Understanding the Dynamics of the Individual Donor’s Trust Damage in the Philanthropic Sector

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Although trust is long known to be critical to predict behaviors in a charitable context, little research has examined trust damage and its effects on giving behavior. Trust damage is an intermediate state between trust and distrust, rather than a simple reversal or extension, and can change over time. Our research explores individual donor’s trust damage through a dynamic evolution. Across the longitudinal survey, we conclude that the trust damage of pre-giving, giving, and post-giving stage plays different roles in the decision-making process. Trust damage does not play a direct role in the giving intention, but it can indirectly affect giving intention through its impact on perceived benefit and perceived risk. Individual donor’s satisfaction has a strong effect on post-giving trust or continual trust damage, which in turn positively affects future giving intention and behavior. Several important insights for practitioners in the nonprofit sector are also discussed.

Keywords

Trust damage Giving intention Individual donor Trust recovery 

Résumé

Bien que la confiance soit depuis longtemps connue pour être essentielle pour prévoir les comportements dans un contexte caritatif, peu de recherches ont porté sur la détérioration de la confiance et ses effets sur le comportement de don. La détérioration de la confiance est un état intermédiaire entre la confiance et la méfiance, plutôt qu’un simple revirement ou développement, et peut évoluer avec le temps. Nos recherches explorent la détérioration de la confiance du donateur individuel à travers une évolution dynamique. Dans une enquête longitudinale, nous concluons que la détérioration de la confiance dans l’étape précédant le don, celle du don et celle après celui-ci, joue différents rôles dans le processus décisionnel. La détérioration de la confiance ne joue pas un rôle direct dans le comportement de don réel, mais elle peut influer indirectement sur un comportement de don à travers son impact sur le bénéfice et le risque perçus. La satisfaction du donateur individuel a un effet déterminant sur la confiance après le don ou la détérioration continue de la confiance, qui affecte à son tour positivement le comportement de don futur. Plusieurs idées importantes pour les professionnels dans le secteur à but non lucratif sont également examinées.

Zusammenfassung

Zwar gilt das Vertrauen seit langem als ein wichtiger Verhaltensprädiktor im gemeinnützigen Kontext; doch haben sich nur wenige Forschungsarbeiten mit dem Thema Vertrauensschädigung und deren Auswirkungen auf das Spendenverhalten beschäftigt. Die Vertrauensschädigung ist keine simple Umkehrung oder Ausweitung, sondern vielmehr eine Stufe zwischen Vertrauen und Misstrauen, und sie kann sich mit der Zeit ändern. Unsere Studie untersucht die Vertrauensschädigung individueller Spender durch eine dynamische Entwicklung. In der gesamten Längsschnittbefragung kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass die Vertrauensschädigung vor der Spendenleistung, zum Zeitpunkt der Spendenleistung und nach der Spendenleistung unterschiedliche Rollen im Entscheidungsprozess spielt. Die Vertrauensschädigung spielt keine direkte Rolle bei der tatsächlichen Spendenleistung; doch kann sie die Spendenleistung indirekt durch ihre Auswirkung auf die wahrgenommenen Vorteile und Risiken beeinflussen. Die Zufriedenheit individueller Spender hat großen Einfluss auf die Vertrauensschädigung nach der Spendenleistung bzw. die andauernde Vertrauensschädigung, was sich wiederum positiv auf das zukünftige Spendenverhalten auswirkt. Mehrere wichtige Erkenntnisse für Praktiker im gemeinnützigen Bereich werden ebenfalls diskutiert.

Resumen

Aunque desde hace tiempo se sabe que la confianza es crítica para predecir comportamientos en un contexto caritativo, pocas investigaciones han examinado el daño en la confianza y sus efectos en el comportamiento de donación. El daño en la confianza es un estado intermedio entre la confianza y la desconfianza, más que una simple inversión o ampliación, y puede cambiar a lo largo del tiempo. Nuestra investigación explora el daño en la confianza del donante individual a lo largo de una evolución dinámica. En la encuesta longitudinal, concluimos que el daño en la confianza de la etapa previa a la donación, de la etapa de donación y de la etapa posterior a la donación desempeñan papeles diferentes en el proceso de toma de decisiones. El daño en la confianza no desempeña un papel directo en el comportamiento de donación real, sino que puede afectar indirectamente al comportamiento mediante su impacto en el beneficio y el riesgo percibidos. La satisfacción del donante individual tiene un fuerte efecto sobre el daño en la confianza continua o posterior a la donación, que a su vez afecta de manera positiva al comportamiento de donación futuro. También se tratan varias percepciones importantes para los profesionales del sector de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro.

摘要

尽管大家都知道信任对于预测慈善背景下的行为非常关键,但对信任损害及其对捐赠行为影响的研究很少。信任损害是信任和不信任之间的中间状态,而不仅是简单的逆转或延伸,随时间的变化而变化。我们的研究通过动态演化探讨单个捐赠人的信任损害。通过纵向研究,我们得出的结论是,赠前、赠中和赠后阶段的信任损害在决策流程中扮演了不同的角色。信任损害不仅在实际捐赠行动中扮演了直接角色,而且还会通过对感知好处和损害的影响间接影响捐赠行为。单个捐赠人的满意度对赠后信任或持续信任损害的影响极大,而这反过来积极影响未来捐赠行为。本文的结论对非营利组织也提供了若干重要的建议。

要約

信頼は、寄付の背景となる行動の予想として知られているが、ほとんどの研究では信頼の喪失と寄付への影響が検討されていない。信頼の喪失は、単なる破棄もしくは延長というよりは、信頼と不信を仲介する状態であり、時間の経過と共に変更する場合がある。本研究では、ダイナミックな進展から個々 の資金提供者の信頼の喪失について説明する。経時的調査では、信頼の喪失の事前段階、喪失段階、事後段階における意思決定の過程においてさまざまな役割を果たしていることが分かった。信頼の喪失は実際の寄付活動では直接役割を担うことはないが、予測できる利益およびリスクへの影響から寄付活動に間接的に作用することがある。個々の資金提供者の満足度は、事後の信頼性もしくは継続的な信頼の喪失に強い効果を与えるが、将来の寄付活動に前向きな効果を与える。非営利セクターの実践者に対して重要な見地を述べる。

ملخص

على الرغم من إنه من المعروف أن الثقة منذ فترة طويلة حاسمة للتنبؤ بالسلوك في السياق الخيري، قليل من البحث قام بدراسة إضعاف الثقة وآثاره على سلوك العطاء. إضعاف الثقة هو حالة وسطية بين الثقة وعدم الثقة، بدلا” من إنعكاس بسيط أو التمديد، ويمكن أن يتغير مع مرورالوقت. البحث الخاص بنا يستكشف إضعاف ثقة الجهات المانحة الفردية من خلال التطور الديناميكي. عبر إستطلاع الرأي الطولي، فإننا نستنتج أن إضعاف الثقة قبل العطاء ومرحلة ما بعد العطاء يلعب أدوارا” مختلفة في عملية صنع القرار. إضعاف الثقة لا يلعب دورا” مباشرا” في سلوك العطاء الفعلي، لكن يمكن أن يؤثر بشكل غيرمباشر على سلوك العطاء من خلال تأثيره على الفائدة المتوقعة والمخاطر المتوقعة. رضا المانح الفردي له تأثير قوي على الثقة بعد العطاء أو إضعاف الثقة المستمر، الذي بدوره ينعكس إيجابيا” على مستقبل سلوك العطاء. تمت أيضا” مناقشة العديد من الأفكار الهامة للعاملين في القطاع الغير ربحي.

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the valuable comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and editors.

Funding

This study was funded by Natural Science Foundation of China (71202050, 71572185) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (CUGW150402).

Compliance with ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amos, O. M, Jr. (1982). Empirical analysis of motives underlying individual contributions to charity. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10(4), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arumi, A. M., Wooden, R., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Duffett, A., & Ott, A. (2005). The charitable impulse. New York: Public Agenda.Google Scholar
  3. Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bem, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Brewin, C. R. (2001). Cognitive and emotional reactions to traumatic events: Implications for short-term intervention. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 17(3), 163–168.Google Scholar
  8. Cai, N., Song, C. C., & Wu, M. H. (2014). Stigma and its formation mechanism in the nonprofit organization. Review of Sociology, 2(2), 19–27. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  9. Čehajić, S., Brown, R., & González, R. (2009). What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinman, M. J., Wandersman, A., & Goodman, R. M. (2005). A benefit-and-cost approach to understanding social participation and volunteerism in multilevel organizations. In A. M. Omoto (Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 99–118). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cordery, C. J., & Baskerville, R. F. (2011). Charity transgressions, trust and accountability. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Desmet, P. T., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2011). In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Featherman, M., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(l), 51–90.Google Scholar
  21. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillespie, N., Dietz, G., & Lockey, S. (2014). Organizational reintegration and trust repair after an integrity violation: A case study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 371–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haselhuhn, M. P., Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., Van Zant, A. B., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hou, J. D., Eason, C. C., & Zhang, C. (2014). The mediating role of identification with a nonprofit organization in the relationship between competition and charitable behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 42(6), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hou, J. D., Xiao, R. B., Huang, Z. D., & Yu, T. Y. (2015). A social computing approach to the cause diffusion for individual donor’s trust damage. International Journal of Computing Science and Mathematics, 6(2), 152–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchinson, M., & Jackson, D. (2015). The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying in the public sector: Insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care. Nursing Inquiry, 22(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James, F. R. (2011). Nonprofit pluralism and the public trust: Constructing a transparent, accountable, and culturally competent board governance paradigm. Berkeley Business Law Journal, 9; Elon University Law Legal Studies Research Paper. Retrieved from SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1795324.
  28. KAB Office in China Youth Daily. (2015). Report about social entrepreneurship of China Youth. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  29. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuwabara, K., & Sheldon, O. (2012). Temporal dynamics of social exchange and the development of solidarity: “Testing the waters” versus “taking a leap of faith”. Social Forces, 91(1), 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuwabara, K., Vogt, S., Watabe, M., & Komiya, A. (2014). Trust, cohesion, and cooperation after early versus late trust violations in two-person exchange: The role of generalized trust in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(4), 344–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, M. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(3), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. 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: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin, J. B., Wang, B., Wang, N., & Lu, Y. B. (2014). Understanding the evolution of consumer trust in mobile commerce: A longitudinal study. Information Technology Management, 15(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lount, R. B, Jr. (2010). The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lount, R. B, Jr, & Pettit, N. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lount, R. B, Jr, Zhong, C. B., Sivanathan, N., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1601–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.Google Scholar
  41. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Oliver, R., & Burke, R. (1999). Expectation processes in satisfaction formation: A field study. Journal of Service Research, 1(3), 196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ostrom, A., & Iacobucci, D. (1995). Consumer trade-offs and the evaluation of services. Journal of Marketing, 59, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sargeant, A. (1999). Charity giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Market Management, 15(4), 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004a). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(8), 613–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004b). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U.K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. B. (2004). Does perception matter? An empirical analysis of donor behaviour. The Service Industries Journal, 24(6), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Cook, K. S. (2013). Effect of relationship experience on trust recovery following a breach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(38), 15236–15241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taniguchi, H., & Marshall, G. A. (2014). The effects of social trust and institutional trust on formal volunteering and charitable giving in Japan. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 150–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2010). Does who decides really matter? Causes and consequences of personal financial management in the case of larger and structural charitable donations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 240–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics & ManagementChina University of Geosciences (Wuhan)WuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of MarketingThe University of MississippiOxfordUSA
  3. 3.College of BusinessWest Texas A & M UniversityCanyonUSA

Personalised recommendations