Abstract
People maintain their lives in a social context. Many of their actions are affected by social conditions such as their relative status, relative education, relative wealth, and relative religiosity compared to their community. For instance, the intention to make a donation – the donation intention – may not only be shaped by the degree to which the individual is religious but also the individual’s relative degree of religiosity compared to the community. In particular, the relative degree sometimes has more predictive power than the non-relative or absolute degree. Past research has shown that as the religiosity level increases, so does the donation intention. However, donation intention from the perspective of the relative degree of religiosity has yet to be examined. Drawing on self-construal theory and optimal distinctiveness theory, this study examines how the interaction between self-construal and relative degree of religiosity shapes the intention to make a donation. The results of multiple regression analysis, which is based on survey data collected from 595 respondents, showed that interdependent (independent) self-construal is positively (negatively) associated with donation intention when the relative degree of religiosity is low (M-SD), whereas interdependent (independent) self-construal is negatively (positively) associated with donation intention when the relative degree of religiosity is high (M + SD). These results supported H1 and H2, suggesting that self-construal and religiosity interacted to produce donation intention in line with optimal distinctiveness theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Richardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458. https://doi.org/10.1086/261662.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133.
Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.005.
Aronson, E. (2003). The social animal. New York: Macmillan Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. London: Oxford University Press.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001.
Brewer, M. B. (2012). Optimal distinctiveness theory: Its history and development. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 81–98). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives of. Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009.
Burks, D. J., Youll, L. K., & Durtschi, J. P. (2012). The empathy-altruism association and its relevance to health care professions. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(3), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.3.395.
Burton, A. K., Gore, J. S., & Sturgeon, J. (2012). The role of relational self-construal in reactions to charity advertisements. Self and Identity, 11(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.583529.
Drollinger, T. (1997). A multidisciplinary model of monetary donations to charitable organizations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University Graduate School.
Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/674976.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.101.1.91.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Joireman, J., & Duell, B. (2007). Self-transcendent values moderate the impact of mortality salience on support for charities. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 779–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.003.
Jonason, P. K., Foster, J., Oshio, A., Sitnikova, M., Birkas, B., & Gouveia, V. (2017). Self-construals and the dark triad traits in six countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.053.
Ma, Z., Yang, Z., & Mourali, M. (2014). Consumer adoption of new products: Independent versus interdependent self-perspectives. Journal of Marketing, 78(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0051.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.98.2.224.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037//1522-3736.5.1.535a.
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311.
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598.
Parker, A. M., De Bruin, W. B., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment and Decision making, 2(6), 342–350 https://www.sjdm.org/~baron/journal/jdm7830.pdf.
Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000331.
Ranganathan, S. K., & Henley, W. H. (2008). Determinants of charitable donation intentions: A structural equation model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.297.
Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan: Toward a cross cultural psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2009). Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow's classic books. London: Oxford University Press.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinant of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.006.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6.
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1178.
Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in antropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/208956.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014.
Skarmeas, D., & Shabbir, H. A. (2011). Relationship quality and giving behavior in the UK fundraising sector: Exploring the antecedent roles of religiosity and self-construal. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111120000.
Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behavior model in predicting donating intentions and behavior. Journal of Community & Applied. Social Psychology, 17(5), 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.906.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9122-1.
Winterich, K. P., & Barone, M. J. (2011). Warm glow or cold, hard cash? Social identify effects on consumer choice for donation versus discount promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 855–868. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.5.855.
Worthington, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., Schmitt, M. M., Berry, J. T., Bursley, K. H., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The religious commitment inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.50.1.84.
Yamada, A. M., & Singelis, T. M. (1999). Biculturalism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(5), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(99)00016-4.
Ye, N., Teng, L., Yu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). What's in it for me?: The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.015.
Young, L., Chakroff, A., & Tom, J. (2012). Doing good leads to more good: The reinforcing power of a moral self-concept. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0111-6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dogan, V., Tiltay, M.A. Caring about other people’s religiosity levels or not: how relative degree of religiosity and self-construal shape donation intention. Curr Psychol 39, 33–41 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9739-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9739-9