October 26
Charitable
& Willing
2009
A big part of the world depends on the altruistic behavior of others. The
charity organizations intermediating between beneficiaries and
benefactors rely on selfless behavior for their funds and staffing. What
makes people behave pro-social? What makes them sacrifice self for
the common good? What motivates people to display the willingness
to donate to charities?
MSC Thesis
Economics & Business, Marketing
By
Wouter Chömpff
Supervisor
Ron van Schie
1
The role of
individual
dispositions and
charity
perceptions on
the willingness to
donate
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Altruism; the root of charitable behavior........................................................................................... 5
Problem statement.............................................................................................................................. 7
Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the research ...................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2; Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 10
Willingness to donate ........................................................................................................................ 10
Socio-cultural factors......................................................................................................................... 12
Age ................................................................................................................................................. 12
Gender ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Income ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Education ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Urban or non-urban ...................................................................................................................... 14
Individual disposition towards altruistic behaviour .......................................................................... 16
Faith in humanity........................................................................................................................... 16
Spirituality ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Selfishness ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Attitude towards charity organizations............................................................................................. 19
Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Administrative tolerance ............................................................................................................... 20
Effectiveness.................................................................................................................................. 21
Interaction: selfishness & effectiveness ........................................................................................ 21
Conceptual model ............................................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 3; Empirical elements .............................................................................................................. 23
Questionnaire design ........................................................................................................................ 24
Willingness to donate .................................................................................................................... 24
Urban ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Faith in humanity........................................................................................................................... 25
Selfishness ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Spirituality ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Efficiency & Administrative Tolerance .......................................................................................... 25
Effectiveness.................................................................................................................................. 25
2
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Results ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Factor analysis ................................................................................................................................... 26
Reliability test .................................................................................................................................... 27
Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................................... 28
Regression: outline ............................................................................................................................ 30
General model ............................................................................................................................... 31
Dispositions ................................................................................................................................... 32
Attitudes towards charity .............................................................................................................. 32
Interaction effect included; ........................................................................................................... 32
Willingness to donate time ............................................................................................................... 33
General model ............................................................................................................................... 33
Dispositions & attitudes towards charity ...................................................................................... 33
Interaction effect included ............................................................................................................ 34
Concluding ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 36
In general ....................................................................................................................................... 36
On donating money ....................................................................................................................... 36
On donating time........................................................................................................................... 37
Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Future research ................................................................................................................................. 39
Thanksgiving .......................................................................................................................................... 40
References ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix................................................................................................................................................ 47
3
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Summary
When observing modern day charitable donations to organizations operating in a highly competitive
market one cannot help but to be tickled by the question: what motivates those donating? 3 main
categories of factors which should influence the propensity to donate time & money where
constructed. Within those, several variables were inserted as to answer the following questions:

The socio-cultural factors, depicting the background of the respondent; which sociodemographic variables account for the amounts donated to charity?

Factors concerning the personal disposition; spiritual focus, selfish tendencies and the faith
one has in his peers. Which innate characteristics produce altruistic behaviour? Does the
individual tend to harbour a disposition towards altruistic behaviour which influences his
propensity to give?

Factors depicting the outlook on charities; focussing on the effectiveness (do charities reach
their goals) as the efficiency (do charities manage to get a lot of mileage out of the donated
euro)? Is there an attitude to charity which fertilizes this behaviour and so makes it more
probable that the individual will make donations?
We found that the outlooks on charity explained significantly more of the donated amounts than the
personal dispositions. Those considering the charity to be efficient and effective were more willing to
donate money. This effect was reinforced if the individual was both unselfish and deemed charities
effective. Those with a spiritual disposition and a belief in the effectiveness of charities are more
likely to donate their hours to a cause.
Charities could draw the inference that they should advertise their effectiveness as their strongest
trait, as it is the single strongest predictor of money and time donations. Currently, charity
advertising focuses on the grave need of the beneficiary. Even though the realisation of acute need
might be a motivation for people to join the cause, if the intermediary charity organisation is
considered to be ineffective or inefficient the positive stimulus may fall into dry ground. Then,
volunteer recruiting efforts should focus on the spiritual as they are more inclined to donate their
hours. They also should be told their efforts will contribute greatly – if they deem their work effective
they are more willing to sign up. The efficiency of spending during fundraising could be accentuated,
as currently people only think that 56 cents of every euro ends up at the beneficiary.
4
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Chapter 1
Altruism; the root of charitable behavior
He who wishes to secure the good of others, has already secured his own.
Confucius
Love thy neighbour. In giving we receive. Truly great have great charity, althus spoke Confucius.
Throughout the ages, it was deemed a virtue to stretch one’s own resources for another man’s
benefit; it was man’s natural duty. Apart from societal and religious obligations, it was believed that
the nature of man was imbued with a certain benevolence. In his 1759 treaty on moral sentiments,
economist Adam Smith exclaims; “How selfish so ever man be supposed, there are evidently some
principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness
necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.” But then the
further blossoming of modern science gave birth to the strict rationality which stated that every act
appearing to be motivated by concern for someone else’s fate will, under close scrutiny, bear witness
to selfish motives. (See for an oversight Piliavin & Hong-Wen, 1990) Within the frame of this egoistic
model, biologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and economists agreed that pure selfless deeds do not
exist, nor ever existed.
More recently, these assumptions were relaxed and over the years discarded. Certain
observations, namely by Hill (1984) shook the pillars of the egoistic model: many cases of extreme
heroism where a total disregard for the actor’s own life signify a lack of conscious awareness of the
deed. Consider the act of jumping in front of a train to pull a child from the tracks. Or running into a
burning building to save a stranger. Crawford, Smith and Krebs (1987) reasoned that no egoistic
motive can be present when a person spontaneously puts his/her life on the line. Concerning all the
acts of spontaneous helping one could suggest that humans are genetically disposed to engage in
impulsive altruistic behaviour. This would be supported by observations in nature; birds alarm their
flock when predators approach, baboons help defend the troops, mother rats endure severe electric
shocks to save their offspring. Masserman, Stanley and Terris (1964) found that Rhesus monkeys
refrain from operating a device for securing food if this causes another monkey to suffer an electric
shock. Lower species – not in possession of a rational mind – show altruistic behaviour as well. As
humans, we most likely share tendencies towards similar behaviour. Bear in mind that we are very
much like animals: according to Britten (1992), we share 98% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee. We
can merge the necessity of scientific explanation with the observation that humans consistently
respond to kin’s distress: they claim that selflessness has a neural base that may have been present
early in human evolution.
5
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
However, it is not believed that humans are the products of instincts. Vine (1983) warns that
genetic involvement does not mean fixed action patterns. Between an impulse and a response
humans have a unique –though not always used – decision space. Thus besides ‘evolutionary
altruism’, where neural networks seem to spur the actor into selfless behaviour, there must be an
alternative. Sober (1988) identifies what he calls ‘vernacular altruism’, the pure motive of benefiting
others. We rationally come to the decision to anonymously donate 10% of our income to charity. We
decide to send a mourning card to a stranger. We decide to donate millions to fund our former
school. To qualify as a vernacular altruistic act, the actor must consciously formulate the intention to
benefit the other and the act must be motivated mainly out of consideration of another’s needs
rather than one’s own. Giving money to charity could fit in this definition; often, without any
immediate neural trigger, the benefactor proceeds towards parting with her resources to assist the
beneficiary.
When observing modern day charitable donations to organisations operating in a highly
competitive market one cannot help but to be tickled by the question: how does this vernacular
altruism function, and who is likely to portray it? As the charities have to battle for the favour of the
altruist it is of even more interest to them to dissect the motivations and the psychological profile of
their prospective contributors. With gaining insight into who is most likely to donate to your cause
comes also the possibility of fine-tuning your marketing instruments to the relevant opinions and
dispositions. Finally and most importantly, those who take the hardest blows in this world are all the
more dependent on the consistent altruism of others.
6
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Problem statement
The charity organizations intermediating between beneficiaries and benefactors rely on the
selfless behaviour of others for their funds and staffing. Their proper financing is of the greatest
importance, as they are the main counterforce to vast suffering. 1 So what makes their lifeblood - the
people - behave pro-social? What makes them sacrifice self for the common good? Tscheulin and
Lindenmeier (2005) captured several socio-demographic factors that influence the willingness to
donate, but their work is far from comprehensive as it fails to discuss the views on charity
organizations or personal dispositions. Sworonski (1997) came to several attitudinal and situational
determinants relating to the willingness to donate organs, but his dependent variable is very limited
whilst a broadly applicable one is useful considering the scope of the problem.
Thus, many questions therefore arise concerning the concept of ‘giving’ and the altruistic
behaviour it requires. Altruistic behaviour is what the actor could have done better for himself had
he chosen to ignore the effect of his choice on others” (Margolis 1982). Who does this? Which sociodemographic variables account for the amounts donated to charity? Which innate characteristics
produce altruistic behaviour? Does the individual tend to harbour a disposition towards altruistic
behaviour which influences his propensity to give? And, is there an attitude to charity which fertilizes
this behaviour and so makes it more probable that the individual will show donation behaviour.
Which of those attitudes concerning charities impact the willingness to donate to them? This thesis
will analyze previous research and Dutch respondents when posing the question:
What determines the willingness to donate to charities?
In order to answer the main question we will answer the following research questions:
1

Which socio-cultural factors affect the willingness to donate?

Which individual dispositions towards charitable behavior affect the willingness to donate?

Which attitudes toward charities affect the willingness to donate?
A big part of the population depends on the altruistic behaviour of others. Half the world
population lives on less than $2,50 a day. Every 4 minutes a child dies a preventable death. 1 billion
people have inadequate access to water. Without the many donations, support and volunteered
hours the situation could be worse. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
7
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Definitions
‘What determines’;
That which makes us give. The intrinsic disposition and environment
which makes us liable to display altruistic behaviour. These driving
forces behind altruistic behaviour where classified according to their
nature: socio-demographic factors, the individual’s disposition
towards altruistic behaviour and her attitude towards charity
organizations.
Socio-demographic factors include age, gender, income and
education. The other antecedents are grouped within two categories
of which the ‘attitudes towards charity organizations’ concern the
individual's perception of the voluntary sector and organizational
factors which might drive willingness to donate, whilst the ‘individual
disposition’ focuses on those elements influencing any predisposition to support another person or group.
‘Willingness to donate’;
DeVoe and Pfeffer (2007) defined the willingness to donate as the
extent to which an individual shows readiness to volunteer or to
donate money to a recipient who is collecting for a charitable
organization. Willingness to donate thus measures to which extent
the individual is willing to sacrifice time and money to the charity,
two of the most fundamental resources available to man. They are
related and to a certain extent exchangeable.
‘Charity’;
Used in the broadest sense; an organization that collects money and
other voluntary contributions of help for a worthy cause. (The extent
to which a charity is worthy is often defined by an independent
organisation, like www.cbf.nl)
8
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Purpose of the research
According to Giving USA Foundation (2007), the charity market is huge: a $300 billion industry in the
United States alone. Charity organizations argue that their single most prominent concern is to
motivate people to donate money (West 2004). Then, the number of (American) volunteers steadily
shrank over the past 4 years. (see for recent statistics the U.S. Labor Department statistics) The
purpose of the research is to uncover the triggers and motives behind donation behaviour. The
results will – if significant – be a foundation for fund-raising and staff recruitment. With this
knowledge, charity organizations are provided with new arms in the battle for funds, staff and
humanity.
Academic literature previously focussed on the narrow boundaries of socio-cultural
determinants (Tscheulin and Lindenmeier 2005) or more specific personal dispositions in the frame
of a specific donations cause (Sworonski 1997). Current standards will be enriched with insights into
the direct effect of the degree of spiritual focus, the amount of faith in humanity and other individual
determinants of donation behaviour. Also, Sargeant’s (2007) research on the trust in charity will be
inserted in the broader framework of charity donations. Then, socio-demographical predictions for
other countries will be verified for the Netherlands, just as the Dutch respondent’s esteem of
charities’ efficiency and effectiveness.
.
9
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Chapter 2; Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework sketches the outline in which I wish to conduct the study. The
independent indicators which are to indicate the willingness to donate are grouped by category, and
from there the existing literature on the subjects is studied to distil the relevant expectations per
predictor. First we will define what we are looking for with donation behaviour, then we decide on
what is the most relevant to observe in measuring this. We conclude the chapter with a theoretical
framework summarizing expected effects of the socio-cultural factors, the individual dispositions and
the outlooks on charitable organisations on the willingness to volunteer and to donate money.
Willingness to donate
The distinction between vernacular altruism and the evolutionary altruism cannot always be clearly
drawn. Holding the door open could be classified as altruism, just as refilling your neighbour’s
teacup. As shown in the introduction, there is a distinct difference between altruistic behaviour in a
state of emergency - which often equals unconscious decision-making (Hill 1984) – and the altruistic
behaviour that is a deliberate, conscious choice (Sober 1988).
As we investigate the driving force behind altruistic behaviour that manifests itself in aiding
charitable organisations, we find that it is never done in a state of emergency, and shall therefore
always be classified as vernacular altruism. Therefore, not all research on altruism is applicable, as
not all portray this clear distinction between evolutionary or vernacular altruism. The search for the
profile of the typical donator thus involves vernacular altruism only, and measuring the degree of this
type of altruism is the challenge. The spectrum of previous research shows that this helping
behaviour can be defined in many ways. We are interested in finding a general definition which is
practical to use and aims at measuring the principal element of our research: the willingness to
donate to charity organizations.
10
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Generally, the first method to come to mind is the measuring of actual helping behaviour,
measurable through the formal channel of charity. Pandey (1979) defined it as “the extent to which
an individual shows willingness and feelings about helping and donating money to a recipient who is
collecting funds for beneficiaries.” Although this is a comprehensive description, the feelings about
helping and donating money are a matter of scrutiny in this thesis: we measure the effect of feelings
on willingness, and not the feelings themselves. DeVoe and Pfeffer (2007) observed that the
resources time and money are related and to a certain extent exchangeable, such that it indicates
the willingness to give trough a broader dimension. They defined it as “the extent to which an
individual shows readiness to volunteer or to donate money to a recipient who is collecting for a
charitable organization” (Van Diepen 2009) This is more specific and thus more useful. We will use it
from here onwards, slightly amended as to fit our research better:
The willingness to donate is the extent to which an individual shows readiness to donate time or
money
11
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Socio-cultural factors
Sketching the profile, the factors which should influence willingness to donate were divided into
three main categories;

The socio-cultural factors, depicting the background of the respondent, e.g. education & age.
Earlier research has been done concerning these factors, and the only true novel addition
was the living situation; whether someone lived in a village or a city.

Factors concerning the personal dispositions that measure degrees of personal tendencies
(or personality traits) like one’s inner life or selfish outlook on interpersonal relationships.

Factors depicting the outlook on charities; whether someone has a positive or negative
outlook on the effectiveness (do charities reach their goals) as the efficiency (do charities
manage to get a lot of mileage out of the donated euro).
Age
Earlier American research tended to find that the amount of monetary donations increased with age
but declined after the age of 65 (Edmundson, 1986; Danko and Stanley, 1986; Halfpenny, 1991). This
is in line with research on altruism. Pro-social behavior emerges between the ages of 1 and 2 (ZahnWaxler e.a. 1992) and the quality and frequency of this behavior increases with age (Bar-Tal e.a.
1980). Why the willingness to donate diminishes after pension age has not been firmly established
but can be explained by the fixed retirement age which comes with lower incomes and the fear of
poverty. Edmunson (1986) found that those fearing their own financial security are less likely to
contribute. We arrive at the following hypothesis, constituting the first part of our hypothesis on
socio-demographics;
H1a: Older respondents are more willing to support charities than younger donors
12
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Gender
Females are slightly more altruistic. Concerning gender differences Austin (1979) found that men and
women are equally likely to intervene at a high level of (potential) damage, but that women are
quicker to intervene at lower levels, indicating a lower threshold for noticing. Eagly and Crowly
(1986) discovered that females receive more help than males, perhaps because these are deemed to
be less able to support themselves.
This immediately applies to the support of charities and the willingness to donate time and money to
them, as Jones and Posnet (1991) found that women tend to donate a larger amount in money. We
thus suspect that women, as they tend to be more altruistic and often are more active in voluntary
service are more willing to donate to charitable causes. Summarized in this hypothesis we shall verify
that;
H1b: Women are more willing to donate.
Income
Those given the most resources in a social game contribute the most to the shared cause; the rich
donate more (Repoport 1988). If participants in an experiment see their contribution in the frame of
being rich, they perceive their donation to be non-expensive, for the donation is a smaller part of
their total wealth. Parting with resources would be less threatening to their own well-being than it
would be to a poorer participant (Thaler 1999). Numerous authors have identified a positive
correlation between an individual’s income and his level of donation (Kitchen and Dalton, 1990;
Jencks, 1987). Jones and Posnett (1991) found that the probability of being a fixed donor was
influenced by income and other antecedents, whilst the height of the donation was only affected by
the income of the individual. Thus the following hypothesis should show;
H1c: Respondents with a higher income are more willing to donate.
13
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Education
Eisenberg and Miller (1987) proved that the more empathic people are, the more pro-social
behaviour they display. If you try to see the world trough another man’s eyes it is more likely that
you feel with that person. When that person is in need, you may feel like you want to relieve his
need for his need is now yours. The correlation between empathy and pro-social behaviour does not
imply that the pro-social behaviour always is altruistically motivated.2 One can argue that the level of
education expands man’s worldview, and with that his empathy. Previous research by Kitchen and
Dalton (1990) found the same connection. We verify;
H1d: Respondents possessing higher education are more willing to donate.
Urban or non-urban
An often heard complaint is that the urban landscape lacks the outskirts’ warmth. The values and
mood differs between small villages and inner cities: differences in attitude (and perhaps in altruistic
behaviour) can be predicted by measuring the size of the community the respondent comes from.
Glenn (1977) found that the community size of origin – or the size of the town one feels to have
‘come from’ – and the community size of residence is not as strong a predictor of behaviour as age or
education (as examined above) but just a reliable predictor as family income or occupational
prestige. This might not be entirely applicable to the Netherlands, as we hardly have any ‘true’ rural
areas, but the message is just the same. Differences between education and income are obvious;
according to Arcury & Christianson, (1993), rural citizens (defined as those living a certain distance
from the urban area) are in general less education and enjoy a lower mean income. However, in the
Netherlands many rich people make the switch from urban areas to rural areas, thus we do not
expect this to influence the differences in willingness to donate. Examining rural-urban differences in
the relationships of socio-demographic, social network, and lifestyle factors concerning mortality
Motoki et al (2002) found that not only the educational level differs amongst the two groups, but
that even marital status and the relationship to neighbors shows significant differences. Also, there
exists what Bell (1992) calls the Urban-Rural continuum; that the ‘community’ idea is more
2
Remember; altruistic motivation being the vernacular altruism; rationally coming to the decision to
part with resources and time for another’s benefit. Sober, E. (1988) “What is Evolutionary Altruism”,
Canadian Journal on Philosophy, 14:75-99
14
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
characteristic of country places than cities. He analyses a countryside village and discovers that those
living thither derive social-psychological benefits (like self-esteem and a sense of identity) as well as
material benefits (multi-factor support from peers) from their living situation.
The following table illustrates some differences;
Factor
Urban Area
Rural Area
Expected effect on charitable behavior by
non-urban citizens
Marital Status
Relation with
Less often
More often
Higher, as increased happiness should lead
married
married
to more frequent charitable behavior.
Less
More
Higher, for a good relationship with your
neighbors
direct peers can provide an incentive to
donate to the general cause. Isolated
individuals are less likely to contribute.
Identity
Other
Rooted in living
Higher, see relation with neighbors.
situation
Volunteering can be more rewarding when
assisting closer peers.
Summarizing, we hypothesize that there exists a significant difference in the charitable behavior of
non-urban citizens versus those who live in urban areas. Those living in non-urban areas are more
likely to donate as their individual disposition will prompt them earlier. In our study, we replace rural
with non-urban and we define non-urban as those who live in a village with less than 25.000
inhabitants. Formulated in a sentence:
H2: Non-urban respondents are more likely to donate than urban respondents
15
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Individual disposition towards altruistic behaviour
The driving forces behind altruistic behaviour were classified according to their nature: sociodemographic factors, the individual’s disposition towards altruistic behaviour and her attitude
towards charity organizations. The individual dispositions focuses on what the respondent esteems
altruistic behaviour to be. It encompasses different layers of the personality and the individual
environment as these all affect how one views the world and charitable behaviour. The individual
disposition as a classification is rather efficient combined with the external outlook provided by
‘attitude towards charitable organisations’, as it sketches the totality of that which makes us liable to
display altruistic behaviour.
Faith in humanity
Harrison et al (1998) described faith in humanity as the opinion that others are typically wellmeaning and reliable, the extent to which one believes that non-specific others are in general
trustworthy. Previously, Klein and Simmons (1977) discovered that the amount of faith in humanity is
an important predictor of whether the subject is willing to donate organs to a family-member. In
their study, the only significant difference between kidney donors and non-donors was simply faith in
humanity.3 74% of those willing to donate a kidney believed humanity was to be trusted, whilst 43%
of the non-donors thought as such. It was concluded that the less faith in one’s peers someone has,
the less willing he was to alleviate the suffering for the sufferer was to some extent deserving his or
her demise. Those who had a high trust in humanity were thus inclined to donate a kidney. This
tractate will observe if it is also of influence to the willingness to donate to a charity. This could mean
that the moment trust in humanity is breached, donations suffer. One could say that only those who
deem mankind trustworthy are inclined to contribute to the common good, because those who
deem mankind wretched esteem their misery as a proper punishment, or the sufferer as somehow
responsible. In this line, we propose;
H3: Respondents with faith in humanity are more willing to donate.
3
One of the questions that measured this construct; “Are people inclined to help others or
themselves?” See; Simmons, R.G. Klein, S.D. & Simmons, R.L. (1977) “The Gift of Life: The Social and
Psychological Impact of Organ Donation”, New York: Wiley
16
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Spirituality
Then again, the mere fact that some population members do not reciprocate – and could be labelled
untrustworthy - does not seem to make ‘co-operators’ discard their endeavours to contribute to the
collective (Kamer et al 1986). Thus, after witnessing the evidence that some members of the
population are not willing to return the favour, these people still persist in their unselfishness. This
indicates that a generosity is more of a disposition than the result of the behaviour and situation of
peers. And yes, as religious and spiritual precepts often accentuate the obligation to donate money
and ‘love thy neighbour’, Edmundson (1986) and Halfpenny (1990) discovered that respondents
considering religion to be important to them were more likely to give to charity. Where religious
dispositions have been found to increase the willingness to donate, current society is not as involved
in church as were the 1970’s respondents of the research. This signals the need for a more
contemporary construct. Nowadays, evaluating the degree of spiritual maturity has become a
prominent subject in the media and various professions and disciplines. As Moberg, (2002) advises,
we therefore broaden the research to the - perhaps more subjective term – ‘spirituality’, and see if
those who coin themselves as spiritual donate more to charity than those who shun the concept. We
use the broader term spirituality as it encompasses more than religion and will highlight any
attitudinal dispositions more effectively. Those involved in practices involving higher planes are more
likely to adjust their behavior towards the commandments imposed by the various disciplines. As the
commandment of ‘love thy neighbor’ is universal and can be coined as a common element we expect
the spiritual respondent to be more willing to donate. The commandment to practice altruistic
behavior can be found in all spiritual walks of life. Therefore, practicing spirituality should result in
more willingness to donate. We formulate our expectation as follows;
H4: Respondents to which spirituality is important are more willing to donate.
17
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Selfishness
The personal attitude towards others can be expected to have a significant impact on the willingness
to donate. By studying the characters of those who rescued Jews in Nazi Europe Oliner and
Oliner(1988) found that – compared to non-rescuers – they had higher ethical values, beliefs in
equity, greater pity/empathy and often saw all people as equal. Staub (1978) found more character
traits in observing the charitable: high in self-esteem, high in competence, high in internal locus of
control, low in need for approval and high in moral development. According to these studies, when
the individual is more advanced in moral development he is more likely to show both charitable and
even heroic behaviour. These studies do not advance the depth of their constructs, as the
measurement of ‘ethical judgments’ is often done arbitrarily. They merely arouse a suspicion that
those with superior ethical judgment are more willing to help others. In measuring this ‘ethical
judgment’, Reidenbach and Robin (1990) state that the breadth and complexity of the construct
dictate a broad and complex construct. What is this ethical judgment? Individuals often use more
than one rationale in making ethical judgments to which different weights are assigned according to
the situation. To arrive at a measurable notion of the individual’s developed morality we follow the
notion of selfishness developed by Reidenbach and Robin (1990); the extent to which the individual
considers only the consequences of her actions to herself. Then, after observing this notion we test if
the statement above is correct; those who are less selfish – those who do not consider solely the
impact of their actions on themselves – can be expected to be more likely to donate time and money
to others.
H5: Selfish respondents are less willing to donate.
18
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Attitude towards charity organizations.
Over the past two decades the functioning of charities has changed dramatically, with a radical shift
towards professionalization in delivering services and fundraising (Saxton 2004). The websites are
flashy and personnel are better trained. However, according to Ebeling (2005) problems in the
voluntary sector have been accumulating for years. The amount of charities increased rapidly and
many people enjoy the great personal benefits being adhered to them. Sargeant and Stephen (2002)
state that public trust in the voluntary sector has collapsed after some severe incidents, exposing the
lack of proper supervision. In a recent attempt by Precision Marketing to chart the percentage of the
British public that had confidence in the charities, a study revealed that it decreased by 9 percentage
points to 42%. This is an improvement; in 1997 only 33% of the British population had 'a great deal'
or 'quite a lot of confidence in UK charities. (See the Henley Centre’s rapport) Many charity
supporters believe that the organization supporting their cause is to some extent corrupt or not
directing the resources provided to those for whom the donation was intended (Bruce and Baily
1992). Charity donors suspect that only 65 pence per £1 of any amount they donate will end up at
the cause. For non-donors the score is 45p for every pound (Sargeant 1999).
Efficiency
Herzlinger (1996) sketched several scandals illustrating 3 major image problems the voluntary sector
has been wrestling with, not entirely unjust;
1. Ineffectiveness; the charities do not accomplish their social missions. Hospitals that reject
poor patients. The hoarding of money.
2. Inefficiency; the charities get little mileage out of your euro. Less than 50% ends up at the
cause.4 (A charity is more efficient as the percentage of the donated money that ends up at
the beneficiary grows.)
3. Private inurnment; the heads of the tax-exempt organizations attain excessive benefits for
themselves. Managers and employees use the charity’s resources for their own benefit.
Executives earning more than $1m in compensation.
4
Economic theory suggests that, given the nature of the "market" in which they operate, private
charities are inherently inefficient. Marshall, G.P. 1978. “The Control of Private Charities.”, Public
Administration
19
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
These handicaps are hardly visible because most charities’ performance is shrouded in a veil of
secrecy. Besides, Bird (1983) observed that the majority of those interested in charity focuses on
their service functions and not on analyzing their financial affairs.
Interesting is the observation by Lu-Hsu and Liang (2005), who found that only 25% of charity donors
concern themselves about the financial management of charities. They conclude that when charities
communicate information, they should focus on images related to the reputation of the charity and
the donation recipients for they produce more interest. (40% of the respondents indicate they
matter) Then again, often used (as by Sargeant 1999) to measure charity sector support is the
question: “how much of your euro ends up at the beneficiary?” This directly concerns financial
management. We reason that those who deem charities efficient – expecting a lot of their euro
ending up aiding the beneficiary – are more willing to donate, for they will consider their euro well
spent.
H6: Respondents deeming charities efficient are more willing to donate.
Administrative tolerance
Here, we measure on one hand the amount that the Dutch estimate to end up at the beneficiary,
while on the opposing end their opinion on what is an acceptable amount for a charity to use in their
organizational overhead.
Administrative tolerance refers to the threshold people have concerning the amount the charity is
allowed to spend on upkeep of the organization and acquiring funds. This personal judgment can
reverberate because the willingness to donate is influenced also by the willingness to pay for the
charity organizations’ staffing and fundraising activities. Harvey & McCrohan et al (1988) revealed
not only a ‘meaningful relationships between perceived organization efficiency and the level of
giving’, but also imply that – because of the value agents put on efficiency – there could exist a
difference in the amount people find acceptable to spend on the mentioned organizational cost
factors. In a way this variable resembles the previous, but it also enables the analysis of a new
element’s influence: is there a significant difference in the amount that people deem acceptable in
spending on administrative expenditures, and does this influence also the willingness to donate?
20
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
H7: Respondents upholding a low acceptance threshold for administrative expenditures are less
willing to donate
Effectiveness
The construct of effectiveness measures the degree to which the respondent beliefs the average
charities achieve the goals they aim to achieve. According to Sargeant (2002) it is the individual
trusting the charitable organization to realize its mission. It follows logically that those who suspect
charities to lose sight of their ultimate aims are less willing to support their ineffective striving. Also,
evidence suggests that donors who perceive charity organizations as effective are more likely to
donate to them. (Schlegelmilch, 1988; Yavas et al, 1980; Harvey, 1990; Harvey and McCrohan, 1988;
Mindak and Bybee, 1971).
H8: Individuals suspecting charities to be effective are more willing to donate.
Interaction: selfishness & effectiveness
In between factors it will be interesting to see which effects reinforce the others, and how personal
dispositions interact with the outlooks on charity. I will check different interactions between the
dispositions and outlooks, but am specifically interested in the moderating effect of the co-play
between selfishness and effectiveness. For example, it is probable that those respondents who are
selfish are expected to show less consideration for the effectiveness of charity organizations – their
capacity to alleviate suffering. That is to say; it is possible that both independents will act strongly
enough as to amplify resistance against the concept of giving, but just as likely that those not caring
for others neither care about the fact that others do care.
Or, caring about others (i.e. not being selfish) has a stronger effect on willingness to donate when we
also view the organisation as achieving its goals. The organisation will be regarded as a suitable
channel to promulgate the need to help others.
H9: The effect for ‘effectiveness’ on Willingness to donate is stronger for respondents scoring low
on ‘selfishness’
21
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Conceptual model
The conceptual model consists of the nine hypothesis formulated in the previous part. It aims to
clarify the various relationships that were sketched previously, and provide a clear oversight into
what is being researched.
22
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Chapter 3; Empirical elements
We arrive with a total of nine hypotheses and a dependent which can be separated in 2 elements;
the donation of time and the donation of money. This is best done with an ordinal regression, as the
dependent variable is a categorical. First we furnish the general model from the hypotheses we
constructed, then we decide how to measure the several different constructs in a survey. The
hypotheses formulated in the previous chapter can be summarized in the following equation, with
the different independents and interaction effect influencing the dependent willingness to donate;
γ (willingness to donate) =
β0 + β1*age + β2*gender + β3*income + β4*education + β5*urban + β6*faith +
β7*spirit + β8*selfish + β9*efficient + β10*administrative + β11*effective +
β12*interaction + Error
Explanatory variable
Willingness to donate
Faith in humanity
Spirituality
Selfish
Efficiency
Administrative tolerance
Effectiveness
Age
Gender
Income
Education
Living
Fashion
Categories in which respondents indicate what
they have donated or volunteered in the last
year.
Construct measuring the degree to which the
respondent deems people in general to be
selfish in opposition to altruistic
Construct measuring the degree to which
spirituality is important in the respondent’s life
Construct measuring the degree to which the
respondent considers only the effects of his
actions on himself
Which percentage of the donated euro is
suspected to end up with the beneficiary
Which percentage of the donated euro is
allowed to be used for administrative purposes
Construct measuring the degree to which the
respondent beliefs the average charity achieves
the goals they aim to achieve.
Measured in years
Binary: Female = 1 Male = 2
Monthly income in euro’s
5 dummy variables indicating the level of
finished education: ‘Basisschool’/’Middelbare
school’/’MBO’/’HBO’/’Universiteit’
Amount of inhabitants in the habitat
23
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Questionnaire design
We collect data on the different constructs by forging a questionnaire. The elements therein
measuring the constructs consist of several questions which were borrowed from previous research.
Questions aiming to measure the constructs were translated in Dutch as to ensure the full
comprehension by the Dutch respondents. The questions concerning statements are evaluated on a
5-point bipolar scale. Then, the data is collected during the noon hour of a busy shopping day in the
centre of Rotterdam, addressing a heterogeneous public as to ensure representativeness. The
questionnaire is attached as an appendix.
Willingness to donate
Lee and Chang (2007) found that an efficient way to measure the support of charities in general is to
ask respondents whether or not they have donated in the past to a charity, and whether that is time
or money. This circumvents the measuring of good intentions, which – as one well knows – can
deviate significantly from actual helping behavior. We therefore ask whether respondents have
donated time or money in the past to a charitable organisation, where we take Van Diepen (2009) as
a guide.
Lui and Aaker (2008) has been done about the form and order in which the questions are asked:
“How much time are you willing to donate?” and “How much money are you willing to donate?”
Research has indicated however, that the order in which you ask these questions is of importance.
Asking the individual for time first primes him in an emotional state for he will imagine himself
spending time with the beneficiaries; he will be more inclined to give money afterwards. The other
way around primes him into a scarcity state; a state less fruitful for donation propensity!
Urban
Asked is how many citizens inhabit the city or village where the respondent lives. Other research
concerning rural areas and non-rural areas often used the absolute distance from the nearest city
centre as measure to determine whether the respondent lived in a remote area. In Holland, where
nearly all towns are relatively proximate, it could be wiser to inquire to the amount of inhabitant in a
city. This will not only be easier to estimate by the respondent, but also more accurate in
determining whether the respondent lives in a non-urban area: a definition already exists. This
question is therefore not to be found in previous literature, so I developed it myself;
Do you live in a city or a village?;
City (more than 25000
inhabitants
Village (less than 25000
inhabitants)
24
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Faith in humanity
Faith in humanity means that one believes that others are typically well-meaning and reliable. Thus,
the ‘faith in humanity’ as a construct measures the degree to which the respondent deems people in
general to be selfish in opposition to altruistic (Harrison, D., Cummings, L., Chervany, N., 1998).
The 5-point scale questions aiming to measure this construct are borrowed from Glaeser et al 2000.
Selfishness
Reidenbach and Robin (1990) defined selfishness as “the extent to which the individual considers
only the consequences of her actions to herself.” They developed several questions which measure
if this is the case. They are included on a 5-point bipolar scale.
Spirituality
McGinn (1993) claims that spirituality is like obscenity; we may not know how to define it, yet
we know it when we see it, and the “fickleness” of academics’ inability to provide precise definitions
has never prevented people from practicing it. It is also possible to draw over 31 definitions of
religiousness and 40 of spirituality from past social science publications (Zinnbauer et al 1999).
Whatever scale you will pick, every spirituality scale will reflect “only limited aspects of a highly
complex, multidimensional, and largely nonmaterial ontological reality.” The 5-point scale questions
aiming to measure this construct were derived from the Fetzer Institute’s Workbook.
Efficiency & Administrative Tolerance
When measuring the perceived efficiency of charities we can use the method used most often in
research on this subject; a percentage of the euro which is suspected to end up at the beneficiary
(See Schlegelmilch, 1997 and Sargeant, 1999).
Effectiveness
The construct of effectiveness measures the degree to which the respondent beliefs the average
charities achieve the goals they aim to achieve. The following 5-point scale questions aim to measure
this construct, which were derived from Sargeant (2002).
25
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Results
Of the 130 questionnaires taken I had to discard 13 due to severe incompleteness or obvious
mockeries. The 117 remaining questionnaires were used to constitute the regression. In these were
some missing values, a second round was conducted to supplement the original dataset towards 127
useable respondents.
Factor analysis
The first essential step in processing the results was to produce factor analysis for the different latent
variables. As you cannot measure spirituality or selfishness directly, we identify groups or clusters of
variables that point towards these constructs. Thus, the factor analysis describes how coherent the
questions are – or how well they link to the construct, after we posed the questions. For example,
the ‘selfishness’ construct, consisting of 4 questions is scrutinized to discover whether those 4
questions measure the same construct. The interpretability of factors was improved through varimax
rotation, and resulted in the following results5 based on Eigenvalues greater than one and 64.3% of
the variance explained:
Component
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
# Construct questions
Spirituality
0,850
0,906
0,914
0,804
4/4
Effectiveness
0,780
0,709
0,806
0,867
4/4
Faith in Humanity
0,078
0,853
0,832
0,745
4/4
Selfishness
0,634
0,532
0,823
0,639
4/4
Of all the questions the singular (People are inclined to help themselves before others) failed to
correlate with any of the factors. With hind knowledge –thus after posing the question - it was
decided that this question was to be deleted due to its concern with ‘helping’ and not with ‘faith in
one’s peers’. After removal of the faulty question we arrived at the following, based on Eigenvalue’s
greater than 1 and 67.9% of the variance explained:
Component
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
# Construct
questions
Spirituality
0,852
0,905
0,916
0,803
4/4
Effectiveness
0,789
0,716
0,805
0,869
4/4
0,853
0,835
0,744
3/4
0,543
0,829
0,651
4/4
Faith in Humanity
Selfishness
5
0,637
Only the summaries are portrayed here. See appendix for full analysis ‘Rotated Component Matrix’
26
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Reliability test
Then we continued with a reliability analysis with the found factors6. The Cronbach’s Alpha,
hereunder depicted, delivers the internal consistency of the constructs. If a question turns out to
diminish the statistic, it can be opted for removal, with a possible healthier Cronbach’s α as a result.
Construct
Initial Cronbach’s α
Adjustments
Final Cronbach’s α
Spirituality
0,902
None
0,902
Effectiveness
0,765
None
0,765
Faith in Humanity
0,622
Minus Q1
0,750
Selfishness
0,611
Minus Q1 & Q2
0,643
Including Q1 & Q2
0,611
The factor faith in humanity included a faulty question (‘People are inclined to help themselves
before others’), so that after deleting the culprit the Alpha rose to the more desirable level of 0,750.
Regarding the ‘selfishness’ construct, I considered it wise to include the two questions of the
‘selfishness’ construct, as they were considered to contribute to the overall stability of the concept; 4
questions inherently indicate more than 2. After analyzing the reliability of scales we took the
average such that one value per construct remains.
6
See appendix ‘Reliability Statistics
27
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Descriptive statistics
Of the supplemented dataset of N = 143 (the initial dataset had been found to lack too many usable
responses), some 127 turned out to be useful. The frequency tabs7 left to conclude that the sample
could be regarded as representative for the population. Of the total valid dataset, females
dominated with roughly 60% of the population.
Gender
Income
Living situation
Education
The income groups selected seem to be adequately represented, considering also the location of the
survey; down-town in the shopping quarter. Median income seems to emerge from the survey,
which is consistent with population estimations. The level of education shown here-under reveals the
same confirmation of representativeness, as the populace is smoothly distributed amongst the
education classes.
7
Refer to ‘Frequency tabs’ in the appendix
28
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Donated amounts
Donated amounts were equally spread amongst population, where it was interesting to observe that
only 1/3 shunned the concept of donating. Then, of all the respondents, we found that the average
expected amount to end up at the beneficiary equals €0,56, meaning that a the public opinion can
be judged to be fairly distrusting. Sargeant (1999) concluded likewise when he found that British
respondents believed that only £0,65 of every pound was actually devoted to the cause. We also
found that the average administrative tolerance was €0,16, indicating a wide gap (€0,28)between
the perceived efficiency and the demanded efficiency of charity organizations.
Volunteered hours
Volunteered hours were fairly distributed, with the remark that respondents who labored more than
10 hours exceeded respondents volunteering 10 hours. One could say that the categories should be
wider spread in an extra study.
29
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Regression: outline
Upon the initial estimation of representativeness and the judgment that the data was fit for
regression (refer to the checklist below), we conducted an ordinal regression with the data, for we
can rank the values of the amounts donated but neither a real nor stable distance between the
categories of the variables of interest (see above). The following assumptions as required for the
ordinal regression were checked8;
 One ordinal dependent variable (either donated money or donated time)
 The relationship of the predictor to the ordinal dependent is independent of the category of
the dependent.
 Adequate sample size (workable sample of 127 respondents)
The construct of which the faulty questions were filtered were summarized and inserted into the
equation. Inserted as factors and covariates were;
Factors (categorical independent variables)
Covariates (continuous numeric independent
variables)
Gender
Age
Urban
Income
Education
Faith in humanity construct average
Spirituality construct average
Selfishness construct average
Effectiveness construct average
Efficiency
Administrative tolerance
8
For an overview of what an ordinal regression requires to be reliable: McCullagh, Peter. (1980). Regression
models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 42
30
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate money
General Model
Variable
H1a Age
H1b Gender
H1c Income
H1d Education
H2 Living
H3 Faith in humanity
H4 Spirituality
H5 Selfishness
H6 Effectiveness
H7 Efficiency
H8 Administrative
H9 Interaction
Pseudo R-Square
β
0.081
-0.227
0.135
0.246
-0.198
-0.216
0.095
0.065
0.700
0.041
-0.002
0,460
P
.000
0.540
0.294
0.208
0.632
0.327
0.566
0.824
0.017
000.0
0.822
-
Dispositions
β
.047
-.053
.267
.290
-.148
-.103
.150
-.240
0,279
P
.001
.875
.025
.107
.703
.606
.327
.384
-
Perceptions
β
.087
-.229
.100
.288
-.251
.640
.042
-.002
0,457
P
.000
.530
.406
.128
.533
.021
.000
.846
-
Interaction
β
.070
-.293
.177
.226
-.432
-.231
.132
3.274
2.860
.042
-.003
-1.016
0,492
P
.000
.434
.175
.251
.311
.303
.432
.011
.001
.000
.733
.010
General model
Commencing with willingness to donate money we discovered that –confirming earlier studies - the
elderly were more prepared to donate money.9 The effect is not tremendously strong, however
significant: the β of 0,081 means that the monetary donation category in which a person falls (1-7)
increases with every year the person ages.
Also, the larger the figure estimated to end up at the beneficiary, just as the more effective the
charity was deemed to be, the more was donated. This also goes for efficiency; if the respondent
thought that a lot of his euro ended up at the beneficiary he was more willing to donate. This
matches the hypothesis: the donator will get more value for money, as his euro is well spend and
makes an impact.
Thus, taking the model as a whole (for now without the interaction), we observe that it is mainly the
external perceptions towards efficiency and effectiveness of the charity sector which contribute to
the likeliness of a regular respondent to donate to the industry. Therefore, improving upon these
factors can increase contributions made, as it is mainly negative perceptions on the effectiveness of
charities which stand between an individual and his donation. Advertising/fundraising campaigns
should accentuate on the difference made – highlight their effectiveness – as to break down any
negative attitude towards their capacity to actually aid those requiring assistance.
9
Refer to appendix; ‘Regression: Willingness to donate money’
31
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Dispositions
However, these effects alter slightly when separately analyzing the individual disposition factors or
the attitudes towards charity as separate entities in conjunction with the two dependents. When
shifting the focus towards the individual disposition, the dataset confirms previous analysis, even
now the factors of the individual disposition are unhindered by their external perspective
counterparts; there, by taking a purer model undistorted by any of the added independents on the
external view on charity, the model still sheds the same light on those factors belonging to the
personal disposition.10 They matter little when it concerns to donating money – that is to say, the
personal factors hypothesized to contribute to the willingness to donate money turn out to be
insignificant.
Attitudes towards charity
When concerning only the attitudes towards charitable behavior, the same effects surfaced as were
observed in the general analysis. Thus, in the purer model only considering the external effects our
initial suppositions were confirmed; efficiency and effectiveness are the key elements in persuading
people to donate.
Interaction effect included;
Afterwards, the ordinal modeled was altered for to the main effects, the interaction effect of
selfishness and efficiency was inserted, as to scan for any additional factors; And indeed, the
interaction exposes that those tending to be unselfish [the reversed polarity in the questionnaire
necessitates caution, as the measured construct highlights the selfish individuals by inquiring
whether they agree with selfish paradigm statements] whilst considering the charities to be effective
are even more likely to donate money to a charity. The two factors reinforce each other. As it
elaborates on the previous model without violating its conclusions, we can assume these results are
fairly stable.
Other interactions between the personal dispositions and the outlooks on effectiveness turned out
to be insignificant.
10
Refer to appendix; ‘Regression: Willingness to donate money’. Construct ‘Faith’ is colored yellow herein for
the significance did not attain to 5%, but did not surpass 10%.
32
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate time
General Model
Variable
H1a Age
H1b Gender
H1c Income
H1d Education
H2 Living
H3 Faith in humanity
H4 Spirituality
H5 Selfishness
H6 Effectiveness
H7 Efficiency
H8 Administrative
H9 Interaction
Pseudo R-Square
β
-0.016
-0.511
0.029
0.184
0.275
0.043
0.387
0.027
0.632
-0.003
-0.01
0.123
P
0.331
0.194
0.833
0.376
0.532
0.853
0.027
0.930
0.043
0.742
0.314
-
Dispositions
β
-.014
-.265
.057
.037
.503
.070
.458
-.060
0.085
P
.370
.462
.655
.843
.213
.742
.006
.837
-
Perceptions
β
-.007
-.472
-.067
.316
.102
.723
-.002
-.013
0.077
P
.643
.215
.596
.116
.809
.019
.789
.203
-
Interaction
β
-.022
-.527
.045
.184
.196
.049
.398
1.556
1.604
-.003
-.011
-.467
0.132
P
.216
.181
.745
.380
.661
.834
.025
.249
.081
.729
.301
.249
General model
Continuing forward, when do people volunteer – donate their time? We inserted first the factors and
asked for the main effects, before requesting the validation of our hypothesized interaction effect.
The data shows that those involved in spiritual matter are more likely to volunteer. Better yet, for
every point towards a spiritual outlook on life (on the 5-point bipolar scale as in the questionnaire)
people are more willing to volunteer for a charitable cause. Where traditional research focused on
donation behavior relating to money, this paves the way for the conclusion that marketing efforts
aiming to recruit volunteers for charities have more success when targeting the spiritually focused.
That those volunteering also deem their work effective is not the strangest of findings; those
considering charities as not accomplishing their goals are not like to volunteer for its tasks – it would
be ineffective. However, the same conclusion can be drawn as above; where volunteers are wanted,
the organization (apart from the industry image, for now) has to retain the impression of being
effective. It weighs heavy in the decision to participate in such work, and a negative outlook on the
possible contribution to be made could serve as a barrier for signing up.
Dispositions & attitudes towards charity
A refocus on one type of predictor does not change the results dramatically. The same conclusions
hold.
33
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Interaction effect included
Here, the results are somewhat distorted by inserting the interaction effect. Interesting to observe is
that the fit of the model teeters on the brink of insignificance, a downgrade in the light of the
previous analysis. Spirituality stand valiantly upright, establishing the earlier finding that the spiritual
are more like to volunteer even more firmly. Regardless of the new addition, we can safely conclude
that the factors in the first analysis (free from the interaction effect) spirituality and effectiveness,
both significantly contribute to the willingness to donate your time. Other interactions between the
personal dispositions and the perceptions of charity were found to be insignificant.11
11
Interactions between dispositions and perceptions were checked; see appendix
34
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Concluding
This research sprouted from the desire to discover what makes people donate. Having insight into
this phenomenon is of great value to those who rely on their help, and those who wish to help but
require the funds and time from donators. The research focused thus on the vernacular altruistic act,
and what instigated this. Based on previous research 3 main categories of factors which should
influence the propensity to donate time & money:

The socio-cultural factors, depicting the background of the respondent, based on previous
research, with the addition of the living situation.

Factors concerning the personal disposition; spiritual focus, selfish tendencies and the faith
one has in his peers.

Factors depicting the outlook on charities; focussing on the effectiveness (do charities reach
their goals) as the efficiency (do charities manage to get a lot of mileage out of the donated
euro)? Also, how much is the charitable organisation allowed to spend on administrative
expenditures?
The findings were as follows, with the outlooks on charity explaining significantly more of the
donated amounts than the personal dispositions;
Category
Socio-cultural
factors
Personal
dispositions
Charity
perceptions
Dispositions *
perceptions
Variable
H1a Age
H1b Gender
H1c Income
H1d Education
H2 Living
H3 Faith in humanity
H4 Spirituality
H5 Selfishness
H6 Effectiveness
H7 Efficiency
H8 Administrative
H9 Interaction
Money donations
Supported
Volunteered hours
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
35
Supported
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Discussion
In general
Many factors turned out to be insignificant. Overall, we could say that the perceptions on charities
weighed far more in the decision to make a donation. Education played with the edge of significance
several times, but was not found a consistent predictor of donations. It was later found to be
dominated by the other factors. Administrative tolerance was also found not to be a factor, even
when removing those of whom I suspected not understanding the question. (>80 could be spend on
such costs) This means that administrative tolerance – as a manifestation from concern for financial
management – is not considered when choosing whether or not to make a donation. The living
situation of the respondent also did not seem to matter. I presume there were conflicting forces at
work – yes, the non-urban respondents enjoy in general a lower income and thus donate less but it
was most likely offset by an opposing influx like a greater sense of community. Of course, many other
factors could influence the willingness to donate in a more or less subtle way. Further research has to
inquire into this question in a more detailed fashion.
On donating money
Those considering the charity to be efficient and effective were most willing to donate money. The
interaction effect sketches the reinforcing effect of both the individual disposition of being unselfish
as the external opinion that charities are effective. That is to say, someone with and an unselfish
disposition and a positive outlook on charities’ efficiency is even more likely to donate. These results
could be slightly skewered: the question inquiring about the degree of selfishness is less likely to be
answered by a selfish person. Therefore, those being selfish suffer a high probability of being
underrepresented in the survey.
The conclusion can be drawn that perceived effectiveness (average effectiveness score: 3.2 out of 5)
plays the strongest role in the decision to sacrifice money for the common good. It weighs heavier
than age, education or all the other factors included in this study. Charities could draw the inference
that they should advertise their effectiveness as their strongest trait, since their image with the
donating populace has been battered trough several scandals. Currently, advertising focuses on the
need of the beneficiaries, like their hunger or their lack of education or healthcare. If advertising
would focus on the results (effectiveness) and the little which it took to bring about a positive change
(efficiency) it could have a lot more effect and bring in far greater revenues than the current method.
36
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
On donating time
Those with a spiritual disposition and a belief in the effectiveness of charities are more likely to
donate their hours to a cause. This is interesting as the effect was not found in donating money. An
explanation could be that those involved in charity in order to help their neighbour feel better when
they are actively participating. Seeing the fruit of their labour directly could be more rewarding to
them than the rather distant transfer of money.
This could be used for several advertising approaches. As your pool of volunteers will consist of many
spiritually focussed, you could focus recruitment on target groups with this trademark. Also, when
recruiting, accentuating the effectiveness – how greatly you can contribute by volunteering little above all other traits can make put extra weight in the scale.
Interesting in both cases was the observation that not all of the previous research was confirmed;
not all the socio-demographic variables turned up significant. This could be because similar studies
are rare in the Netherlands and represent different populations but it is more likely that the other
factors dominated the dependent. We found just that when running a control regression. Concerning
the previous research it was interesting to find that indeed for money donations old predictors were
verified, but for time donations the known factors did not come into play:
Money
donations
Variable
H1a Age
H1b Gender
H1c Income
H1d Education
Volunteered
hours
β
P
β
P
.052
.000
-.003
.853
.056
.865
-.135
.696
.238
.027
-.051
.654
.375
.025
.133
.438
And thus we come to the fruition of the project with the invaluable conclusion that in the
contemporary highly competitive charity market it is highly recommendable to single out the main
reasons for donating time and money. We saw that perceptions on effectiveness and efficiency
highly influence the propensity to donate, and charities would do well to focus their advertisements
on removing the barriers which stand between the individual and his donation. Because after all, the
more one is willing to sacrifice for the common good, the more this world will profit.
37
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Limitations
The researched literature was from many different geographical areas, whereas our survey was
conducted in the Netherlands. It should be representative as we do not examine any cross-cultural
specific factors. Then, we asked whether the individual has donated time & money to charitable
causes. Despite the research being anonymous & confidential, it could be that some respondents feel
the urge to nudge up the actual amount of their altruistic behaviour. Also, when asked about prosocial behaviour the respondent could be tempted to list other behaviours than actually shown.
Anonymity should have mitigated this effect, but it is to be taken into account. The location where
the survey was conducted could also have posed a minor infringement on the striving towards
representativeness. Not all charitable persons are to be found in the centre of Rotterdam, and
perhaps slightly disinterested in shopping. The survey asking about selfishness deserves some
scrutiny as the survey was a voluntary service to the team; most likely the most selfish people are
unrepresented as they probably refused to participate in the survey.
38
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Future research
This is an incredible opportunity for charities, as further research can inquire into the practical
consequences of our discussion. One could confront respondents with different advertisements,
aiming to portray same beneficiary. The first advert could sketch how bad the beneficiary’s situation
is. The second advert could aim to describe how easily the boy was helped by a minor influx of
money. (An accent on efficiency in expenditures – i.e. 90% of your money ends up with them – could
harvest big support). Then, the respondents are asked what they deem to be a better destination for
their money. If this research proves to be positive and we find that the effect of help weighs more
than the intensity of the suffering in the decision to donate, we could see an entire shift in the focus
of charity advertising campaigns.
Follow-up research concerning volunteering can focus the success rate of recruitment efforts among
those absorbed in a spiritual activity at the time of contact? Are those spoken to after a church mass
more likely to contribute than those after another event? And, what if recruitment advertisements
focus on the contribution to be made with little effort instead of the great necessity to contribute?
In general more research has to be done about the motives for donating time. Volunteering may not
be as easy quantifiable as donating money, but reasons behind this kind of altruistic behaviour
deserve to be studied, for the very same reason that its monetary counterpart is: so many people
depend on other people’s efforts for a decent existence. More sophisticated models with more
variables should be constructed after some exploratory research into what drives people in striving
for a better world.
39
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Thanksgiving
For the inexhaustible patience and dedication of Ron van Schie, on whom I could always count during
the project. Even after the abandonment of the original plan, the same encouragement and
enthusiasm persisted throughout the many months.
My grandmother Elisabeth Bosch for reviewing the thesis and its language.
For my friends Rolf and Jill, who were kind enough to survey with me in the streets of Rotterdam.
For my family for supporting me on the academic journey.
40
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
References
Aronoff, J & Wilson, J.P. (1984) “Personality in the Social Process”, Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum
Arucry, T.A. & Christianson, E.H. (1993) “Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Knowledge and
Actions”, Journal of Environmental Education, 25(1) 19-25
Austin, W. (1979) “Sex Differences in Bystander Intervention in a Theft”, Journal of Personal and
Social Psychology, Volume 37(11) 2110-2120
Baily, A. & Bruce, M. (1992) "United Way: The Fallout After The Fall", Chronicle Of Philanthropy, Vol.
4(3) 30-32
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Leiser, T. (1980) “The Development of Altruistic Behaviour: Empirical Evidence”,
Developmental Psychology, Vol. 16(5) 516-524
Bell, M. (1992) “The Fruit of Difference; the Rural-Urban Continuum as a System of Identity”, Rural
Sociology, Vol. 57(1) 65-82
Bird, P. (1983) “What’s Wrong With Charity Accounts?” Accountancy, Vol. 94(1084) 55 (1p)
Britten, R.J. (1992) “Rates of DNA Sequence Evolution Differ Between Taxonomic Groups”, Science,
Vol. 231, Iss. 4744
Buckley, C. (2007) “Man is Rescued by Stranger on Subway Tracks”, NyTimes.Com, retrieved on
07/04/2009
Crawford, C. Smith, M & Krebs, D (1987) “Socio-biology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and
Applications” Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum
Danko, W. D. & Stanley, T. J. (1986) “Identifying and Reaching the Donation Prone Individual: A
Nationwide Assessment”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 2(1/2) 117-122
DeVoe, S. E. & Pfeffer, J. (2007), “When Time Is Money: The Effect of Hourly Payment on the
valuation of Time,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 104(1) 1-13
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. & Love, A. (1993) “Giving to Charity: Determinants of Cash
Donations trough Prompted Giving”, Maketing Theory and Application, Vol. 4 23-54
41
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Diepen, M. (2009) “Dynamics and Competition in Charitable Giving”, Erasmus University of
Rotterdam, PhD Thesis
Ebeling, A. (2005) “The Coming Charity Crackdown.” Forbes, August
Edmundson, B. (1986), ‘Who Gives to Charity?’, American Demographics, Iss. 11 45-49
Halfpenny, P. (1990) “Charity Household Survey 1988/8”, Charities Aid Foundation: Tonbridge
Eisenberg, N. & Miller, P.A. (1987) “The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Related Behaviours”
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 101(1) 91-119
Eagly, A.H. & Crowley, M. (1986) “Gender and Helping Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis Review of the
Social Psychological Literature”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 100(3) 283-308
Glenn, N. (1977) “Rural-Urban differences in Attitudes and Behaviour in the United States”, The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 429(1) 36-50
Giving USA Foundation (2007), “Annual Report on Philanthropy 2006,” http://www.aafrc.org
Retrieved on 07/05/2009
Glaeser, E., Liabson, D., Scheinkman, J. & Soutter, C. (2000) “Measuring Trust”, The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, Vol 115(3) 881-846
Halfpenny, P. (1991) “The 1989/90 Charity Household Survey”, In Charity Trends, Charities Aid
Foundation, Tonbridge.
Harvey, J. & McCrohan, K. (1988) “Fund-raising Costs - Societal Implications for Philanthropies and
Their Supporters’, Business and Society, Vol. 3(1) 14-28
Harvey, J. W. (1990) “Benefit Segmentation for Fund-Raisers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 18(1) 77-89
Harrison, D., Cummings, L. & Chervany, N. (1998) “Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational
Relationships”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28(3)
Henley Centre, (1997) "Planning for Social Change", Henley Centre, London
Herzlinger, R. (1996) "Can Public Trust in Nonprofits and Governments Be Restored?", Harvard
Business Review, Vol 74(3) 97-107
42
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Hill, J. (1984) “Human Altruism and Sociocultural Fitness”, Journal of Social and Structural Biology,
Vol 32(1) 1-22
Hoffman, M. L. (1981) “Is altruism part of human nature?”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 1(4) 232-339
Jones, A. & Posnett, J. (1991) “Charitable Donations by UK Households: Evidence from the Family
Expenditure Survey”, Applied Economics, Vol. 23(2) 343-351
Kitchen, H. & Dalton R. (1990) “Determinants of Charitable Donation by Families in Canada: A
Regional Analysis”, Applied Economics, Vol. 22(3) 285-299
Kramer, R. McClintock, C.G. & Messick, D.M. (1986) “Social Values and Cooperative Response to a
Simulated Resource Conservation Crisis” Journal of Personality, Vol 54(3) 576-582
Lee, YK. & Chang, CT. (2007) “Who Gives What to Charity? Characteristics Affecting Donation
Behaviour” Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 3(1) 14-28
Lui, W. & Aaker, J. (2008) “The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol 35(10) 543-557
Margolis, H. (1982) “Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Masserman, J.H., Stanley, W. & Terris, W. (1964) “Altruistic Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys”, The
American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 121 584-585
McGinn, B. (1993) “The letter and the spirit: Spirituality as an academic discipline.” Christian
Spirituality Bulletin, Vol. 17(3) 17-18
Mindak, W. & Bybee, H. (1971) “Marketing’s Application to Fund-Raising”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
35(3) 13-18
Motoki, I. Otani, T. Ohta, A. Yosiaki, S. Kuroiwa & M. Suzuki, S. (2002) “Rural-urban differences in
sociodemographic, social network and lifestyle factors related to mortality of middle-aged Japanese
men from the Komo-Ise cohort study” Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 12(2) 93-104
National Institute on Aging Working Group. (2003) “Multidimensional Measurement of
Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research” Fetzer Institute: Kalamazoo MI
43
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Oliner, S.P. & Oliner, P.M. (1988) “The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of the Jews in Nazi Europe”,
New York: Free Press.
Pandey, J. (1979) “Effects on Benefactor and Recipient Status on Helping Behaviour” Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol 18(1) 171-176
Piliavin, J.A. & Hong-Wen, C. (1990) “Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research”, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 16 p27-65
Posnett, J. (1989) “Determinants of Household Giving to Charity in the UK”, Sources of Charity
Finance, Charities Aid Foundation: Tonbridge
Reidenbach & Robin, D. (1990) “Towards the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving
Evaluations of Business Ethics “ Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9(8) 639-653
Repoport, A. (1988) “Provision of Step-level Public Goods; Effect of Inequality in Resources”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 432-440
Sargeant, A. (1999) "Charity Giving: Towards A Model of Donor Behaviour", Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15(4) 215-238
Sargeant, A. Stephen, L. (2002) “Individual and contextual antecedents of donor trust in the voluntary
sector” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18(7-8) 779-802
Saxton, J. 2004. “The Achilles’ Heel of Modern Non-Profits” International Journal of Nonprofit &
Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 9(3) 188-190
Schlegelmilch, B., Diamantopoulos, A. & Love, A. (1992) “Determinants of Charity Giving: An
Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Future Research”, AMA Winter
Educators Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3 507-516
Skowronski, J. (1997) “On the Psychology of Organ Donation: Attitudinal and Situational Factors
Related to the Willingness to Be an Organ Donor”, Basic & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19(4) 427456
Smith, A. (1759) “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, Indianapolis: Liberty Classics
Sober, E. (1988) “What is Evolutionary Altruism”, Canadian Journal on Philosophy, Vol. 14 75-99
44
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Staub, E. (1978) “Positive Social Behaviour and Morality”, New York: Academic Press
Steinberg, J. (1998) “Alumni to Give Brooklyn Tech Huge Donation”, NyTimes.com, retrieved on
07/05/2009
Thaler, H.T. (1999) “Mental Accounting Matters”, Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, Iss.12(3)
183-206
Tscheulin, D.K. & Lindenmeier, J. (2005) “The Willingness to Donate Blood: an Empirical Analysis of
Socio-demopgrahic and Motivation-related Determinants, Health Services Management Research,
Iss. 18 165-174
U.S. Labor Department, ‘Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (2007), http://www.bls.gov/, retrieved on
07/05/2007
Vine, J. (1983) “Sociobiology and Social Psychology – Rivalry or Symbiosis?”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 22(1) 1-11
West, L. A. (2004) “Non-profits Face Funding Pressures,” Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 198(11) 1-2
Yavas, U., Reicken, G. & Parameswaran, R. (1980) “Using Psychographics to Profile Potential Donors”,
Business Atlanta, Vol. 30 41-45
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., Chapman, M. (1992) “Development of Concern for
Others”, Developmental Psychology, Iss. 28 126-136
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I. & Scott, A. B. (1999) “The emerging meanings of religiousness and
spirituality: Problems and prospects”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 67(6) 889-919
45
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
46
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Appendix
I Factor analysis
Rotated Component Matrix I
Component
1
People are more inclined to help themselves than they are to help others
2
3
4
-.112
.258 .078 .286
You can’t count on strangers anymore
.072
.070 .853 .056
Most people would take advantage of you instead of being honest
.129
.036 .832 .160
Spirituality plays a prominent role in my life
.080
.277 .745 -.110
My spiritual beliefs help me to know right from wrong
.850
.018 .042 -.095
My whole approach to life is based on my spiritual beliefs
.906
.046 .204 -.042
My life’s mission is shaped by a higher power
.914
.050 .034 -.050
Fristly, I consider my own welfare, even if others have a hard time because
of it
I’m not really concerned about others if they have problems
I don’t bother if the things I do disturb others
.804 -.037 .008 .119
-.085 -.052 -.055 .634
.167 -.330 -.356 .532
I strive towards my desires, even if I realize that my striving causes problems
for others
Charities usually achieve their goals
.043 -.082 .035 .823
.012
.208 .185 .639
Charities often find the best way to releive suffering
.045
.780 .066 -.041
Charities understand the needs of their benificiaries
-.065
.709 .365 -.119
Of charities one can expect that they observe the changes in societies needs
-.012
.806 .181 .008
.156
.867 -.089 .119
You can’t count on strangers anymore
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
47
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Rotated Component Matrix II; after removal of faulty question
Component
1
2
3
4
Most people can’t be trusted
.074
.063
.853
.035
You can’t count on strangers anymore
.121
.050
.835
.170
Most people would take advantage of you instead of being honest
.086
.261
.744 -.143
Spirituality plays a prominent role in my life
.852
.021
.040 -.087
My spiritual beliefs help me to know right from wrong
.905
.055
.204 -.029
My whole approach to life is based on my spiritual beliefs
.916
.054
.033 -.042
My life’s mission is shaped by a higher power
.803 -.030
Fristly, I consider my own welfare, even if others have a hard time because
of it
I’m not really concerned about others if they have problems
I don’t bother if the things I do disturb others
I strive towards my desires, even if I realize that my striving causes
problems for others
Charities usually achieve their goals
.010
.128
-.096 -.040 -.045
.637
.162 -.320 -.350
.543
.030 -.066
.047
.829
.651
-.004
.229
.195
.036
.789
.067 -.039
Charities often find the best way to releive suffering
-.074
.716
.366 -.119
Charities understand the needs of their benificiaries
-.018
.805
.183 -.009
Of charities one can expect that they observe the changes in societies
needs
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
48
.148
.869 -.085
.105
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
II Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha; Faith in Humanity
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha
Standardized Items
N of Items
,662
,648
4
Item-Total Statistics; Faith in Humanity
Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected Item-
Squared
Cronbach's
if Item
Variance if
Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
Most people can’t be trusted
You can’t count on strangers
anymore
Most people would take
advantage of you instead of
being honest
People are more inclined to
help themselves than they
are to help others
9,64
5,144
,579
,397
,492
9,46
5,090
,561
,434
,505
8,98
5,821
,497
,265
,558
8,45
7,696
,160
,046
,750
Cronbach’s Alpha; Faith in Humanity after removing faulty question
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha
Standardized Items
,750
N of Items
,749
3
Item-Total Statistics; Faith in Humanity after removing faulty question
Scale
Corrected
Squared
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Variance if
Item-Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
De meeste mensen zijn niet te
vertrouwen
5,91
3,724
,597
,386
,645
Je kan niet meer op vreemden rekenen
5,73
3,447
,648
,430
,582
De meeste mensen zullen eerder
voordeel proberen te trekken dan
eerlijk zijn in een open situatie
5,26
4,371
,497
,252
,754
49
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Cronbach’s Alpha; Selfishness
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized
Cronbach's Alpha
Items
N of Items
,611
,612
4
Item-Total Statistics; Selfishness
Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected Item-
Squared
Cronbach's
if Item
Variance if
Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
Fristly, I consider my own welfare,
even if others have a hard time
because of it.
I’m not really concerned about
others if they have problems
I don’t bother if the things I do
disturb others
I strive towards my desires, even if
I realize that my striving causes
problems for others.
5,66
4,427
,305
,094
,603
6,04
4,162
,344
,172
,578
6,03
3,627
,556
,346
,409
5,95
4,298
,375
,235
,553
Cronbach’s Alpha; Selfishness after removing 2 faulty questions
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha
Standardized Items
N of Items
,643
,643
2
Item-Total Statistics; Selfishness after removing two questions
Corrected Item-
Squared
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
I don’t bother if the
things I do disturb
others
I strive towards my
desires, even if I realize
that my striving causes
problems for others.
1,95
,808
,474
,225 .a
1,87
,874
,474
,225 .a
a. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model
assumptions. You may want to check item codings.
Cronbach’s Alpha; Effectiveness
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha
Standardized Items
50
N of Items
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Cronbach’s Alpha; Faith in Humanity
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha
Standardized Items
,765
N of Items
,766
51
4
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Item-Total Statistics of Effectiveness
Charities are a very effective
form of organization
Charities often find the best
way to relieve suffering
Charities fully understand the
needs of their beneficiaries
Charities can be counted on to
monitor changes in the needs
of their beneficiaries.
Questions opted for deletion
Code
FaithQ1
SelfishQ1
SelfishQ2
Scale
Scale
Mean if
Variance if
Corrected
Squared
Cronbach's
Item
Item
Item-Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
10,04
4,181
,534
,334
,728
10,01
4,591
,552
,358
,716
9,57
4,211
,595
,434
,692
9,63
4,362
,581
,407
,700
Question
People are more inclined to help themselves
than they are to help others.
Fristly, I consider my own welfare, even if others
have a hard time because of it
I’m not really concerned about others if they
have problems
52
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
III Frequency tables
Gender
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Female
74
58.3
58.3
58.3
Male
53
41.7
41.7
100.0
Total
127
100.0
100.0
Household income
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Up to €1000
30
23.6
23.6
23.6
€1000 to €1500
15
11.8
11.8
35.4
€1500 to €2000
19
15.0
15.0
50.4
€2000 to €3000
36
28.3
28.3
78.7
€3000 to €5000
17
13.4
13.4
92.1
€5000 to €10000
4
3.1
3.1
95.3
More than €10000
6
4.7
4.7
100.0
127
100.0
100.0
Total
Village or city
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Village
37
29.1
29.1
29.1
City
90
70.9
70.9
100.0
Total
127
100.0
100.0
Level of education
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Elementary
7
5.5
5.5
5.5
High school
28
22.0
22.0
27.6
MBO
30
23.6
23.6
51.2
HBO
49
38.6
38.6
89.8
University
13
10.2
10.2
100.0
127
100.0
100.0
Total
53
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
54
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
IV Regression statistics
Willingness to donate money; general without interaction
Model Fitting Information; willingness to donate money
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
402.469
Final
331.648
df
70.820
Sig.
11
.000
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; willingness to donate money
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
567.758
787
1.000
Deviance
331.648
787
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; willingness to donate money
Cox and Snell
.460
Nagelkerke
.474
McFadden
.176
Link function: Logit.
55
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; willingness to donate money
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Threshold
Location
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
[Money = 1]
6.102
1.569
15.120
1
.000
3.026
9.178
[Money = 2]
7.306
1.604
20.731
1
.000
4.161
10.450
[Money = 3]
8.442
1.652
26.120
1
.000
5.205
11.680
[Money = 4]
9.588
1.709
31.465
1
.000
6.238
12.938
[Money = 5]
10.576
1.766
35.849
1
.000
7.114
14.038
[Money = 6]
11.113
1.802
38.048
1
.000
7.582
14.644
[Money = 7]
13.796
2.115
42.530
1
.000
9.650
17.942
.041
.008
24.044
1
.000
.025
.058
-.002
.009
.051
1
.822
-.020
.016
Age
.081
.017
23.276
1
.000
.048
.113
Income
.135
.129
1.101
1
.294
-.117
.387
Education
.246
.195
1.585
1
.208
-.137
.629
FaithAvg
-.216
.221
.960
1
.327
-.650
.217
SpiritAvg
.095
.166
.329
1
.566
-.230
.421
SelfAvg
.065
.292
.049
1
.824
-.508
.637
EffectAvg
.700
.292
5.730
1
.017
.127
1.273
[Gender=1]
-.227
.371
.376
1
.540
-.954
.499
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
-.198
.415
.229
1
.632
-1.011
.614
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Efficient
Administrative
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
56
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate money; individual dispositions
Model Fitting Information; individual dispositions
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
452.168
Final
410.050
df
42.117
Sig.
8
.000
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; individual dispositions
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
783.462
790
.559
Deviance
410.050
790
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; individual dispositions
Cox and Snell
.279
Nagelkerke
.287
McFadden
.093
Link function: Logit.
57
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; individual dispositions
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate
Threshold
Location
Std. Error
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
[Money = 1]
1.838
1.155
2.533
1
.112
-.426
4.102
[Money = 2]
2.782
1.170
5.655
1
.017
.489
5.076
[Money = 3]
3.797
1.189
10.197
1
.001
1.466
6.127
[Money = 4]
4.658
1.208
14.881
1
.000
2.291
7.025
[Money = 5]
5.474
1.231
19.773
1
.000
3.061
7.887
[Money = 6]
5.994
1.253
22.901
1
.000
3.539
8.449
[Money = 7]
8.301
1.599
26.963
1
.000
5.167
11.434
Age
.047
.014
10.736
1
.001
.019
.075
Income
.267
.119
5.056
1
.025
.034
.500
Education
.290
.180
2.599
1
.107
-.063
.642
FaithAvg
-.103
.200
.266
1
.606
-.496
.289
SpiritAvg
.150
.153
.960
1
.327
-.150
.451
SelfAvg
-.240
.276
.758
1
.384
-.781
.300
[Gender=1]
-.053
.340
.025
1
.875
-.720
.613
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
-.148
.387
.146
1
.703
-.906
.611
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
58
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate money; attitudes towards charity
Model Fitting Information; attitudes towards charity
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
404.666
Final
333.874
df
70.792
Sig.
8
.000
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; attitudes towards charity
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
583.555
790
1.000
Deviance
333.874
790
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; attitudes towards charity
Cox and Snell
.457
Nagelkerke
.471
McFadden
.175
Link function: Logit.
59
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; attitudes towards charity
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Threshold
Location
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
[Money = 1]
6.437
1.326
23.556
1
.000
3.838
9.037
[Money = 2]
7.627
1.369
31.054
1
.000
4.944
10.309
[Money = 3]
8.749
1.426
37.634
1
.000
5.954
11.544
[Money = 4]
9.889
1.496
43.707
1
.000
6.957
12.820
[Money = 5]
10.866
1.563
48.303
1
.000
7.802
13.930
[Money = 6]
11.398
1.604
50.495
1
.000
8.254
14.542
[Money = 7]
14.077
1.942
52.564
1
.000
10.272
17.883
Age
.087
.016
29.724
1
.000
.056
.118
Income
.100
.120
.690
1
.406
-.136
.336
Education
.288
.189
2.315
1
.128
-.083
.659
Efficient
.042
.008
25.226
1
.000
.026
.059
-.002
.009
.038
1
.846
-.019
.016
.640
.277
5.331
1
.021
.097
1.183
[Gender=1]
-.229
.364
.395
1
.530
-.943
.485
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
-.251
.403
.390
1
.533
-1.041
.538
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Administrative
EffectAvg
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
60
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate money; general including interactions
Model Fitting Information; general including interactions
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
402.469
Final
324.663
df
77.805
Sig.
12
.000
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; general including interactions
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
515.793
786
1.000
Deviance
324.663
786
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; general including interactions
Cox and Snell
.492
Nagelkerke
.507
McFadden
.193
Link function: Logit.
61
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; general including interactions
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Threshold [Money = 1]
12.623
3.036
17.289
1
.000
6.673
18.573
[Money = 2]
13.845
3.067
20.375
1
.000
7.833
19.857
[Money = 3]
15.013
3.107
23.351
1
.000
8.924
21.103
[Money = 4]
16.225
3.161
26.346
1
.000
10.030
22.421
[Money = 5]
17.317
3.224
28.847
1
.000
10.998
23.636
[Money = 6]
17.921
3.265
30.121
1
.000
11.521
24.321
[Money = 7]
20.708
3.542
34.179
1
.000
13.766
27.651
[Gender=1]
-.293
.375
.611
1
.434
-1.029
.442
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
-.432
.427
1.024
1
.311
-1.268
.404
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Age
.070
.017
16.246
1
.000
.036
.104
Income
.177
.130
1.836
1
.175
-.079
.432
Education
.226
.197
1.316
1
.251
-.160
.612
Efficient
.042
.009
24.342
1
.000
.025
.059
Administrative
-.003
.009
.116
1
.733
-.021
.015
EffectAvg
2.860
.894
10.240
1
.001
1.108
4.612
FaithAvg
-.231
.224
1.063
1
.303
-.670
.208
SpiritAvg
.132
.167
.618
1
.432
-.197
.460
SelfAvg
3.274
1.285
6.488
1
.011
.755
5.793
-1.016
.396
6.593
1
.010
-1.791
-.240
Location
EffectAvg *
SelfAvg
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
62
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate time; general without interactions
Model Fitting Information; willingness to donate time
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
287.312
Final
272.261
df
15.051
Sig.
11
.180
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; willingness to donate time
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
481.001
559
.992
Deviance
272.261
559
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; willingness to donate time
Cox and Snell
.123
Nagelkerke
.134
McFadden
.052
Link function: Logit.
63
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; willingness to donate time
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Threshold
Location
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
[Volunteer = 1]
2.933
1.613
3.307
1
.069
-.228
6.094
[Volunteer = 2]
4.238
1.639
6.683
1
.010
1.025
7.451
[Volunteer = 3]
4.894
1.656
8.740
1
.003
1.650
8.139
[Volunteer = 4]
5.305
1.668
10.115
1
.001
2.036
8.574
[Volunteer = 5]
5.566
1.677
11.009
1
.001
2.278
8.854
Age
-.016
.017
.943
1
.331
-.050
.017
Income
.029
.137
.045
1
.833
-.240
.298
Education
.184
.208
.783
1
.376
-.223
.591
FaithAvg
.043
.233
.034
1
.853
-.413
.500
SpiritAvg
.387
.176
4.864
1
.027
.043
.731
SelfAvg
.027
.310
.008
1
.930
-.581
.636
EffectAvg
.632
.312
4.110
1
.043
.021
1.242
Efficient
-.003
.008
.108
1
.742
-.018
.013
Administrative
-.010
.010
1.012
1
.314
-.031
.010
[Gender=1]
-.511
.393
1.690
1
.194
-1.281
.259
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
.275
.440
.391
1
.532
-.587
1.136
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
64
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate time; individual dispositions
Model Fitting Information; individual dispositions
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
319.952
Final
308.480
df
11.473
Sig.
8
.176
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; individual dispositions
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
590.084
562
.199
Deviance
308.480
562
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; individual dispositions
Cox and Snell
.085
Nagelkerke
.093
McFadden
.036
Link function: Logit.
65
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; individual dispositions
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Threshold
Location
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
[Volunteer = 1]
1.248
1.214
1.058
1
.304
-1.130
3.627
[Volunteer = 2]
2.497
1.230
4.123
1
.042
.087
4.907
[Volunteer = 3]
3.269
1.246
6.889
1
.009
.828
5.710
[Volunteer = 4]
3.657
1.258
8.455
1
.004
1.192
6.122
[Volunteer = 5]
3.906
1.268
9.495
1
.002
1.422
6.391
Age
-.014
.015
.804
1
.370
-.044
.016
Income
.057
.128
.199
1
.655
-.194
.308
Education
.037
.188
.039
1
.843
-.331
.406
FaithAvg
.070
.214
.108
1
.742
-.349
.490
SpiritAvg
.458
.167
7.533
1
.006
.131
.785
SelfAvg
-.060
.290
.042
1
.837
-.629
.510
[Gender=1]
-.265
.361
.540
1
.462
-.973
.442
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
.503
.404
1.548
1
.213
-.290
1.296
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
66
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate time; charity perceptions
Model Fitting Information; charity perceptions
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
288.509
Final
279.201
df
9.308
Sig.
8
.317
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; charity perceptions
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
506.964
562
.953
Deviance
279.201
562
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; charity perceptions
Cox and Snell
.077
Nagelkerke
.084
McFadden
.032
Link function: Logit.
67
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; charity perceptions
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Threshold
Location
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
[Volunteer = 1]
2.490
1.333
3.488
1
.062
-.123
5.102
[Volunteer = 2]
3.746
1.360
7.592
1
.006
1.081
6.411
[Volunteer = 3]
4.382
1.378
10.116
1
.001
1.682
7.082
[Volunteer = 4]
4.782
1.392
11.800
1
.001
2.053
7.510
[Volunteer = 5]
5.036
1.403
12.883
1
.000
2.286
7.786
Age
-.007
.016
.215
1
.643
-.039
.024
Income
-.067
.127
.281
1
.596
-.316
.181
Education
.316
.201
2.477
1
.116
-.077
.709
EffectAvg
.723
.309
5.496
1
.019
.119
1.328
Efficient
-.002
.008
.072
1
.789
-.018
.013
Administrative
-.013
.010
1.623
1
.203
-.033
.007
[Gender=1]
-.472
.381
1.537
1
.215
-1.218
.274
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
.102
.421
.058
1
.809
-.723
.926
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
68
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Willingness to donate time; general with interaction
Model Fitting Information; general with interaction
Model
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-Square
Intercept Only
287.312
Final
271.041
df
16.272
Sig.
12
.179
Link function: Logit.
Goodness-of-Fit; general with interaction
Chi-Square
df
Sig.
Pearson
487.653
558
.985
Deviance
271.041
558
1.000
Link function: Logit.
Pseudo R-Square; general with interaction
Cox and Snell
.132
Nagelkerke
.144
McFadden
.057
Link function: Logit.
69
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Parameter Estimates; general with interaction
95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Std. Error
Wald
df
Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Threshold [Volunteer = 1]
6.018
3.135
3.686
1
.055
-.126
12.162
[Volunteer = 2]
7.337
3.160
5.391
1
.020
1.143
13.531
[Volunteer = 3]
8.000
3.173
6.358
1
.012
1.781
14.219
[Volunteer = 4]
8.415
3.181
6.997
1
.008
2.180
14.651
[Volunteer = 5]
8.681
3.187
7.417
1
.006
2.434
14.928
[Gender=1]
-.527
.394
1.792
1
.181
-1.299
.245
[Gender=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
[Village=1]
.196
.446
.193
1
.661
-.679
1.070
[Village=2]
0a
.
.
0
.
.
.
-.022
.018
1.528
1
.216
-.057
.013
Income
.045
.139
.106
1
.745
-.227
.317
Education
.184
.210
.770
1
.380
-.227
.595
EffectAvg
1.604
.918
3.051
1
.081
-.196
3.404
Efficient
-.003
.008
.120
1
.729
-.019
.013
Administrative
-.011
.010
1.070
1
.301
-.031
.010
FaithAvg
.049
.235
.044
1
.834
-.412
.510
SpiritAvg
.398
.177
5.042
1
.025
.051
.746
SelfAvg
1.556
1.351
1.326
1
.249
-1.092
4.204
EffectAvg *
-.467
.405
1.328
1
.249
-1.260
.327
Location
Age
SelfAvg
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
Interactions checked for donated money (significance levels only)
Faith in humanity
Spirituality
Selfishness
Effectiveness
0,123
0,963
0,010
Efficiency
0,882
0,640
0,102
Administrative
0,646
0,488
0,148
Interactions checked for volunteered hours (significance levels only)
Faith in humanity
Spirituality
Effectiveness
0,159
0,171
Efficiency
0,249
0,745
70
Administrative
0,633
0,893
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Selfishness
0,249
0,232
0,792
Questionnaire content
The past year, I’ve transfered to a charitable organisation:
Nothing
€ 1 to € 25
€ 25 to €50
€ 50 to € 100
€ 100 to € 250
€ 250 to € 500
€ 500 to € 1000
More than € 1000
I functioned as a volunteer for a charitable organization:
(on average)
No time last year
Sometimes
1 hour a week
5 hours a week
10 hours a week
More than 10 hours p/w
Questions measuring ‘faith in humanity’;
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
People are more inclined to help themselves
than they are to help others:
Most people can’t be trusted:
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
You can’t count on strangers anymore:
1
2
3
4
5
Most people would take advantage of you instead
Of being honest:
1
2
3
4
5
71
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Questions measuring ‘spirituality’
Strongly disagree
Spirituality plays a prominent role in my life:
1
My spiritual beliefs help me to know right from wrong:
1
2
2
Strongly agree
3
3
4
4
5
5
My whole approach to life is based
on my spiritual beliefs:
1
2
3
4
5
My life’s mission is shaped by a higher power:
1
2
3
4
5
Questions measuring ‘selfishness’
Strongly disagree
Fristly, I consider my own welfare, even if others have a
hard time because of it:
I’m not really concerned about others if they have problems:
1
1
2
2
Strongly agree
3
3
4
4
5
5
I don’t bother if the things I do disturb others:
1
2
3
4
5
I strive towards my desires, even if I realize that my
striving causes problems for others:
1
2
3
4
5
Questions measuring ‘effectiveness’
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Charities usually achieve their goals:
1
2
3
4
5
Charities often find the best way to releive suffering:
1
2
3
4
5
Charities understand the needs of their benificiaries:
1
2
3
4
5
Of charities one can expect that they observe the changes
in societies needs:
72
1
2
3
4
5
Charitable & Willing
October 26, 2009
Questions measuring’ efficiency & administrative tolerance’;
How many cents of every donated euro ends up – according
to you – at the benificiary.
cents
How many cents of every donated euro – according to
you, can the charity spend on organizational costs?
cents
Gender:
Female
Male
Age (in years)
__________ Years
Family income (monthley):
Up to 1000€
€1000 to €1500
€ 1500 to €2000
€ 2000 to €3000
€ 3000 to €5000
€ 5000 to €10.000
More than €10.000
I live in a;
Village (less than
25.000 inhabitants)
City (more than
25.000 inhabitants)
Education:(finished, mark highest)
Elementary school
High school
MBO
HBO
University
73