Current Psychology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 355–374

Charitable Intent: A Moral or Social Construct? A Revised Theory of Planned Behavior Model

Article

Abstract

Given an increasing global need to elicit and stimulate charitable giving and in light of the limited social-psychological research on this subject, this study contributes to a better empirical understanding of the factors that underlie charitable giving (intentions). In contrast to previous research, it was hypothesized that moral norms rather than social norms are likely to play a significant role in the formation of charitable intentions. An extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model was constructed in order to test the influence of six social-psychological variables on an individual’s intention to donate to charity. Respondents (N = 143) completed an online questionnaire about charitable behaviour that assessed the constructs of the revised model. The present study found support for the stated hypothesis: while social norms (both descriptive and prescriptive) did not explain any of the variance in intention, moral norms accounted for a significant amount of the overall variance and were in fact identified as the strongest (relative) predictor of charitable giving intentions. In addition to moral norms, ‘attitude’, ‘perceived behavioral control’ and ‘past behaviour’ were also identified as significant predictors. The findings in this study support a revised TPB model that accounts for nearly 70% of the explained variance in charitable intent. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Charitable giving Moral norms Pro-social behavior  Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior. Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2006). Theory of planned behavior. Constructing A TPB Questionnaire. Retrieved on December 21st, 2010 from: http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf.
  4. Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (2005). The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armon, C., & Dawson, T. L. (1997). Developmental trajectories in moral reasoning across the life span. Journal of Moral Education, 26(4), 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Borgloh, S., Dannenberg, A., and Aretz, B. (2010). Small is beautiful: Experimental evidence of donor’s preferences for charities. ZEW Discussion Paper, No. 10–052.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, A. C. (2003). Religious faith and charitable giving. Policy Review, 121. Retrieved on November 19th, 2011 from: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577.
  11. Brooks, A. C. (2007). Does giving make us prosperous? Journal of Economics and Finance, 31(3), 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy (2004). Understanding Canadian donors: Using the national survey of giving, volunteering and participating to build your fundraising program. Retrieved on December 19th, 2010, from: www.givingandvolunteering.ca/pdf/reports/Understanding_Donors.pdf.
  15. Charities Aid Foundation (2010). The world giving index. Retrieved on August 21nd, 2011, from: https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/WorldGivingIndex28092010Print.pdf.
  16. Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Basic social influence is underestimated. Psychological Inquiry, 16(4), 158–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 24, 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Croson, R., & Shang, J. (2008). The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Experimental Economics, 11, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational influences upon individual judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drollinger, T. L. (1998). A multidisciplinary model of monetary donations to charitable organisations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59, 0458.Google Scholar
  23. Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159–2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrell, A. M. (2009). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty and Shiu. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Farrell, A. M. and Rudd, J. M. (2009). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A brief review of some practical issues. Working Paper: Australia-New Zeeland Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC). Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94, 1717–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 339–369). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kaiser, G. F., Hübner, G., & Bogner, X. F. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krebs, D., and Janicki, M. (2002). Biological foundations of moral norms. In M. Schaller and C. Crandall (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Culture.Google Scholar
  33. Kurland, N. B. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., & Call, V. R. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 276–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relation. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitude, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11–30). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behavior affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization., 67, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller, K. (2005). Communications theories; perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zhn, R., Pardini, M., Oliveira-Souze, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nolan, J. M., Schultz, W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Extending the theory of planned behavior: The role of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pharoah, C., & Tanner, S. (1997). Trends in charitable giving. Fiscal Studies, 18, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human Relations, 48, 685–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transitional influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22, 218–233.Google Scholar
  47. Rosen, H. S., and Sims, S. T. (2010). Altruistic behavior and habit formation. Princeton’s Center for Economic Policy Studies. Working Paper No. 210.Google Scholar
  48. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 613–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas, 8, 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultz, W. P., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 10 (pp. 222–280). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  52. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 1–30). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiviness of a revised theory of planned behavior model in predicting donating intentions and behavior. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, N., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
  55. Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trafimow, D. (2004). Problems with change in R2 as applied to theory of reasoned action research. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 515–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: Between subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 820–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verplanken, B. (2006). Beyond frequency: Habit as mental construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 639–656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behavior: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Warburton, J., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Volunteer decision making by older people: A test of a revised theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 245–257.Google Scholar
  63. White, M. K., Smith, R. J., Terry, J. D., Greenslade, H. J., & McKimmie, M. B. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behavior: The role of descriptive, injunctive and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 135–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & The EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations