2014). The influence of information costs on donor decision making. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(4), 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, M.-M. (2009). The effects of charity reputation on charitable giving. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, L., & Günther, I. (2019). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mews, M., & Boenigk, S. (2013). Does organizational reputation influence the willingness to donate blood? International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padanyi, P., & Gainer, B. (2003). Peer Reputation in the nonprofit sector: Its role in nonprofit sector management. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 252–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton, R. (2002). Aces high: Charity administration costs. Financial Management, 19(7), 40–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovski, E. (2017). Whether and how much to give: Uncovering the contrasting determinants of the decisions of whether and how much to give to charity with two-stage alternatives to the prevailing Tobit model. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 594–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (2nd ed.). College Station: Stata Press Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Show me the money: A multidimensional perspective on reputation as an intangible asset. The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 16–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., & Anderson, A. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In P. H. Rossi & S. L. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach (pp. 15–67). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2008). Individual giving behaviour: A multidisciplinary review. In A. Sargeant & W. W. Wymer (Eds.), The Routledge companion to nonprofit marketing (pp. 117–151). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., & Schloderer, M. P. (2010). Developing a measurement approach for reputation of non-profit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(3), 276–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloderer, M. P., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2014). The relevance of reputation in the nonprofit sector: The moderating effect of socio-demographic characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(2), 110–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soskis, B. (2017). Giving numbers: reflections on why, what, and how we are counting. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retriedved from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/11/01/giving-numbers-reflections-counting/. Accessed 01 June 2018.

  • Tinkelman, D. (2004). Using nonprofit organizations-level financial data to infer managers’ fund-raising strategies. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2181–2192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinkelman, D., & Mankaney, K. (2007). When is administrative efficiency associated with charitable donations? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 41–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., & Dominguez, N. D. (1986). Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: Can fundraising expenditures help overcome free-rider behavior? Journal of public economics, 30(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X649379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, K. T., Roeger, K. L., & Pollak, T. H. (2010). The nonprofit sector in brief: Public charities, giving and volunteering, 2010. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

  • Yang, A., & Kent, M. (2014). Social media and organizational visibility: A sample of Fortune 500 corporations. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 562–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. (2006). Toward a normative theory of nonprofit finance. In D. Young (Ed.), Financing nonprofits: Putting theory into practice (pp. 339–372). Rowman Altamira.

  • Zhu, D., & Carterette, B. (2010). An analysis of assessor behavior in crowdsourced preference judgments. In V. C. M. Lease & E. Yilmaz (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR 2010 workshop on crowd sourcing for search evaluation (CSE 2010) (pp. 21–26).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA

    Shuyang Peng

  2. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA

    Mirae Kim

  3. Paris, France

    Felix Deat

Authors
  1. Shuyang Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Deat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuyang Peng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 5.

Table 5 Full-factorial matrix.
Full size table

Appendix B

See Table 6.

Table 6 Vignettes shown to the participants
Full size table

Appendix C

See Table 7.

Table 7 Measures of individual characteristics
Full size table

Appendix D

See Table 8.

Table 8 Manipulation check for media visibility: mean and standard division of experimental conditions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, S., Kim, M. & Deat, F. The Effects of Nonprofit Reputation on Charitable Giving: A Survey Experiment. Voluntas 30, 811–827 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00130-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00130-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation