Money and Time donors:
Different species or not?
An examination of the motives driving charitable behaviours and the role of moral identity
----
BY
JULIA PEELEN
----
Money and Time donors:
Different species or not?
An examination of the motives driving charitable behaviours and the role of moral identity
BY
JULIA PEELEN ----
June 27, 2016 ----
Master Thesis Marketing S 2807742 Van Julsinghastraat 33 9724 LN GRONINGEN 06 - 23 86 84 76 j.j.peelen@student.rug.nl ---- University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
ABSTRACT
This study tries to shed light on the drivers behind donating time and donating money, since the current literature is not clear whether these charitable behaviours are substitutes or rather complementary. Understanding of why people donate (money or time) is sought by investigating the effect of different motives and the moderating influence of moral identity on the intention to donate. The data is obtained by means of survey research within the Dutch charity Stichting AAP. The results show that the one most important motive driving money and time donations is the values motive, i.e. the altruistic motive. This motive entails that individuals are motivated to donate by the pure concern for others or to adhere to personal and altruistic values (Clary et al. 1998). Additionally, the moral identity dimensions internalization and symbolization have shown to directly influence the intention to donate, instead of moderating the relationship between the motives and donation intention. Internalization was found to negatively influence the intention to donate for both time and money donors, while symbolization positively affects donation intention for only the money donors. These findings contribute to the notion that the moral identity dimensions each have a different effect on the intention to act in charitable behaviour (Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007).
PREFACE
When I signed up for the master marketing two years ago I did not know how to properly read an academic paper, let alone writing one myself. But after five months of working hard and encountering ups and downs, I feel that I can and have delivered a good and solid research. The fact that I have had the opportunity to write my thesis for a Dutch charity made this experience more difficult, but most of all very interesting! I would therefore like to thank Stichting AAP for their contribution to this research and for providing me the opportunity to work with actual donor data. I am proud to have done the research for Stichting AAP and to finish my master’s degree in this interesting field of research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2 PREFACE 3 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7 2.1CHARITABLEMOTIVES 7 2.2CONCEPTUALMODEL 82.3TIMEMOTIVESVERSUSMONEYMOTIVES 9
2.4HYPOTHESES 10
2.5MORALIDENTITY 13
3. METHODOLOGY 16
3.1DATACOLLECTION 16
3.2OPERATIONALIZATIONOFTHECONSTRUCTS 18
3.3METHODOFANALYSIS 24
4. RESULTS 26
4.1CHARITABLEMOTIVES&MORALIDENTITY:DRIVERSORNOT? 26
4.2DOMONEYANDTIMEDONORSDIFFERREGARDINGTHEIRMOTIVES? 27
4.3MORALIDENTITY:AMODERATINGEFFECT? 29
4.4SUMMARYRESULTS 31
5. CONCLUSION 32
5.1GENERALCONCLUSION 32
5.2MANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS 34
5.3LIMITATIONS,FUTURERESEARCH 35
6. REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX 42
1. INTRODUCTION
It is in the nature of human beings to care about others (Nelson and Jung, 2013) and subsequently to execute charitable behaviours to help them. Donating to charity is one way to do this, which broadly includes two forms: donating money and donating time (volunteering) (Lee and Chang, 2007). Although charitable behaviour has been of interest to researchers across disciplines (Lee and Chang, 2007), the reasons for executing such charitable behaviour and the trade-off concerning the type of donation that is preferred remains unclear within the existing literature. Moreover, there is lacking consensus about whether giving time and money are substitutes (Bauer, Bredtmann and Schmidt, 2012; Lilley and Slonim, 2014; Wan and Aggarwal, 2013) or rather complementary (Bekkers, 2002; Callen, 1994; Cappellari, Ghinetti and Turati, 2011). Most studies have investigated both types of donations separately, despite the fact that both types of behaviours come from the same source within individuals (Bryant, Jeon-Slaughter, Kang and Tax, 2003, p.44): the desire to help someone or to contribute to some problem. Thus, acquiring a better understanding of why people donate and the way they do this (time or money) is necessary (Reed, Aquino and Levy, 2007).
This research investigates the motives for donating time or money to charity. Motivation is an essential component in getting people from wanting to act in a charitable way, to actually behaving in such a way (Shye, 2010). Matching the donation type with one’s motive increases the satisfaction level, which leads to a higher intention to keep donating (Clary, Snyder, Ridge Copeland, Stukas, Haugen and Miene, 1998). Hence, this research examines whether time and money donors differ by assessing the differential strength the motives (values, social, enhancement and protective motive (Clary et al., 1998)) have on the intention to donate.
Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007). Moral identity entails “a self-conception organized around a set of moral traits” (Aquino and Reed, 2002, p.1424). It encompasses an internalization dimension serving the internal desire to be a moral person and a symbolization dimension serving the desire to come across like a moral person to others (Aquino and Reed, 2002). Both dimensions are found to positively influence charitable behaviour in their own distinct way as they have unique properties (Aquino and Reed, 2002; Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007). However, clarity is lacking about the qualities of these dimensions and the nature of their influence on subsequent behaviour (Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007). This research attempts to uncover the relationship between the motives for donating to charity and the motivational effect of moral identity. The moral identity dimensions are proposed to moderate (enhance) the effects of the different motives (the values, enhancement, social and protective motives) on donation intention, making it an important aspect in the clarification of why people donate to charity.
In sum, this research aims to investigate to what extent giving time and money is driven by the same motives (strength and importance) and how the moral identity (internalization and symbolization) affects these relationships. The research is conducted by means of an online survey, distributed within the donor database of the Dutch Charity Stichting AAP.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Charitable giving, often referred to as philanthropic giving, is defined as: “any activity that requires a person to expend time or money voluntarily to benefit others” (Reed, Kay, Finnel, Aquino and Levy, 2015, p.2). It indicates that one may help someone in multiple ways, generally by giving money and/or giving time (volunteering) (Lee and Chang, 2007). Approximately from the 1950s onwards, the motives for giving time and money have been a research area that received great attention. In the review that follows, first the foundation for the charitable motives used in this research is discussed in section 2.1, whereafter in section 2.2 the conceptual model is illustrated. In section 2.3 the charitable motives are explained and in section 2.4 the related hypothesis. This chapter ends with a discussion of the moral identity concept and the related hypothesis in section 2.5.
2.1 CHARITABLE MOTIVES
This study builds on the research of Clary et al. (1998), by adopting four of the six motives that drive volunteering behaviour. Clary et al. (1998) have classified the motives of volunteering behaviour in terms of the functions they serve (i.e. the ‘functionalist approach’). These functions are: 1) values function, 2) social function, 3) enhancement function, 4) protection function, 5) understanding function and 6) career function (Clary et al, 1998, p.1516). In this study only those functions are included that can be related to both giving time and giving money. Therefore the career and understanding functions are disregarded from this study. These functions are concerned with obtaining personal skills and getting career opportunities, which are not positive consequences of donating money.
which is also driven by guilt. Additionally, the 1998 paper of Clary et al. has been cited over 700 times and the motives have been used as a foundation of many scientific papers. Secondly, the motives of Clary et al. (1998) are concerned with the functions or goals it serves for the donor (not that of the recipient). This is in accordance with for example the moral identity concept (Aquino and Reed, 2002), which is found to be driving charitable behaviours as this serves the function of increasing the moral self worth. Hence, Clary et al. (1998) shares the same point of perspective with other scientific studies.
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model and the direction of the proposed relations.
As a variety of studies endorse the predictive validity of the (positive) effects concerning charitable motives in this research (Allison, Okun and Dutridge, 2002; Omoto, Snyder and Hackett, 2010; Shye, 2010), no hypotheses are formulated for the direct effects. The main effects are formulated with regard to the relative strength of the motives for giving money versus giving time. This study postulates that the values and social motive have a greater impact on the intention to donate money, than on the intention to donate time. The enhancement and protective motives are proposed to have a stronger impact on the donation of time, than on the intention to donate money.
Four additional hypotheses are formulated regarding the influence of the moral identity concept within this framework. The moral identity dimensions are proposed to each moderate the effects of two out of four motives. The internalization dimension is proposed to enhance the effect of the values and enhancement motives have on the intention to donate (H5 and H7). The symbolization dimension is proposed to enhance the effect the protective and social motives (H6 and H8) have on the intention to donate.
2.3 TIME MOTIVES VERSUS MONEY MOTIVES
Although each of the four motives are assumed to drive both time and money donations, there will be differences with regard to the strength of their effect. Despite that donating time and money come from the same force (Bryant et al., 2013), they are substitutes having different utilities (Lilley and Slonim, 2014). The substitutability can be inferred from three different angles/perspectives.
The first perspective from which time and money can be distinguished is the ‘signalling effect’ (Lilley and Slonim, 2014), in which the image one wants to portray is driving the charitable donation (Ariely et al., 2009). In this case one might argue that giving time is preferred over donating money as volunteering is more publicly salient. In situations where public exposure is present, one would choose to give time rather than money.
The second perspective concerns the ‘warm-glow’ one derives from the charitable act of donating (Lilley and Slonim, 2014). Warm-glow refers to the internal satisfaction one may derive from the act of giving itself (Andreoni, 1990). Lilley and Slonim (2014) find that people rather give time than money as they are more motivated by the ‘intrinsic’ warm glow.
and Hoch, 2004). Money is relatively stable in all contexts (Su and Gao, 2014), less personally connected and approached in a functional way (Mogilner and Aaker, 2009) leading to more analytically processing (Su and Gao, 2014). In conclusion, giving time is preferred over giving money when the charity is highly personal relevant and when one is motivated due to emotions (Liu and Aaker, 2008). The preference for donating time is enhanced by the fact that donating time is perceived more self-expressive than donating money (Spiller, 2010).
In this study, the third perspective (concerning the mind-set concepts, rational or emotional) is used as an underlying criterion for defining the hypotheses. More specifically, the strength of the different motives will depend on the extent to which the motive is driven by emotions or by more rational thoughts. This means that a motive will be stronger for giving time if the motive is based on emotions (e.g. the enhancement and protective motive), due to the fact that the motive is matching the mind-concepts of the charitable behaviour. On the other hand, if the motive is more analytically or rational based (e.g. the values and social motive) than the motive will have a higher impact on the donation intention for monetary donations.
2.4 HYPOTHESES
The following sections discuss the charitable motives and the related hypotheses regarding their strength for donating money versus donating time.
2.4.1 Values
they should help the needy when possible (Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001). Hence, humanitarianism, in contrast to altruism, is more about the ‘philosophy’ and belief of helping others. To summarize, the value function is mostly concerned with the need of others and the motivation to express personal values. Additionally, Sargeant and Woodliffe (2007) indicate that the value function is rather similar to sympathy, being referred to as: “aiding individuals to conform to personally held norms” (Sargeant and Woodliffe, 2007, p.294).
With regard to donation intention, the values motive will more likely result in a preference for donating money since the motive is in essence not based on feelings. Instead, the motive is based on a typical belief or norm (Clary et al., 1998; Feldman and Steenbergen, 2001), which is a more rational approach than emotional. Therefore this study proposes that the values motive will be stronger (more important) for the donation of money in contrast to the donation of time. This results in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The effect of the values motive will be stronger for donating money than for donating time.
2.4.2 Social
The social motive is focused on the relationships someone has with others (Clary et al., 1998). Acting in a charitable way may give one the opportunity to enhance their positive image (Clary et al., 1998). The social function is a motive in which reputation, one’s social standing (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2007, p.29), plays a large role. People who give money or time to charity are seen as positive and are held in high regard by people surrounding them (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007). Thus the social motive can play a significant role when people are asked to volunteer by people they know or when for example their monetary donation is made public (Bekkers & Wiekping, 2007). This is also referred to as ‘prestige’, being motivated by the public recognition (Sargeant and Woodliffe, 2007). Besides, meeting social obligations as imposed by others could also contribute to the strength the social motive has in driving charitable giving (Frisch and Gerrard, 1998).
behaviour regarding the enhancement of their reputation. Thereby the more analytical mind-set will be evoked (Liu and Aaker, 2008). Besides, donating time is associated with higher opportunity costs (the concept of losing time or money (cost) that could otherwise be spend on other things (Okada and Hoch, 2004)), which may drive one to contribute in the most efficient way by donating money, rather than donating time. Hence, the following is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The effect of the social motive will be stronger for donating money than for donating time.
2.4.3 Enhancement
The belief that giving to charity is not solely serving benefits for the recipients, but also for the donor, is widely accepted and recognized within the existing literature (Ariely et al., 2009; Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen, 1991; Sargeant and Woodliffe, 2007). The enhancement motive clearly illustrates the egoistic motives that drive people to act in a charitable way. Clary et al. (1998) argue that people among others volunteer for reasons such as ‘It makes me feel important’ or because ‘It increases my self-esteem’ (Clary et al., 1998, p.1520). The enhancement could be viewed as having a wide area of benefits. Ranging from internal (personal) benefits to external (material). For example, monetary donations are sometimes accompanied by gifts or special treatments that may drive someone to donate. At the volunteering end, one could also argue that the enhancement motive is serving needs to get new friends and to learn to relate to others (Frisch and Gerrard, 1998), or to obtain desired skills (Clary et al., 1998). However, in this research only the psychological benefits are considered when discussing the enhancement motive, as not all benefits are relevant for both donating time and money (such as obtaining skills, which is not possible by donating money).
The underlying processes of the enhancement motive are psychological and affective in nature. Therefore if one tries to positively enhance the ego, donating time will be likely to be preferred as it matches the emotional meaning. Therefore this research proposes that when one is motivated by the enhancement motive, the donation of time will be a more effective way to reach the desired end state:
2.4.4 Protective
Being more fortunate (having more opportunities in life or being more wealthy) than others may not always be favourable. It can lead to feelings of guilt towards the less fortunate ones, inducing negative feelings about the self and the subsequent tendency to alleviate these feelings (Clary et al. 1998). Therefore the protective motive drives one to act in charitable ways to protect the ego or the self from feeling bad because of being fortunate. The associated feelings of guilt or pity are found to be positively related to the compliance to donations and also the extent of the donation (Sargeant and Woodliffe, 2007). The underlying process of guilt that drives charitable donations is the increase of one’s feelings of responsibility (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007). In conclusion, the protective motive is a functioning of the ego trying to protect the self-image from negative feelings (Clary et al. 1998). The protective motive differs from the enhancement motive in that it is focused on reducing the negative aspects that threaten the ego. In contrast, the enhancement motive is concerned with the positive goals of the ego such as obtaining self-worth (Clary et al., 1998).
Guilt and pity are the core emotions that underlie the protective motive (Clary et al., 1998). This motive only drives donation intention if one is aware of the problem or person in need. Consequently the charity will be personally relevant. Therefore the protective motive is likely to be stronger for the intention to donate time over money, since people want to get rid of the negative emotions of being more fortunate than others. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4: The effect of the protective motive will be stronger for donating time than for donating money.
2.5 MORAL IDENTITY
as gauge or determinant for whether someone should engage in moral or charitable behaviour (Sachdeva, Iliev & Medin, 2009; Ploner and Regner, 2013).
Moral identity consists of two dimensions: internalization and symbolization (Aquino and Reed, 2002). Internalization can be defined as (Aquino and Reed, 2002, p.1427): “the degree to which the moral traits are central to the self-concept”. Internalization is the more private dimension of the moral identity; it illustrates the importance to the self of having such (moral) characteristics or traits (Jordan, Leliveld and Tenbrunsel, 2015). Symbolization on the other hand, can be defined as (Aquino and Reed, 2002, p.1427): “the degree to which the traits are reflected in the respondent’s actions in the world”. This is the more public dimension that is concerned with the moral image someone portrays (Reed, Aquino and Levy, 2007). Literature shows that both dimensions positively influence charitable behaviour in their own way (Aquino and Reed, 2002; Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007). However, the dimensions sometimes show contradictory effects, making it necessary to acquire knowledge about the distinct effects of both dimensions (Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007).
increasingly affecting the donation intentions if one is scoring high on internalization. In conclusion, the following hypothesis are proposed:
Hypothesis 5: The internalization dimension enhances the effect (strength) of the values motive on the intention to donate.
Hypothesis 6: The symbolization dimension enhances the effect (strength) of the social motive on the intention to donate.
Hypothesis 7: The internalization dimension enhances the effect (strength) of the enhancement motive on the intention to donate.
Hypothesis 8: The symbolization dimension enhances the effect (strength) of the protective motive on the intention to donate.
3. METHODOLOGY
Section 3.1 describes the data collection concerning the sample and the collection method (online survey). Then in section 3.2 the operationalization of the constructs is discussed followed by the method of analysis in section 3.3.
3.1 DATA COLLECTION 3.1.1 Population and sample
For this study, a collaboration with the Dutch charity “Stichting AAP” (Foundation Ape) has been established, making it able to test the proposed construct within their donor/volunteer database. Stichting AAP is a foundation that takes in exotic animals that are abused, used for entertainment of wrongly kept as a pet. They aim to patch up these animals to subsequently replace them into a safe and good environment. Meanwhile they also lobby for better legislation to prevent the misuse of these exotic animals. Consumers can make a contribution to this foundation by giving time and/or money. Regarding money, one can become a structural donor or one can ‘adopt’ a specific animal. In the latter case one donates money for a specific animal for which they receive tailored information about the well-being of that animal. The donation of time is distinguished in two groups of donors. The first group donates time by sending their old mobile phones and empty cartridges to Stichting AAP, for which the foundation gets money. In this research this group is identified as the ‘low time donors’, because on average they spend less time contributing to the charity than the other group of time donors. The second way to donate time to Stichting AAP is to become a volunteer, which entails either working as an animal caretaker or giving guided tours around the property of Stichting AAP. This group of volunteers spend often more time working for Stichting AAP than the first group and is therefore identified as the ‘high time donors’. Analysing both types of time donation will make it able to get more extensive insights in the motives for donating time.
from the data, as these respondents did not accurately fill in the questions (straight line answers). Besides another two cases were removed from the data, as the age was not filled in correct (indicating an age of zero). The total sample resulted in a number of 317 respondents, of which 62 (19,3%) are male and 260 (80,7%) female, with an average age of 51 (M = 50,74, SD = 14,114). The sample is divided into the three groups as follows:
- 113 money donors (35,6% of the total sample) of whom 24 (21,2%) are male and 89 (78,8%) female, with an average age of 53 (M = 53,36, SD = 14,277). Furthermore, the average number of charities supported (monthly) by monetary means is 5 charities (M = 4,52, SD = 3,181). Most respondents work part time, are married, are living with their spouse and have completed a HBO education.
- 198 low time donors (62,5% of the total sample) of whom 34 (17,2%) are male and 164 (82,8%) female, with an average age of 49 (M = 48,8, SD = 78,628). Furthermore, the average number of charities supported (monthly) by monetary means is 4 charities (M = 3,90, SD = 3,514). Most respondents work part time, are married, are living with their spouse and have completed a HBO education.
- 6 high time donors (1,9% of the total sample) of whom two (33,3%) are male and four (66,7%) female, with an average age of 61 (M = 60,76, SD = 9,114). As the group of high time donors is very small, this group is merged with the low time donors into one big group. This group is identified as the “time donors” and subsequently two samples are distinguished: 1) money donors and 2) time donors. The main analyses are conducted using these two samples separately (chapter 4). 3.1.2 Survey
motive measure, as emphasizing the moral identity could influence the respondent’s answers to the motive measure. The survey concluded with seven control variables:
1. Level of education 2. Employment status 3. Living situation 4. Household status 5. Age
6. Length of contribution to Stichting AAP (months) 7. Total number of charities supported (monthly) AAP
The first four control variables are measured as categorical variables. ANOVA analysis showed that these variables did not significantly (using 95% confidence) influence the donation intention for both the money donors group (R2 = ,165, F (15) = 1,281, p = ,229) as well as for the time donors group (R2 = ,049; F (16) = ,605; p = ,878). Hence, these variables are not included in the subsequent analyses. Regression analysis including the last three control variables (age, length of contribution and number of charities supported) showed that none of these variables significantly influence the intention to donate for the money donors, using a 95% confidence level (F (3,81) = 2,588; p = ,016, R2=,059). For the time donors, age (β = -,012 p = ,038) did significantly influence donation intention (F (3,138) = 2,746; p = ,016, R2=,045). Hence, in order to make accurate comparisons, all models in chapter 4 are controlled for age.
3.2 OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE CONSTRUCTS
The items used in the survey are translated to Dutch, as Stichting AAP is a Dutch foundation (appendix A). The remainder of this section is devoted to the operationalization of the constructs. In 3.2.1 the operationalization of the charitable motives is explained, whereas 3.2.2 entails the operationalization of donation intention. The operationalization of the moral identity variable is explained in 3.2.3. 3.2.1 Charitable motives
Table 1: Operationalization of the charitable motives.
groups in detail is specified in appendix A.
The protective motive, in contrast to the other three motives, is operationalized using items from three different scales. Four out of five items as used by Clary et al. (1998) are replaced with items from Davis (1980) and Kamdar, McAllister and Turban (2006), because these items were not relevant for the donation of money. Table 1 illustrates the items and the studies they are derived from. Besides, the item “Volunteering is a way to make new friends” Clary et al., 1998) is omitted from the scale pertaining to the enhancement motive, as it is not relevant for the money donors.
FACTOR LOADINGS / FACTORS MOTIVE/ SOURCE SCALE ORIGINAL ITEMS ADAPTED ITEMS 1 Values 2 Social 3 Enhance - ment 4 Protec-tive Cronbach Alpha VALUES Clary et al. (1998) A 7-point response scale ranging from: - 1 being ‘not at all important/ accurate’ - 7 being ‘extremely important/ accurate’ (1) “I am concerned about those less fortunate than myself” “I am concerned about those (animals) less fortunate than myself” ,647 -,025 ,017 ,171 ,808 (2) “I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving” “I am genuinely concerned about the animals Stichting AAP is helping” ,727 -,055 -,031 -,063 (3) “I feel compassion toward people in need” “I feel compassion towards animals in need” ,748 ,071 ,029 -,048 (4) “I feel it is important to help others” “I feel it is important to help others” ,754 -,135 -,054 -,034 (5) “I can do something for a cause that is important to me” “I can do something for a cause that is important to me” - - - - - SOCIAL Clary et al. (1998) A 7-point response scale ranging from: - 1 being ‘not at all important/ accurate’ - 7 being ‘extremely important/ accurate’ (1) “My friends volunteer”
“My friends also volunteer/ donate to Stichting AAP or other charities” -,068 ,675 ,113 -,314 ,808 (2) “People I’m close to want me to volunteer”
“People I’m close to want me to volunteer/ donate” -,008 ,687 ,191 -,319 (3) “People I know a share an interest in community service” “People I know a share an interest in community service” -,003 ,779 ,219 -,099 (4) “Others with whom I am close place a high value
“Others with whom I am close place a high value
in community service” on doing something for/donating to a charity” (5) “Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best” “Volunteering/ donating money is an important activity to the people I know best” ,024 ,706 ,228 ,194 ENHANCEMENT Clary et al. (1998) A 7-point response scale ranging from: - 1 being ‘not at all important/ accurate’ - 7 being ‘extremely important/ accurate’ (1) “Volunteering makes me feel important” “Volunteering/do nating makes me feel important” -,057 ,332 ,630 -,208 ,819 (2) “Volunteering increases my self-esteem” “Volunteering/do nating increases my self-esteem” -,028 ,217 ,740 ,194 (3) “Volunteering makes me feel needed” “Volunteering/do nating makes me feel needed” ,017 ,182 ,762 -,071 (4) “Volunteering makes me feel better about myself” “Volunteering/do nating makes me feel better about myself” ,051 ,071 ,806 ,098 PROTECTIVE Clary et al. (1998); Kamdar, McAllister and Turban (2006); Davis (1980) A 7-point response scale ranging from: - 1 being ‘not at all important/ accurate’ - 7 being ‘extremely important/ accurate’ (1) “Doing volunteer work relieves me of some guilt over being more fortunate than others” - (Clary et al. 1998) “Doing volunteer work/donating money relieves me of some guilt over being more fortunate than others (I feel guilty towards animals in need)” ,006 ,211 ,727 ,116 - (2) “Other people’s misfortunate usually do not disturb me a great deal” (R) - (Kamdar, McAllister and Turban, 2006) “Other people’s misfortunate or the wrongly treatment of animals usually do not disturb me a great deal” (R) ,031 -,111 -,070 ,863 -
(3) “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”
- (Kamdar, McAllister and Turban, 2006)
“I often have tender, concerned feelings for people (or animals) less fortunate than me” ,717 ,030 ,024 ,098 - (4) “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them”
- (Davis, 1980).
“When I see that an animal being taken advantage of, I feel protective towards them” ,742 ,048 ,021 -,036 -
whether these dimensions (e.g. factors) are also applicable in this research, confirmatory factor analysis has been conducted extracting four fixed factors. In order to conduct the factor analysis, the item "Other people's misfortunate or the wrongly treatment of animals usually do not disturb me a great deal" (second item of the protective motive) had to be recoded as it used reversed scaling. The KMO (0,824) measure of sampling adequacy and the Barlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 (153) = 1979,890, p < .05) indicate that the factor analysis including all 18 items is appropriate (Malhotra, 2010, p.641). However not all communalities in the factor analysis are above 0,4 (Ponsioen, 2015a, p.7), as the communality of the item “I can do something for a cause that is important to me” resulted in 0,388. Hence, the factor analysis has been conducted again without this item, including the remaining 17 items. This time the factor analysis turned out to be appropriate according to all indicators (KMO = 0,821, Barlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 (136) = 1892,237, p < .05, all communalities > 0,4) (Malhotra, 2010, p.641, Ponsioen, 2015a). The best factor structure was defined using Varimax Rotation for which the factor loadings are illustrated in table 1.
The results of the factor analysis showed that the items explain the same four factors as found by Clary et al. (1998): 1) the values motive, 2) the social motive, 3) the enhancement motive and 4) the protective motive. The items pertaining to the latter factor are somewhat surprising, because only one item is explaining this factor (“Other people’s misfortunate or the wrongly treatment of animals usually do not disturb me a great deal”) instead of four items. The other three items that originally belonged to the protective motive unexpectedly load on the values motive and the enhancement motive. In addition, some of the items seem to be crossloaders. In most scientific studies there is a rule that the items still can be used if the primary loading is bigger than 0,7 and the second loading smaller than 0,4 (Matsunaga, 2010). The same applies if the primary loading is bigger than 0,6 and the second loading smaller than 0,3 (Matsunaga, 2010). According to this rule, the item “Volunteering makes me feel important” (first item of the enhancement motive) can be distinguished as a crossloader. However, the item is kept in the analyses because the loadings are just a little above the previous mentioned cut-off points.
by calculating the Cronbach Alpha (table 1). All scales, based on the results of the factor analysis have a result of α higher than .8. This is above the cut-off point of .6 (Malhotra, 2010, p.319). Hence, three new variables were computed using the average scores of the items pertaining to these three motives. The protective motive is kept in the analyses as a construct consisting of one item. Thus no reliability analyses were conducted for this motive.
3.2.2 Donation intention
The intention to donate is measured by use of the behavioural intention scale of Cronin, Brady and Hult (2000), which consists of three items. This scale is used because it measures the chance that someone will keep performing some kind of behaviour. This is suitable in this study as the sample is already donating to Stichting AAP. Table 2 illustrates the scales and the items used in this study, which are also adapted in terms of phrasing regarding the different donors.
Table 2: Operationalization of the dependent variable: donation intention
Reliability analysis showed that the items have an internal consistency of α = 0.694 (table 2). This is above the cut-off point of .6 (Malhotra, 2010, p.319). This result only improved marginally when one item would be removed, thus a new variable was computed including the mean scores of all three items.
3.2.3 Moral identity
The moral identity is measured by using the methodology and scales of Aquino and Reed (2002). This measurement entails that the respondents are presented with nine ‘moral’ characteristics (caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful,
SOURCE SCALE ORIGINAL ITEMS ADAPTED ITEMS Cronbach
Alpha
Cronin, Brady and Hult (2000)
A 7-point probability scale ranging from:
§ 1 being ‘very low’
§ 7 being ‘very high’
“The probability that I will use this ___ again is”
“The probability that I will continue doing my volunteer work/keep donating is”
,694 “The likelihood that I
would recommend this ___ to a friend is”
“The likelihood that I would recommend my friends to donate to/volunteer for Stichting AAP is” “If I had to do it over
again, I would make the same choice”
hardworking, honest and kind) and subsequently have to rate ten items pertaining to the extent to which these characteristics describe the participants own moral identity (or the identity they would like to have). Aquino and Reed (2002) found that these ten items load on two dimensions. Five items load highly on the internalization dimension and five items load highly on the symbolization dimension.
A factor analysis has been conducted in order to confirm whether the underlying two dimensions as proposed by Aquino and Reed (2002) are also applicable data in this research (table 3). Two items were recoded, as the scales were reversed (“I would be ashamed to be a person who has these characteristics” and “Having these
FACTOR LOADINGS
SOURCE SCALE ITEMS 1
Symbolization 2 Internalization Cronbach Alpha Aquino and Reed (2002) A 7-point probability scale ranging from:
§ 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ § 7 being ‘strongly agree’
“It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics” (I)
,285 ,674 Internalization ,632
“Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am” (I)
,342 ,711
“I would be ashamed to be a person who has these characteristics” (I)
-,370* ,579*
“Having these characteristics is not really important to me” (I)
,023 ,708 “I strongly desire to have
these characteristics” (I)
,637 ,232 “I often wear clothes that
identify me as having these characteristics” (S)
,635 -,230 Symbolization ,776
“The kinds of books and magazines that I read identify me as having these
characteristics” (S)
,710 ,057
“The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g. hobbies) clearly identity me as having these characteristics” (S)
,707 ,163
“The fact that I have these characteristics is
communicated to others by my membership in certain organizations” (S)
,601 ,289
“I am actively involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these characteristics” (S)
,724 ,047 Table 3: Operationalization of the moral identity
β0 = constant DIi = Donation intention (i = 1…317) VMi = Values motive (i = 1…317) SMi = Social motive (i = 1…317) EMi = Enhancement motive (i = 1…317) PMi = Protective motive (i = 1…317)
CAi = Control variable age (i = 1…317)
characteristics is not really important to me”). Conducting the factor analysis by extracting two fixed factors resulted in an appropriate output (KMO measure = 0,779, the Barlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (45) = 762,752, p < .05, all communalities > 0,4) (Malhotra, 2010, p.641). Varimax Rotation showed the best factor structure, which can be labelled as: 1) the symbolization dimension and 2) the internalization dimension (table 3). The items all load on the expected factors as found by Aquino and Reed (2002), except for the item: “I strongly desire to have these characteristics”. This item primary loads on the symbolization factor instead of the internalization factor, potentially because this items is presented after multiple symbolization items. Hence, this item is added to the symbolization scale. Besides, the item “I would be ashamed to be a person who has these characteristics” crossloads on both factors (symbolization =,370 and internalization =,579). Therefore this item is not used in subsequent analyses.
The internal consistency of the items pertaining to the two dimensions is measured by calculating the Cronbach Alpha. All scales based on the factor analysis show a Cronbach Alpha higher than .6, which is above the cut-off value (Malhotra, 2010, p.319). Hence, two new variables (internalization and symbolization) were computed using the mean scores of the items that are included.
3.3 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The analysis of the data consists of three parts. Firstly, it entails an analysis within the different groups. Meaning that the effects of the charitable motives on donation intention are measured within the two groups (money and time donors) separately. The statistical equation (which is the same for both samples) is as follows:
(1) DIi = β0 + β1 * VMi + β2 * SMi + β3 * EMi + β4 * PMi + β5 * CAi + ε
The second part of the data analysis consists of an analysis between the groups. The effects (strength) of the charitable motives on donation intention are compared across the two groups. This comparison between the time and money donors is done by means of a t-test on the beta coefficients of the corresponding (significant) motives. This t-test shows whether, for example, a specific motive is more strongly influencing the donation intention of the time donors rather than the money donors. Therewith conclusions can be drawn about the differences between time and money donors regarding the strength of the charitable motives on the intention to donate (hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4).
Lastly, the moderating effects of the moral identity dimensions are tested, by adding the interaction variables into the regression model. The symbolization and internalization dimensions are proposed to each enhance the effects of two out of four motives (hypotheses 5, 6, 7 and 8). Entering the interaction variables into the model may increase multicollinearity. Therefore, the predictor variables will be standardized when multicollinearity becomes an issue (chapter 4). The equation of the model including these interaction variables will look as follows (which is the same for both samples):
(2) DIi = β0 + β1 * VMi + β2 * SMi + β3 * EMi + β4 * PMi + β5 * CAi + β6 * MIi +
β7 * MSi + β8 * VMi * MIi + β9 * SMi * MSi + β10 * EMi * MIi + β11 * PMi *
MSi + ε
Now also including:
MIi = Moral identity Internalization dimension (i = 1…317)
4. RESULTS
This chapter discusses the relevant findings in three parts. Firstly, the results regarding the effects of the charitable motives on donation intention are discussed in section 4.1. Secondly, the money and time donors are compared concerning the strength of the (significant) motives in section 4.2. Finally, the findings regarding the moderating effect of the moral identity are assessed in section 4.3.
4.1 CHARITABLE MOTIVES & MORAL IDENTITY: DRIVERS OR NOT? Two regression models are estimated for both samples. The regression model concerning the money donors is discussed in 4.1.1 and the model regarding the time donors in 4.1.2.
4.1.1 What motives drive the money donors?
The result of the regression analysis within the money donors sample is illustrated in table 4. The overall model is significant (F (5,107) = 6,291; p = ,000) and 22,7% of the variance in donation intention is explained by the predictor variables (R2 = ,227). The VIF values are all below 10, which does not exceed the cut-off value of 10 (Curto and Pinto, 2011). Hence the results can be interpreted correctly.
Table 4: Regression analysis money donors
Model Beta coefficient (β) Standardized Beta (B) t Significance VIF CONSTANT 3,097 - 3,995 ,000** - PROTECTIVE MOTIVE -,020 -,058 -,665 ,508 n.s 1,067 VALUES MOTIVE ,537 ,412 4,796 ,000** 1,023 SOCIAL MOTIVE ,140 ,217 2,031 ,045** 1,577 ENHANCEMENT MOTIVE -,033 -,052 -,504 ,615 n.s 1,524 AGE -,012 -,199 -2,219 ,029** 1,108
Overall model: R = ,447, R square = ,227, Adjusted R square = ,191, sig. = ,000 ** = p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, n.s = p ≥ 0.1
motive (β = -,033; p = ,615) are not significant at a 5% significance level. These motives do not influence donation intention for the money donors.
4.1.2 What motives drive the time donors?
The overall model fit of the regression model concerning the time donors is significant (F (5,197) = 3,802; p = ,003). The predictor variables explain 8,8% of the variance in the intention to donate (R2 = ,088) and the VIF values are below the cut-off value of 10 (Curto and Pinto, 2011). Therefore the results illustrated in table 5 can be interpreted correctly.
Overall model: R = ,297, R square = ,088, Adjusted R square = ,065, sig. = ,003 ** = p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, n.s = p ≥ 0.1
The results show that only the values motive significantly predicts the intention to donate (β = ,353; p = ,000) for the time donors. The values motive has a positive effect, meaning that it increases the intention to keep donating. There are no significant results found for the other motives. The protective motive (β = -,027; p = ,373), social motive (β = -,002; p = ,973) and enhancement motive (β = ,000; p = ,997) do not influence the intention to donate within the time donors group. Hence, the values motive is found to be solely driving the time donors to maintain donating. 4.2 DO MONEY AND TIME DONORS DIFFER REGARDING THEIR
MOTIVES?
The results showed three important findings. Firstly, the protective and enhancement motives appeared to not significantly drive donation intention for both the money and time donors. These results do not support hypothesis 3 and hypothesis 4. The protective and enhancement motive are not significantly influencing donation
intention in general and likewise the effects of these motives are not stronger for the time donors than for the money donors. Secondly, the regression analysis concerning the money donors illustrated that the social motive is positively influencing donation intention, while this is not the case for the time donors. Thus result supports hypothesis 2. The positive effect of the social motive on the intention to donate is stronger for the money donors than for the time donors.
The third finding concerns the values motive, which is found to be significant in both models (money and time donors). In order to assess whether the values motive has a stronger effect on the donation intention for the money donors than for the time donors (hypothesis), a t-test is conducted upon the beta coefficients of this specific motive. The following formulas are used to calculate the t-test, as the sample sizes and sample variances are not equal (Keller, 2012. p.444):
𝑡 = 𝑏!− 𝑏! √ (s12 / n1 + s22 / n2 ) = (1) 𝑣 = (s1 2 / n 1 + s22 / n2 )2 (s12 / n1)2 n1 − 1 + (s22 / n2 )2 n2 − 1 = (2) Where:
𝑏! = ,537 the values motive regression coefficient belonging to the money donors 𝑏! = ,353 the values motive regression coefficient belonging to the time donors s12 = ,013 the sample variance of the money donors
s22 = ,010 the sample variance of the time donor
n1 = 113 the sample size of the money donors
n2 = 204 the sample size of the time donors
Hence, the formula resulted in: 𝑡 = 0,537 − 0,353
√ (0,013 / 113 + 0,010 / 204 )
= 𝟏𝟒, 𝟑𝟔𝟓𝟏𝟖𝟗𝟕𝟐 = 𝟏𝟒, 𝟑𝟕
The degree of freedom is greater than 200, indicating that the critical t-value is 1,96 (at the 5% significance level) (Keller, 2012. p.444). The resulting test statistic 𝑡 = 14,37, which is greater than 1,96. Thus the parameter estimate of the values motive is significantly larger for the money donors than for the time donors. This result is in support of hypothesis 1. The values motive has a stronger positive effect on the donation intention for money donors than for time donors and is thus more important in driving monetary donations than time donations.
4.3 MORAL IDENTITY: A MODERATING EFFECT?
This section discusses the effects of the moderator moral identity by extending the models presented in 4.1.
4.3.1 What is the importance of the moral identity for the money donors?
The results of the moderation analysis concerning the money donors are illustrated in table 6. The overall model is significant (F (11,101) = 3,521; p = ,000). The predictors in the model explain 22,7% of the variance in the dependent variable (donation intention) (R2 =,227). The model is estimated by using standardized variables, as multicollinearity showed to be a big issue in the initial model (with unstandardized variables). The model illustrated in table 6 does not show high multicollinearity (VIF values < 10, Curto and Pinto (2011)), hence the results can be interpreted.
Table 6: Moderation analysis money donors
Overall model: R = ,350, R square = ,123, Adjusted R square = ,072, sig. = ,008
No significant results were found for the moderation effects. Both the internalization (p = ,300; p = ,478) and symbolization (p = ,771; p = ,835) moderators did not influence the effect of the charitable motives on the intention to donate for the money donors. Thus hypotheses 5, 6, 7 and 8 are not supported within the money donors sample. In contrast, the moral identity dimensions did appear to directly influence donation intention of the money donors (at a 10% significance level). Symbolization showed to positively affect donation intention (β = ,142; p = ,083). Indicating that money donors who score high on symbolization are more likely to keep donating.The internalization dimension showed to negatively affect donation intention (β = -,165; p = ,065). The money donors that score high on internalization are less likely to maintain donating.These results are rather surprising, as previous research did find a positive effect of internalization and no effect of symbolization on actual charitable behaviour (Aquino and Reed, 2002).
4.3.2 What is the importance of the moral identity for the time donors?
The result of the moderation analysis with regard to the time donors is illustrated in table 7. The model is significant (F (11,191) = 2,425; p = ,008), predicting 12,3% of the variance in the dependent variable (R2 = ,123). The VIF values are below the cut-off value of 10 (Curto and Pinto, 2011), thus the model can be interpreted.
Table 7: Regression analysis time donors – using standardized scores
Within the time donors sample, no moderating effects were found for the moral identity dimensions. Both the internalization (p = ,304; p = ,678) and symbolization (p = ,433; p = ,173) dimensions did not moderate the effect of the charitable motives on the intention to donate for the time donors. Hypotheses 5, 6, 7 and 8 are not supported in the time donors sample. However, the results do indicate that internalization has a direct effect on donation intention (β = -,136 p = ,099) with a 10% significance level. This effect appears to be negative, meaning that the time donors that score high on internalization are less likely to keep donating (contradictory to the findings of Aquino and Reed (2002)).
4.4 SUMMARY RESULTS
The results are summarized in figure 2 below. The solid arrows refer to the confirmed relationships (Hypothesis 1 and 2) and the dashed arrows refer to the proposed relations that were not confirmed. Additionally the results showed that the moral identity dimensions directly affect donation intention. Symbolization positively affects donation intention for the money donors and internalization negatively affects donation intention within both samples. These additional effects are also illustrated in the figure below.
5. CONCLUSION
This research attempted to provide additional clarity on the drivers of charitable behaviours in two ways. Firstly, by researching the motives for both donating money and time jointly, which is not common in current literature (Bryant et al., 2003). Secondly, this study sought further explanatory support for the effects of the moral identity and how (through which motives) it drives charitable behaviour.
5.1 GENERAL CONCLUSION
This research found limited support for the positive effects of charitable motives (Clary et al., 1998) on the intention to donate. The values and social motive both have a significant effect on the donation intention of the money donors. The values motive also showed a significant influence on the donation intention of the time donors. The strength of this effect turned out to be weaker for the time donors than for the money donors. These results support hypotheses 1 and 2. The values and social motives provoke a rational mind-set that leads to a higher intention to donate money than to donate time. These motives are more important in driving money donations than time donations.
The conclusion that the rational mind-set increases the donation intention of money donations rather than time donations must be expressed with caution, as no significant results were obtained concerning the motives associated with the emotional mind-set. The protective and enhancement motives did not prove to have a significant influence on the donation intention of the money and time donors. This research does not support the presumption that the emotional mind-set evoked by these motives is leading to a higher intention to donate time than to donate money. Hypotheses 3 and 4 are not confirmed.
motives, but that the altruistic motive in the end is still the most important one (Clary and Orenstein, 1991, p.63). Donors on average are driven to donate by only two or three motives, of which the values motives has shown to outperform the others in terms of importance (Chacón, Pérez, Flores and Vecina, 2011). Another potential explanation for the lack of significant results is the social desirability bias (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011). The protective, enhancement and social motives are somewhat more egoistic motives, which could be perceived as less “moral” or “good” motives for donating to charity. In contrast, the values motive is self-sacrificing and hence more attractive to agree with. Thus the respondents may have answered in a social desirable way by rating the values motive as more important and the other motives as less important than they in reality are.
Regarding the moral identity, no evidence was found for the moderating role of the internalization and symbolization dimensions (hypotheses 5, 6, 7 and 8). The importance of these dimensions to the individual did not enhance the effects the motives have on donation intention. Contrary to expectations, the moral identity dimensions appeared to have a direct effect on the intention to donate. The internalization dimension showed to negatively affect the intention to donate within both samples. This result contradicts the findings of Aquino and Reed (2002), who found a positive effect of the internalization dimension on donation behaviour. Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) provide an explanation for this seemingly contradictory result. They argue that (Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007, p.1622): “The moral identity is not as “moral” as perhaps originally conceived … The findings here demonstrate that this motivational force needs direction and that, without proper guidance, a moral identity can conceivably push individuals towards socially undesirable behaviours” (Reynolds and Ceranic, 2007). A lack of direction within the research about the kind of behaviour that is seen as socially desirable could be the cause of the negative effect of the internalization dimension on the intention to donate.
the symbolization dimension on donation intention while they did find a positive effect of internalization. On the other hand, Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) report no significant effect of internalization and a positive effect of symbolization on the intention to donate. Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) acknowledge the inconsistency of these results, but argue that the theoretical explanation of the symbolization dimension and its behavioural component actually provide reasoning for the positive effect of symbolization on charitable behaviour. The symbolization dimension is concerned with expressing the moral identity to others publicly. Charitable donating provides the chance for the individual to actually display their identity. Hence, it is actually theoretically logical that symbolization is related to charitable behaviours, maybe even more than the internalization dimension. In conclusion, the moral identity dimensions appear to not moderate the relationship between the motives and the intention to donate. The dimensions directly affect donation intention. This research supports the idea that the moral identity dimensions both have different effects on charitable behaviours, an important topic for further research. Although this research did not demonstrate the reinforcing influence of the moral identity on the effects of the charitable motives, Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) do argue that there is some kind of relation between the moral identity and charitable motivation. Further work is necessary to acquire more understanding of the actual motivating effects.
5.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.3 LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH
The collaboration with Stichting AAP has ensured this research with a large data set. However, it also had its limitations. The low time donors group was very large and the high time donors (volunteers) rather small. Hence, the time donors sample contained a big pool of low time donors, who may have other motivations to donate than the high time donors. The low time donors contribute to Stichting AAP in a quite specific and simple way, which is less intensive than the contribution of the high time donors. This may have led to differences in the data causing insignificant results and a lack of fit between the data and the theoretical expectations. In addition, the sample consisted only of current donors, leaving out non-donors. Future research could include non-donors to investigate whether their motives differ from actual donors and to uncover whether they will display a higher intention to donate money or time as an effect of the different motives.
6. REFERENCES
Allison, L.D., Okun, M.A. & Dutridge, K.S. (2002). Assessing volunteer motives: a comparison of an open-ended probe and Likert rating scales. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12: 243-255.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donation to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100: 464-477.
Ariely, D., Bracha, A. & Meier, S. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1): 544-555
Aquino, K. & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6): 1423-1440.
Bauer, T.K., Bredtmann, J. & Schmidt, C.M. (2013). Time vs money – The supply of voluntary labor and charitable donations across Europe. European Journal of Political Economy, 32: 80-94.
Bekkers, R. (2002). Time and/or money: trade-off or spill-over? Working paper: Center for the Study of Philanthropy and volunteering, Factulty of Social and Cultural Sciences. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and philanthropy, a literature review. Working paper: ICS/Department of Sociology, Utrecht Universit & Department of Philanthropic Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). Accuracy of self-reports on donations to charitable organizations. Qual Quant, 45: 1369-1383.
Callen, J.L. (1994). Money donations, volunteering and organizational efficiency. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 5: 215-228.
Cappellari, L., Ghinetti, P. & Turati, G. (2013). On time and money donations. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40: 853-867.
Chacón, F., Pérez, T., Flores, J. & Vecina, M. L. (2011). Motives for volunteering: categorization of volunteers’ motivations using open-ended questions. Psychology in Spain, 15(1): 48-56.
Clary, E.G. & Orenstein, L. (1991). The amount and effectiveness of help: the relationship of motives and the abilities to helping behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1): 58-64.
Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J. & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6): 1516-1530.
Cnaan, R.A. & Goldberg-Glen, R.S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3): 269-284.
Conway, P. & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7): 907-919.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. & Hunt, T.M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2): 193-218.
Frisch, M.B. & Gerrard, M. (1981). Natural helping systems: a survey of Red Cross volunteers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(5): 567-579.
Hardy, S.A. & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48: 232-256. doi: 10.1159/000086859.
Jordan J., Leliveld, M.C. & Tenbrunsel, A.E. (2015). The moral self-image scale: measuring and understanding the malleability of the moral self. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 1878. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01878.
Kamdar, D., Mcallister, D.J. & Turban, D.B. (2006). All in a day's work": How follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 841-855.
Keller, G. (2012). Managerial Statistics. 9th (international) edition. South-Western Cengage Learning.
Lee, Y. & Chang, C. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donating behavior. Social Behaviour and Personality, 25(9): 1173-1180.
Lee, L., Lee, M.P., Bertini, M., Zauberman, G. & Ariely, D. (2015). Money, time, and the stability of consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 52: 184-199. Lee, L., Piliavin, J.A. and Call, V.R.A. (1999). Giving time, money and blood: similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(3): 276-290. Lilley, A. & Slonim, R. (2014). The price of warm glow. Journal of Public Economics, 114: 58-74.
Lindahl, W.E. & Conley, A.T. (2002). Literature review: philanthropic fundraising. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(1): 91-112.
Macdonnell, R. & White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42: 551-563.
Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing Research, an applied orientation. 6th (global) edition. New Jersey: Pearson education.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s don’ts and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1): 97-110.
Mogilner, C. & Aaker, J. (2009). The time vs. money effect: Shifting product attitudes and decision through personal connections. Journal of Consumer Research, 36: 277-291.
Nelson, L.D. & Jung, M. H. (2013). Consumers’ prosocial motives and decision-making. Advances in Consumer Research, 41: 287-292.
Okada, E.M. & Hoch, S.J. (2004). Spending time versus spending money. Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 313-323
Omoto, A.M. & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4): 671-686.
Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M. & Hackett, J.D. (2010). Personality and motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement. Journal of Personality, 78(6): 1703-1734.
Ploner, M. & Regner, T. (2013). Self-image and moral balancing: an experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93: 374-383.
Ponsioen, S. (2015b). “Moderation – SPSS tutorial,” presentation report, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Groningen.
Radley, A. & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human Relations, 48(6): 685-709.
Reed, A., Aquino, K. and Levy E. (2007). Moral identity and judgements of charitable behaviours. Journal of Marketing, 71: 178-183.
Reed, A., Kay, A., Finnel, S. & Levy, E. (2015). I don’t want the money, I just want tour time: how moral identity overcomes the aversion to giving time to prosocial causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Online publication.
Reynolds, S. J. & Ceranic, T.L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behaviour: an empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1610-1624.
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R. & Medin, D.L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners. The Paradox of Moral Self Regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4): 523-528
Sargeant, A. & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: an interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12: 275-307. Shye, S. (2010). The motivation to volunteer: a systematic quality of life theory. Social Indicators Research, 98(2): 184-200.
Snyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: the promise of a “functional” personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(3): 251-264.
Su, L. & Gao, L. (2014). Strategy compatibility: The time versus money effect on product evaluation strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4): 549-556. Unger, L.S. (1991). Altruism as a motivation to volunteer. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12: 71-100.
