2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Choosing your charity: The importance of value congruence in two-stage donation choices

Abstract: Charitable donations constitute choices, and donors' values influence both the choice to donate and the selected nonprofit organization (NPO). The current study proposes a new instrument to measure NPO values. The proposed two-stage analytical procedure is novel in this research area. The first stage shows that the personal value of universalism drives the general decision to donate. The second stage reveals that donating to a specific NPO depends on the congruency between the NPO values of the organization an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Charitable giving research traditionally focuses on reasons for donating (Andorfer & Otte, 2013;Bennett, 2003), although we have recently witnessed increasing outputs focusing specifically on how donors select charities to support (Chapman et al, 2018;Feeny et al, 2019;Neumayr & Handy, 2019;van Dijk et al, 2019). It has been suggested that donors do not necessarily deliberate extensively when selecting charities but base their choices on heuristic cues such as the credibility of charity patrons or friendships with fundraisers (Breeze, 2013).…”
Section: Charitable Choice and Differences In Donation Preferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Charitable giving research traditionally focuses on reasons for donating (Andorfer & Otte, 2013;Bennett, 2003), although we have recently witnessed increasing outputs focusing specifically on how donors select charities to support (Chapman et al, 2018;Feeny et al, 2019;Neumayr & Handy, 2019;van Dijk et al, 2019). It has been suggested that donors do not necessarily deliberate extensively when selecting charities but base their choices on heuristic cues such as the credibility of charity patrons or friendships with fundraisers (Breeze, 2013).…”
Section: Charitable Choice and Differences In Donation Preferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, the present work responds to calls for research that measures actual behavior (e.g., Baumeister et al, 2007;Furr, 2009), especially when aiming to gain insight into people's choices and decisions (e.g., Morales et al, 2017). However, to the best of our knowledge, only one study investigated the impact of personal values on actual donations to pro-environmental charities (e.g., Clements et al, 2015; see also van Dijk et al, 2019, for donations to various charities). As such, it is important to investigate whether the effect of values on actual donations would replicate when tested in a very different manner.…”
mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Financial support is critical to nonprofit organizations, since it enables them to fund their charitable programs – aimed at providing a wide variety of public services, including educational, health, essential community services or those with an environmental purpose – and legitimizes their existence (Bolton, 2020; Cheung et al. , 2017; van Dijk et al. , 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In an attempt to respond to these societal challenges, service scholars highlight the need for creating relevant research that improves well-being (Ostrom et al, 2015;Rahman, 2020) and underscore the central role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and their societal relevance within the service ecosystem (Finsterwalder et al, 2021). Financial support is critical to nonprofit organizations, since it enables them to fund their charitable programsaimed at providing a wide variety of public services, including educational, health, essential community services or those with an environmental purposeand legitimizes their existence (Bolton, 2020;Cheung et al, 2017;van Dijk et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%