Donation Behavior

concourse E Group E VU University 2011-2012 VU University 2011-2012 Donation Behaviour Noortje Vlek 2500825, Danny Kornman 2500148, Nicole Prince 2163470 Business Research Methods IBA1. 04 fourteenth of October 2010 Teacher Maria Aladjem T sufficient of Contents 1. psychiatric hospital and problem statement3 2. dead reckoning Development4 2. 1 individual(prenominal) joining to the arrange and role to present4 2. 2 unplayful blemish individualality of a non-profit make-up and plan to present4 2. 3 Income in relation to the heading to present5 3. Method6 3. 1 Sample & Procedure6 3. 2 Mea authorizedment instruments6 3. statistical analyses7 4. Results8 4. 1 descriptive statistics8 4. 2 A ain concern to the type has a electropositive effect on the intention to present. (hypothesis 1)9 4. 3 A wide-cut grime character of a non-profit memorial tablet has a positive effect on the intention to present. (hypothesis 2)9 4. 4 mass with higher(prenominal) income ar mu ch than plausibly to donate than throng with impose income. (hypothesis 3)9 5. Conclusion and Discussion11 5. 1 Conclusions11 5. 2 Shortcomings and prospective look into11 5. 3 Theoretical implications12 5. 4 Practical implications12 References12 1. Introduction and problem statement nonprofit organizations be providing many critical function (e. g. culture activities, environmental issues, education, healthcargon) since the 16th century (Venable, Rose, Bush & Gilbert, 2005). But in the last couple of decades Non-profit organizations atomic number 18 facing a lot of difficulties. organization has decided to reduce costs and thitherfore a signifi locoweedt reducing in goernmental funding of donation programs has been made. (Venable, Rose, Bush & Gilbert, 2005) For instance, in England, g everyplacenment has decided to cut in charity funding. Non-profit sector in England leave receive ? 10m little this year. Government regulations atomic number 18 non the only hassle n on-profit organizations confine to deal with. Due to the economic crisis, the donations of non-profit organizations are decreasing. Only 12% of the non-profit organizations in the United States of the States expect to run above the break-even drumhead this year. Non-profit organizations that think they are able to cover their operating expenses is only 16 percent in both 2009 and 2010. hatful are saving rather than spending their money. The first cost they cut is giving money to charity. This is why the economy is slowly recovering.But at the corresponding clock time the account of volunteers is increasing. Number of non-profit organizations has shown an explicit growth. In 1940 there were only 12. 500 non-profit organizations, in the United States of America. Today there are over 1,500,000 non-profit organizations registered. This is an increase of 12,000 %. Which clue to much much competition in the non-profit organizations sector. Therefore non-profit organizations are r eceiving less money. If we sum up every last(predicate) the above we come to following interrogation misgiving What are the factors that incur an effect on the intention to donate? . assumption Development 2. 1 individualised bond to the baffle and intention to donate To convince hatful to donate to a charity, it is central for non-profit organizations to read that population who fork up a come to to the purpose of an organization are more likely to help them realizing their goals. Previous studies conduct shown that when an individual has a individual(prenominal)ised amour to the goal of a non-profit organization, he or she result probably be more likely to donate to this organization (Sargeant & Woodlife, 2007) E. g.If psyche has just been cured of cancer, this person knows how it is feels how it is to go through such an get it on and would be more likely to donate to an organization that does research on a cure for this disease, like the American Cancer Socie ty (ACS). The person donating doesnt only do so because he/she has been told what good it would do for new(prenominal)s, but mainly because this person has gone square the same scram as the one universe donated to. The impact of this experience leads to a true donor. Therefore we expect that the more an individual is connectored to the cause of an organization, the more likely this person is exiting to donateH1 A personal link to the cause has a positive direct effect on the intention to donate. 2. 2 Good mug personality of a non-profit organization and intention to donate Another factor that plays a role in donating is firebrand personality. As can be read in previous studies, non-profit organizations with a bad reputation discourage people from donating to these organizations (Knowles & Gomes, 2010). For instance Greenpeace has a real aggressive way of disapproving of indispu put over companies or even certain government policies. They are often accused of being involve d in illegal acts.This puts this organization in a difficult spot. People who are thinking of becoming a donor willing pose this into account. That is why it is grave for a non-profit to have a good reputation. This can be achieved, for example, by providing a good service quality, keeping the donor apprised what the organization is doing to reach their goal, but to a fault how their money is being spent. For instance, if a manager of a large non-profit organization has an absurd high salary, people will lose their trust in the organization because they are not comfortable with the way their money is being spent.Therefore we assume it is needful for an organization to be clear about their mission in localise to create donor loyalty H2 A good brand personality of a non-profit organization has a positive direct effect on the intention to donate. 2. 3 Income in relation to the intention to donate People with a high level of income are more likely to donate to a non-profit organiz ation, because these people are able to buy their necessity goods, take care of their family and are overall secure enough not have to worry about an uncertain future (Knowles & Gomes, 2010).As mentioned in the introduction, a higher level of income is defined as an income that is above quantity, which is 65. 000 dollar a year. People with an income below standard are not al shipway able to buy their necessity goods and cant afford to donate. Lets take students for example. They are already having problems coming around with their income and are not certain about their future, which will not lead to donating. Therefore we can posit H3 People with higher income are more likely to donate than people with lower income. The hypothesis relationships are explained in figure 1. range of a function 1 Conceptual setInfluences on donation Personal link to the cause Good brand personality Intention to donate Income Personal link to the cause Good brand personality Intention to donate Income Socio-Demographic Difference 3. Method 3. 1 Sample & Procedure When it comes to analysing the intention to donate, we are confronted with large relevant population. Since there arent many requirements to become a donor, it is possible for anyone to donate to a non-profit organization. By approaching our unit of summary (18+) through an online questionnaire we would like to get a let on view on the intention to donate.This was done with the use of non-probability samples, where not all elements have the same chance of being included in a sample. In our lineament we chose for the convenience sampling, since our population is quite vague and hard to define. This way we could be unrestricted, and it is easy to perform. The disadvantages that must be dealt with when it comes to projecting a survey are that questions often remain multi-interpretable, the lack depth because of hold preparedness, and the respondents are more likely to give a socially acceptable answer.Some ways to so lve these problems are that every consumer must receive an e-mail invitation to act in a survey. This gives the company a chance to make sure that the same name and contact information isnt already assigned to some other e-mail address in the system. Also a minimum time for completing an online survey can be set. This cuts down on cheaters who zap through the survey just randomly answering questions. 3. 2 meter instruments An online questionnaire was created for respondents to participate in the survey using the following measurement instruments. individual variables Personal link to the cause was thrifty with four ways of being connected to the charity (i. e. , Someone I know has been effected by the issues dealt with by this charity, Someone I know might benefit from my support, My family has a strong link to this charity, This cause is not related to an important saying of my life). A sum score was calculated by adding up the responses to the question whether respondents w ere offered these four options. Responses ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).Good brand personality was careful by the quality of the brand name, with the availability of seven options (i. e. , Honest, loving, compassionate, Reputable, Committed, Reliable, Financially stable). A sum score was calculated by adding up responses to the question whether respondents were offered these heptad options. Responses on this two sum score ranged from 1(completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Incomer was measured by asking respondents whether they had an income that was lower(0) or higher(1) than $65. 000. parasitical variableIntention to donate was measured with three statements Unlikely-Likely, Improbable-probable, Uncertain-certain. Respondents could answer on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). 3. 3 Statistical analyses With the purpose of testing the three hypotheses presented above, three analyses are performed. In order to test the first hypothesis (A personal link to the cause has a positive effect on the intention to do) a atavism analysis will be calculated between the personal link to the cause and the intention to.The second hypothesis (A good brand personality of a non-profit organization has a positive effect on the intention to donate) is also tested via a regression analysis in which a higher good brand personality has an effect on the intention to donate. The third hypothesis (People with higher income are more likely to donate than people with lower income) is tested by means of an independent samples t-test. For all analyses, test values (r in case of the regressions and t in case of the t-test) with a significance of p?. 05 are deemed significant. 4. Results 4. 1 Descriptive statisticsBefore we start testing our hypothesis, there is a need to go off the information obtained by interviewing the unit of analyses in order to check whether there are any outliers or undefined val ues. We reviewed the item range, percentages, means and standard deviation Results of this review are shown in table 1. Table 1 Variables, Ranges, Percentages, Means and Standard Deviation Variable Range Percentage Mean, SD Personal link to the cause 1. 25 7. 00 - M= 4. 80 SD = 1. 03 Good brand personality 2. 14 6. 34 - M = 4. 60 SD = 0. 90 Income 0 1 0. (less than 65,000) = 47%1. (more than 65,000) = 53% - Intention to donate 1. 0 7. 00 - M= 4. 95 SD=0. 90 Seemingly, the data collected do not hold any outliers. Therefore the next step can be taken, which is to take in these descriptive analyses. As can be seen in the table above, in a general sense the respondents interpreted a personal link to the cause and a good brand personality quite high. The data shows that on average the respondents offered both, personal link as a good brand personality a 5. The income division is almost 50-50, and in a general sense the respondents had an above average intention to donate. Now we e scape on to the hypothesis testing analyze.The overall fit of the model The 5. 9% of the variance of the dependent variable is explained by the model including the two independent variables. 4. 2 A personal link to the cause has a positive effect on the intention to donate. (Hypothesis 1) Hypothesis 1 was tested with a regression analysis. This way we can plant whether a (higher) personal link to the cause also leads also to the intention to donate. The raw(prenominal) SPSS issue will be given in Appendix 1. As indicated by the analysis, the regression reveals a positive and insignificant effect between a personal link and the intention to donate (? -. 053 p0. 26). Therefore, we have to reject Hypothesis 1. 4. 3 A good brand personality of a non-profit organization has a positive effect on the intention to donate. (Hypothesis 2) Hypothesis 2 was also tested with a regression analysis. This way we can determine whether a good brand personality leads to an intention to donate. The raw SPSS output will be given in Appendix 1. As indicated by the analysis, the regression reveals a positive and significant effect between a personal link and the intention to donate (? =0. 26, p0. 001). Therefore, we Hypothesis 2 is supported. . 4 People with higher income are more likely to donate than people with lower income. (Hypothesis 3) Hypothesis 3 was tested with an independent samples t-test. The raw SPSS output is given in Appendix 1. As indicated by the t-test, people with a higher income (M=5. 11) are significantly more likely to donate than people with a lower income (M=4. 86). (p 0. 02). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported. In table 2 a summary of this studys hypotheses will be given as well as the results of all hypothesis-testing analyses. Table 2 Summary of hypothesis and results Hypothesis ResultH1 A personal link to the cause has a positive effect on the intention to donate. non supported H2 A good brand personality of a non-profit organization has a positi ve effect on the intention to donate. Supported H3 People with higher income are more likely to donate than people with lower income. Supported 5. Conclusion and Discussion 5. 1 Conclusions In this study we have discussed two different factors (a personal link to the cause and brand personality) that have an effect on the intention to donate between people with higher income and people with lower income.According to the results of our regression analysis, people who have a personal link to the cause of a non-profit organization are not more likely to donate then people who dont have a personal link to the non-profit organization. A possible rendering for this unexpected finding is that a personal link to the cause is an important factor for these organizations, but not sufficient for people to become more likely to donate. Previous studies have shown that there is a significant divergence in the intention to donate and a personal link to the cause (Sargeant Woodliffe 2007).A po ssible explanation for this unexpected finding is that there were not a lot of people in our survey who had a personal link to the cause. As we expected from our hypothesis people are and so more likely to donate to a non profit organization with a good brand personality than to an organization with a perverse brand personality. The expected difference in the intention to donate between people with a higher income and people with a lower income was found in our analysis. According to our data, people are indeed more likely to donate when their income becomes higher.With this information we can conclude that people take their income into account when it comes to do a donation. 5. 2 Shortcomings and future research One of the shortcomings of our study lies in the fact that we might have had some multi-interpretable questions with the lack of depth because of limited preparedness. A second restriction is that our analysis might be influenced by some personal bias. It could be that pe ople were influenced to give a social responsible answer. The third limitation is based on the fact that all our data was collected at one point at the time.If we would have found for example that people with a personal link to the cause were more likely to donate, we still could not conclude that this will forever be the case therefore you have to collect data over a longer period of time. If we sum up all shortcomings, future research on the intention to donate should concenter on victorious the survey separately, so that people could not influence each other and therefore not the outcome of the data. The data should be collected over a longer period of time to get a better insight if people with a higher income change their donation behavior. . 3 Theoretical implications What do we learn from this study? Was existing theory confirm or rejected? One theoretical assumption of this research is that a personal link to the cause and brand personality would lead to a higher intentio n to donate. This study shows however that this is not necessarily true according to the personal link to the cause of a nonprofit organization. Moreover, this research has shown that a higher income would have a positive effect on the intention to donate, as we expected. 5. 4 Practical implicationsOne of the most important implications of the results we have found is that in practice non-profit organizations should not only focus on a certain group of potential donors, but also come in contact with them through information. This way the donor will feel like a part of the organization as a whole. By letting the donors know what their future plans, initiatives and successes are. These organizations should try to find wide awake donors who will eventually become dedicated to their cause and will donate themselves. References Smith, N. 2011, August 2), Charities hit by funding cuts BBC News UK. Retrieved 16 November 2011 from http//www. bbc. co. uk/password/uk-politics-14366522 McKenn a, T and Noble, C. (2009, March 3). Non profit Finance Fund Survey Americas Nonprofit in danger. Non profit finance fund. Retrieved16 November 2011 from http//nonprofitfinancefund. org/news/2009/nonprofit-finance-fund-survey-americas-nonprofits-danger Rabe Thomase, J. (2010, June 21) In recession, non-profit agencies see volunteers increase as funding shrinks. The CT Mirror. Retrieved 11 November 2011 from http//ctmirror. rg/ composition/6460/non-profits-gaining%20volunteers bfy. (2008) Non-profits in Carlisle History of Non-profits in the U. S. Carlisle History.. Retrieved 18 November 2011 from http//carlislehistory. dickinson. edu/? page_id=278 bfy. (n. d. ) Knowledge Base. Grant space. Retrieved 11 November 2011 from http//grantspace. org/Tools/Knowledge-Base/Funding-Research/Statistics/Number-of-nonprofits-in-the-U. S n. d. The Jakarta post,. Retrieved 23 November 2011 from http//www. thejakartapost. com/news/2011/10/26/lawmakers-accuse-greenpeace-illegal-activities. tml Brunel, F. F. , and Nelson. M. R. (2000). Explaining Gendered Responses to Help-Self and Help-Others munificence Ad Appeals The Mediating Role of World-Views. ledger of Advertising, XXIX (3), 15-28. Knowles, P. , & Gomes, R. (2010). Building Relationships with Major-Gift Donors A Major-Gift Decision-Making, Relationship-Building imitate. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector selling, 21 (4), 384-406. Sargeant, A. , & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Building Donor homage The Antecedents and Role of Commitment in the Context of Charity Giving.Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18 (2), 47-68. Venable, B. T. , Rose, G. M. , Bush, V. D. , & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving An Assessment and Validation. Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (3), 295-312. White, K. , & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal of Marketing, 73 (July), 109-124. Appendix 1. knifelik e SPSS Output Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 Regression Variables Entered/RemovedbModel Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Mean_Brandpersonality, Mean_PersonalLinka . Enter a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable Mean_intention Model Summary Model R R material Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 ,242a ,059 ,054 ,86641 a. Predictors (Constant), Mean_Brandpersonality, Mean_PersonalLink ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 17,971 2 8,985 11,970 ,000a Residual 289,004 385 ,751 Total 306,975 387 a.Predictors (Constant), Mean_Brandpersonality, Mean_PersonalLink b. Dependent Variable Mean_intention Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 4,012 ,258 15,523 ,000 Mean_PersonalLink -,053 ,048 -,062 -1,122 ,263 Mean_Brandpersonality ,258 ,054 ,262 4,780 ,000 Hypothesis 3 T-test Group Statistics What is your current income N Mean Std. Deviatio n Std. Error Mean Mean_intention = 3 152 4,8618 ,90656 ,07353 3 135 5,1136 ,89235 ,07680