Advertisement

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

  • Ardion BeldadEmail author
  • Jordy Gosselt
  • Sabrina Hegner
  • Robin Leushuis
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Repeat donation intention Trust in charitable organizations Efficacy of donations Organizational cause affinity Moral obligation to donate 

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。

要約

新しい資金の寄贈者を引きつけることは別にして、慈善団体にとって初めて寄贈を行う寄贈者に継続的な寄贈の意思を持たせることは重大な関心事である。本研究では、オランダ、アメリカの寄贈者による寄贈を継続する意思の相違およびそのような意思に影響を及ぼす要因を検討した。結果から、アメリカ人の寄贈者の方がオランダ人の回答者よりも寄贈の意思が著しく、寄贈を継続することがわかった。更に、オランダとアメリカの寄贈者の連続的な寄贈の意思が、慈善団体の原因と類似性に依存していることがわかった。オランダの回答者は慈善団体に対する信用を考慮している。その一方で、アメリカの寄贈者は貢献の効果を確信しており、寄贈の継続的な意思を予期している。寄贈における道徳上の義務が初めての寄贈に影響を及ぼすことは知られているが、これが両国でいかに影響するかは不明である。

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.

References

  1. Adloff, F. (2009). What encourages charitable giving and philanthropy? Ageing and Society, 29, 1185–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J. & De Hart, J. (2006). Godsdienstige veranderingen in Nederland. The Hague, NL: Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP).Google Scholar
  5. Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(4), 596–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bertacchini, E., Santagata, W., & Signorello, G. (2011). Individual giving to support cultural heritage. International Journal of Arts Management, 13(3), 41–55.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Charities Aid Foundation. (2012). World giving index 2012: A global view of giving trends. Kent, UK: CAF.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuskelly, G. (2004). Volunteer retention in community sports organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Telegraaf (2013). Vertrouwen onder donateurs blijft dalen. http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21997514/__Vertrouwen_donateurs_laag__.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2013.
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159–2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dutch Daily News. (2011). Dutch are the most charitable in Europe. http://www.dutchdailynews.com/most-charitable-in-europe. Accessed 20 Mar 2013.
  30. Einolf, C. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaskin, K. (1999). Blurred vision: Public trust in charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(2), 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.
  34. Gittell, R., & Tebaldi, E. (2006). Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. states. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Giving USA. (2012). Giving USA: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2011. Chicago, IL: Giving USA Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Gorsuch, R. L., & Ortberg, J. (1983). Moral obligation and attitudes: Their relation to behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1025–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Hankinson, P. (2001). Brand orientation in the top 500 fundraising charities in the UK. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10, 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hibbert, S. A., & Horne, S. (1997). Donation dilemmas: A consumer behavior perspective. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethnics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. James, R. N., & Jones, K. S. (2011). Tithing and religious charitable giving in America. Applied Economics, 43, 2441–2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 64, 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. (1999). Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 152–176.Google Scholar
  55. Melendez, S. (2001). The nonprofit sector and accountability. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 31, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. nos.nl. (2010). Beleggingen goede doelen omstreden. http://nos.nl/artikel/201800-beleggingen-goede-doelen-omstreden.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2013.
  59. 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.
  60. Oosterhof, L., Heuvelman, A., & Peters, O. (2009). Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sargeant, A. (2001). Mapping donor defection: Why should donors stop giving? New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 32, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 613–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Small, D., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends or victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Steinberg, R., & Wilhelm, M. (2005). Religious and secular giving, by race and ethnicity. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 48, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tonkiss, F., & Passey, A. (1999). Trust, confidence and voluntary organizations: Between values and institutions. Sociology, 33, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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
  84. Van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Current Psychology, 30, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1978). Comparison of three models for predicting altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ardion Beldad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jordy Gosselt
    • 1
  • Sabrina Hegner
    • 1
  • Robin Leushuis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Corporate and Marketing Communication, Faculty of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations