Skip to main content

Comparing the Explanatory and Predictive Power of Intention-Based Theories of Personal Monetary Donation to Charitable Organizations

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations volume 28, pages 571–593 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) have been found to have predictive capability in a wide range of personal behaviors. The aim of the study is twofold: firstly, to assess the applicability of the TRA, the TPB, and a newly developed revised version of the TPB in the context of individuals’ monetary donations to charitable organizations; and secondly, to compare the explanatory and predictive power of these three theoretical models. Data relating to intention to give monetary donation, attitudes toward helping others and toward charitable giving, social norms, moral responsibility, and perceived behavioral control were collected in the first phase of the study by means of a self-completion mail questionnaire distributed to 432 residents of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In the second phase, 1 month later, telephone interviews were conducted with 221 of the first-phase respondents who had agreed to take part in a follow-up survey of their actual monetary-donating behavior. The findings show that the revised TPB is the best of the three models for predicting individuals’ intention to donate and their future monetary-donation behavior, mainly because moral responsibility is included in the theoretical framework. It thus offers superior explanatory and predictive power.

Résumé

La théorie de l’action raisonnée (TAR) et la théorie du comportement planifié (TCP) ont pu avoir une capacité de prévision pour un grand nombre de comportements personnels. L’objectif de cette étude est double : tout d’abord, évaluer la capacité de la TAR, de la TCP et d’une version nouvellement développée de la TCP dans le cadre des dons monétaires à l’égard des organismes de bienfaisance; et d’autre part, comparer le pouvoir explicatif et prédictif de ces trois modèles théoriques. Des données relatives à l’intention de faire des dons d’argent, aux attitudes visant à aider autrui et à l’égard les dons de bienfaisance, les normes sociales, la responsabilité morale et le contrôle comportemental perçu ont été recueillies durant la première phase de l’étude par un questionnaire envoyé par courrier distribué à 432 habitants de Riyad, en Arabie saoudite. Dans une deuxième phase, un mois plus tard, des entretiens téléphoniques ont été menés auprès de 221 répondants de la première phase qui avaient accepté de participer à une enquête sur leur comportement réel en matière de dons d’argent. Les résultats montrent que la TCP révisée est le meilleur des trois modèles pour prévoir l’intention des personnes de faire un don et leur comportement futur en matière de dons d’argent, principalement parce que la responsabilité morale est incluse dans le cadre théorique. Il offre ainsi un pouvoir explicatif et prédictif supérieur.

Zusammenfassun

Die Theorie des vernünftigen Handelns und die Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens haben sich als Modelle zur Voraussage einer weiten Reihe von persönlichen Verhaltensweisen erwiesen. Die Studie verfolgt zwei Ziele: Erstens soll die Anwendbarkeit der Theorie des vernünftigen Handelns, der Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens und einer neu entwickelten überarbeiteten Version der Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens im Zusammenhang mit Geldspenden von individuellen Personen an Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen untersucht werden; und zweitens soll die Erklärungs- und Voraussagekraft dieser drei theoretischen Modelle verglichen werden. In der ersten Studienphase wurden anhand von auszufüllenden Fragebögen, die an 432 Einwohner von Riad in Saudi Arabien gesandt wurden, Daten über die Spendenabsicht, die Einstellung mit Hinblick auf Hilfeleistungen für andere sowie mit Hinblick auf wohltätige Spenden, soziale Normen, moralische Verantwortung und die wahrgenommene Verhaltenssteuerung gesammelt. Einen Monat später wurden in der zweiten Phase Telefoninterviews mit 221 der in der ersten Phase befragten Personen durchgeführt, die sich bereit erklärt hatten, an einer anschließenden Befragung hinsichtlich ihres tatsächlichen Spendenverhaltens teilzunehmen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die überarbeitete Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens das beste der drei Modelle ist, um die Spendenabsicht und das zukünftige Spendenverhalten einer Person vorausszuagen. Dies liegt hauptsächlich daran, dass in dem theoretischen Rahmenwerk die moralische Verantwortung berücksichtigt wird. Dieses Modell bietet daher eine erhöhte Erklärungs- und Voraussagekraft.

Resumen

Se ha encontrado que la Teoría de la Acción Razonada (TRA) y la Teoría del Comportamiento Planificado (TPB) tienen capacidad predictiva en una amplia gama de comportamientos personales. El objetivo del presente estudio es doble: En primer lugar, evaluar la aplicabilidad de la TRA, de la TPB, y de una nueva versión revisada desarrollada recientemente de la TPB en el contexto de las donaciones monetarias de los individuos a organizaciones benéficas; y en segundo lugar, comparar el poder predictivo y explicativo de estos tres modelos teóricos. Se recopilaron datos relativos a la intención de dar una donación monetaria, las actitudes a ayudar a otros y a las donaciones benéficas, las normas sociales, la responsabilidad moral y el control percibido del comportamiento en la primera fase del estudio mediante un cuestionario por correo autocompletado distribuido a 432 residentes de Riyadh (Arabia Saudí). En la segunda fase, un mes más tarde, se realizaron entrevistas telefónicas a 221 de los encuestados de la primera fase que habían aceptado participar en una encuesta de seguimiento de su comportamiento real con respecto a donaciones monetarias. Los hallazgos muestran que el TPB revisado es el mejor de los tres modelos de predicción de la intención de los individuos para donar y de su comportamiento futuro con respecto a las donaciones monetarias, principalmente porque se incluye en el marco teórico la responsabilidad moral. De este modo, ofrece un poder predictivo y explicativo superior.

摘要

理性行为理论(Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA))与计划行为理论(Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB))对各种个人行为具有预测作用。本研究具有双重目的:首先,评估TRA与TPB的适用性,在个体对慈善组织进行资金捐赠的大背景下,评估一个新研发的改良版TPB的适用性;第二,对这三个理论模型的阐释与预测作用进行对比。在研究的第一阶段,通过向利雅得(Riyadh)与沙特阿拉伯的432名居民寄送调查问卷,请他们填写,从而收集关于给予资金捐献的意向、对帮助别人与慈善捐献的态度、社会标准、道德责任、感知到的行为控制等方面的数据。在第二阶段,即一个月后,对那些同意参加关于其实际资金捐献行为的后继调查的221名第一阶段受调查者进行了电话访问。研究结果显示,在三个关于个人捐献意向及其未来资金捐献行为的预测模型中,改良版的TPB是最好的,主要是因为在改良版的理论框架中包括了道德责任。因此,该模型也具有较好的阐释与预测作用。

要約

合理的行為理論(TRA)と計画的行動理論(TPB) から、幅広い個人の行動は予測能力を持つことが明らかになった。本研究の目的は2つある。まず、TRA、TPB、個人による慈善団体への寄付について新たに進展した最新のTPBに適用させることである。第二に、この3つの理論的モデルの説明と予測測力を比較する。リヤド、サウジアラビアの432名の住民に対して行った自己完結メールのアンケートによる研究では、第1段階で義援金、他者への支援、社会規範、道徳的な責任、感知された行動制御に関するデータを収集した。第2 段階では、実際の寄付に対する追加調査に参加することを合意した第1段階の221名に対して、1ヶ月後に電話インタビューを行った。結果からTPBは理論的なフレームワークに同義的責任が含まれているため、主に個人の意思と将来の寄付を予測するためには、3つのモデルのうち最良であることが示された。従って、優れた説明と予測力を提供している。

ملخص

تم العثور على نظرية الفعل المبرر (TRA)ونظرية السلوك المخطط TPB)) لدينا القدرة التنبؤية في مجموعة واسعة من السلوكيات الشخصية. الهدف من هذه الدراسة ذو شقين: أولا”، لتقييم مدى إمكانية إستخدام (TRA) ، نظرية السلوك المخطط (TPB) ، والنسخة المنقحة المطورة حديثا من نظرية السلوك المخطط TPB)) في سياق تبرعات الأفراد النقدية للمنظمات الخيرية؛ وثانيا”، لمقارنة القوة التفسيرية والتنبؤية لهذه النماذج النظرية الثلاثة. البيانات المتعلقة بنية لإعطاء تبرع نقدي، تم جمع المواقف نحو مساعدة الآخرين ، نحو الأعمال الخيرية والأعراف الإجتماعية، المسؤولية الأخلاقية، والسيطرة السلوكية تنظر في المرحلة الأولى من الدراسة عن طريق إستطلاع الرأي الإلكتروني الانتهاء الذاتي وزعت على 432 من سكان الرياض، المملكة العربية السعودية. في المرحلة الثانية، بعد شهر واحد، أجريت مقابلات هاتفية مع 221 من الذين أجابوا على إستطلاع الرأي في المرحلة الاولى الذين وافقوا على المشاركة في دراسة متابعة سلوك تبرعهم النقدي الفعلي. تشير النتائج إلى أن نظرية السلوك المخطط TPB)) الذي تم تعديله هو أفضل النماذج الثلاثة لنية تنبوء الأفراد على التبرع ومستقبل السلوك النقدي للتبرع، يرجع ذلك أساسا” إنه تم تضمين المسؤولية الأخلاقية في الإطار النظري. بالتالي فإنه يوفر التفسيرالمتفوق والقدرة على التنبؤ.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavior control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Marketing, 26(9), 1113–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ajzen, I. (2012). Martin Fishbein’s legacy: The reasoned action approach. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ajzen, I., & Driver, L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1969). The prediction of behaviour intentions in a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(4), 400–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Yahya, K., & Fustier, N. (2011). Saudi Arabia as a humanitarian donor: High potential, little institutionalization. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Armitage, C., & Christian, J. (2003). From attitudes to behavior: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology, 22(3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic Review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Armstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bagozzi, R., Lee, K., & Van Loo, M. (2001). Decisions to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology and Health, 16(1), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Barber, J. (2011). The theory of planned behavior: Considering drives, proximity and dynamics. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 1(9), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bartolini, W. (2005). Prospective donors’ cognitive and emotive processing of charitable gift requests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Communication and Information, Kent State University, OH.

  18. Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Beldad, A., Gosselt, J., Hegner, S., & Leushuis, R. (2015). Generous but not morally obliged? Determinants of Dutch and American donors’ repeat donation intention (REPDON). Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 442–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Briggs, E., Peterson, M., & Gregory, G. (2010). Toward a better understanding of volunteering for nonprofit organizations: Explaining volunteers’ pro-social attitudes. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Burgoyne, B., Young, B., & Walker, M. (2005). Deciding to give to charity: A focus group study in the context of the household economy. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15(5), 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Charities Aid Foundation. (2015). World giving index 2015: A global view of giving trends. London: CAF. Accessed November 27, 2015, from https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/world-giving-index-2015.

  25. Charng, W., Piliavin, A., & Callero, L. (1988). Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(4), 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Conner, M., & Armitage, J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for field setting. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cooper, W., & Richardson, A. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 179–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Davies, J., Pallister, J., & Foxall, G. (2002). Beyond the intention-behaviour mythology: An integrated model of recycling. Marketing Theory, 2(1), 29–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dennis, B., Buchholtz, A., & Butts, M. (2009). The nature of giving: A theory of planned behavior examination of corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 48(3), 360–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ferguson, E., France, C., Abraham, C., Ditto, B., & Sheeran, P. (2007). Improving blood donor recruitment and retention: Integrating theoretical advances from social and behavioral science research agendas. Transfusion, 47(11), 1999–2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ferrari, J. R., & Leippe, M. R. (1992). Noncompliance with persuasive appeals for a prosocial, altruistic act: Blood donating. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychological Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Funkhouser, G., & Parker, R. (1999). An action-based theory of persuasion in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gibbons, F., Gerrard, M., Ouellette, J., & Burzette, R. (1998). Cognitive antecedents to adolescent health risk: Discriminating between behavioral intention and behavioral willingness. Psychology and Health, 13(2), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Giles, M., McClenahan, C., Cairns, E., & Mallet, J. (2004). An application of the theory of planned behavior to blood donation: The importance of self-efficacy. Health Education Research, 19(4), 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(2), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Grano, C., Lucidi, F., Zelli, A., & Violani, C. (2008). Motivation and determinants of volunteering in older adults: An integrated model. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 67(4), 305–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenslade, H., & White, K. (2005). The prediction of above-average participation in volunteerism: A test of the theory of planned behavior and the volunteers functions inventory in older Australian adults. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Habib, A., & Maharaj, B. (2008). Giving and solidarity. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Harrison, A. (1995). Volunteer motivation and attendance decisions: Competitive theory testing in multiple samples from a homeless shelter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2014). Who says there is an intention-behavior gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an intention-behaviour gap in ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hausenblas, H., Carron, A. V., & Mack, D. E. (1997). Application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(1), 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and Expanded (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Horton, R., & Horton, P. (1991). A Model of willingness to become a potential organ donor. Social Science and Medicine, 33(9), 1037–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hubner, G., & Kaiser, F. G. (2006). The moderating role of the attitude-subjective norms conflict on the link between moral norms and intention. European Psychologist, 11(2), 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hyde, M., & White, K. (2009). To be a donor or not to be? Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to predict posthumous organ donation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 880–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. ICNL, The International Center for Non-for-Profit Law. (2015). NGO Law Monitor: Saudi Arabia. Accessed December 05, 2015, from http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/saudiarabia.html.

  51. Kashif, M., & De Run, E. C. (2015). Money donations intentions among muslim donors: An extended theory of planned behavior model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 20(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Knowles, S. (2005). Using an extended theory of planned behaviour to predict intention toward organ donation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  54. MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A., & Downing, S. (2005). Relationship marketing in the not-for-profit sector: An extension and application of the commitment-trust theory. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 806–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Manstead, R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relation. In J. Terry & A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behaviour, and social context (pp. 11–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McMahon, R., & Byrne, M. (2008). Predicting donation among an Irish sample of donors and nondonors: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Transfusion, 48(2), 321–331.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. (2014). New advances in attitude and behavioral decision-making models. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(5–6), 519–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ministry of Social Affair. (2015a). Charitable Associations [Online]. Accessed November 20, 2015, from http://mosa.gov.sa/portal/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=6.

  60. Ministry of Social Affair. (2015b). The Regulations of Saudi Charitable Associations [Online]. Accessed November 20, 2015, from http://mosa.gov.sa/portal/uploads/smartsection/27_ljmk.pdf.

  61. Montagu, C. (2010). Civil society and the voluntary sector in Saudi Arabia. The Middle East Journal, 64(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Morgan, E., & Miller, K. (2002). Communicating about gifts of life: The effect of knowledge, attitudes, and altruism on behavior and behavioral intentions regarding organ donation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Okun, M., & Sloane, E. (2002). Application of planned behavior theory to predicting volunteer enrolment by college students in a campus-based program. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(3), 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Oosterhof, L., Heuvelman, A., & Peters, O. (2009). Donation to disaster relief campaigns: Underlying social cognitive factors exposed. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Piliavin, J., & Charng, C. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 27–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ranganathan, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Examining charitable donation process in south India: Role of gender. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(2), 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, J., & Caputi, P. (2000). Issues in predicting and explaining usage behaviors with the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior when usage is mandatory. Paper presented at the twenty first international conference on information systems (pp. 35–44). Brisbane: Association for Information Systems.

  68. Reid, M., & Wood, A. (2008). An investigation into blood donation intentions among non-donors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2985–3019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sargeant, A., Ford, J., & West, D. (2000). Widening the appeal of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5(4), 318–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 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 

  72. Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2005). The antecedents of donor commitment to voluntary organisations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 222–280). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Shelley, L., & Polonsky, J. (2002). Do charitable causes need to segment their current donor base on demographic factors? An Australian examination. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Silver, M. (1997). Business statistics. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Smith, J., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behavior model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Thurstone, L. L. (1946). Comment. American Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: Between subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 820–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of Planned Behavior Model. Current Psychology, 30(4), 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Veldhuizen, I., Ferguson, E., Kort, W., Donders, R., & Atsma, F. (2011). Exploring the dynamics of the theory of planned behavior in the context of blood donation: Does donation experience make a difference? Transfusion, 51(11), 2425–2437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Veludo-de-Oliveira, T., Pallister, J., & Foxall, G. (2013). Accounting for sustained volunteering by young people: An expanded TPB. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(4), 1180–1198.

  84. Warburton, J., & Terry, D. (2000). Volunteer decision making by older people: A test of a revised theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Webb, D., Green, C., & Brashear, T. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. White, M., Smith, R. J., Terry, J., Greenslade, H., & McKimmie, M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Mercadologia, Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas (EAESP-FGV), Rua Itapeva, 474 – 9 andar, Bela Vista, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01332-000, Brazil

    Tania M. Veludo-de-Oliveira

  2. Imam Muhammad Bin Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Ibrahim S. Alhaidari

  3. Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Mirella Yani-de-Soriano & Shumaila Y. Yousafzai

Authors
  1. Tania M. Veludo-de-Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrahim S. Alhaidari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirella Yani-de-Soriano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shumaila Y. Yousafzai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tania M. Veludo-de-Oliveira.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., Alhaidari, I.S., Yani-de-Soriano, M. et al. Comparing the Explanatory and Predictive Power of Intention-Based Theories of Personal Monetary Donation to Charitable Organizations. Voluntas 28, 571–593 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9690-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Monetary-donation behavior
  • Charitable organizations
  • Reasoned action
  • Planned behavior
  • Saudi Arabia