Suchergebnisse

Trust is assumed to be important for charitable giving. However, disparate associations have been found, and recent theoretical approaches emphasize motives for giving that do not rely on trust. To resolve this tension, we conducted a systematic review of evidence generated between 1988 and 2020. A meta-analysis of 69 effect sizes from 42 studies sampling 81,604 people in 31 countries confirmed a positive association between trust and giving across diverse measures, r = .22. Meta-regressions showed that organizational ( r = .35) and sectoral trust ( r = .27) were more strongly associated with giving than were generalized ( r = .11) or institutional trust ( r = .14). The relationship was also stronger in non-western (vs Western) countries and in nonrepresentative (vs nationally representative) samples. All evidence was correlational, and few studies measured actual behavior. We discuss implications for theories of trust and for fundraising practice, and highlight critical gaps in evidence.

Recent high-profile scandals suggest the potential for a crisis of trust in charities, which could have negative consequences for the nonprofit sector as a whole. Although widespread, this crisis narrative has not yet been subjected to empirical examination. To assess the extent to which public trust has changed over time, we examined trust in nongovernmental organizations within 31 countries over nine consecutive years using data from the Edelman Trust Barometer ( N = 294,176). Multilevel analysis revealed that, after allowing for differences in absolute levels of trust and trends across countries, there was actually a small increase in global trust in the nonprofit sector. This increase was sharper among men, people aged below 40 years, and people with higher education, income, and media consumption. Overall, we find no evidence of a crisis of trust in nonprofits; scandals within individual organizations have not affected sectoral trust.

AbstractMillions of charities compete for charitable donations, yet the underlying factors influencing individuals' preferences for specific causes remain relatively poorly understood. Building upon the ongoing scholarly debate about whether charitable behaviors are more altruistically or egoistically motivated, this study employs a self and other orientation framework to explore the preferences captured in a community survey (N = 987) to identify the various motivations relevant to donors' decision‐making processes. Our study contributes significantly to our understanding of charitable cause selection. First, it uncovers diverse motives directly endorsed by donors, offering insight into the multifaceted factors influencing preferences. Second, it unveils distinctive constellations of motives related to self and other orientations, shedding light on the underlying drivers of charitable actions. Third, it delineates the impact of various identity motives on charitable preferences. Specifically, we find that self‐oriented motives are associated with preferences for environmental and research causes, while other‐oriented motives exhibit a strong link with preferences for housing and development causes. Additionally, a combination of self and other motives shapes preferences for health, social services, emergency, and international causes. This complex interplay highlights that prosocial behavior is susceptible to a plurality of motives and cannot be solely understood through a binary distinction of altruism versus egoism. The study also contributes to the broader understanding of the psychology of charitable giving and has implications for fundraising design in a competitive market.

Online peer-to-peer giving is an emerging charity context that has rarely been investigated. Using a unique combination of survey and behavioral data from 1,647 online peer-to-peer fundraisers (whom we call "champions"), we tested empirically the influence of different best practices on fundraising success in this novel giving context. Across two samples, we found the fundraiser's identification with the cause led them to engage in more best practice actions, which in turn led to greater fundraising success. However, not all actions were equally influential. Actions that made the champion salient—namely those relating to solicitation and those that signaled the fundraiser was highly invested in their campaign—were the strongest predictors of fundraising success, together explaining 28 times the variance accounted for by actions signaling charity efficacy. Thus, fundraisers will have more success by championing themselves than by promoting the charity in question: a finding with important applied and theoretical implications.

Charities have invited public scorn through their use of chugging (or "charity mugging") methods of fundraising, which involve interpersonal interaction between fundraisers and potential donors. It is not known how such mass market interpersonal fundraising methods are associated with donors giving over time. We analyzed transactional data from a natural experiment involving 213,404 donors to 45 charities to examine the relationship between interpersonal interaction at the time of donor recruitment and the long-term value of donations made by those donors. Multilevel analyses show that different fundraising methods are associated with different donation values. Specifically, mass market fundraising methods that involve interpersonal interaction are linked to lower donation values over time (β = −.12; equating to 59% fewer dollars donated on average in the second year), driven by much higher rates of cancelation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.14). We theorize several possible mechanisms through which interpersonal fundraising comes to generate these poorer outcomes.

High-profile charity scandals have always represented a threat to the nonprofit sector, which relies on public trust and funding to operate. We systematically review 30 years of empirical research on scandals involving nonprofits and present both quantitative and qualitative syntheses of the 71 articles identified. Informed by this review, we generate a conceptual model theorizing the causes and consequences of scandals, as well as how nonprofits can best prevent and respond to organizational transgressions. We then put forward a research agenda that elaborates five key factors that are especially important for understanding nonprofit scandals but remain understudied: (a) integrity versus competence violations, (b) moral licensing, (c) the multilevel nature of organizational transgressions, (d) sectoral causes of scandal, and (e) effective responses. We close the article with recommendations for nonprofit managers about how to conceptualize, prevent, plan for, and respond to transgressions occurring within their organizations, and any resulting scandals.

AbstractThe proliferation of violations within industry sectors (e.g., banking, doping in sport, abuse in religious organizations) highlights how trust violations can thrive in particular sectors. However, scant research examines how macro institutional factors influence micro level trustworthy conduct. To shed light on how sectoral features may influence trust violations in organizations, we adopt a multilevel perspective to investigate the perceived causes of trust violations within the not-for-profit (NFP) sector, a sector that has witnessed a number of high-profile trust breaches. Drawing on interviews with board members and senior executives of NFPs with cross-sectoral experience, we analyze the causes of trust violations to inductively develop a conceptual model of the multilevel factors contributing to trust violations in NFPs. Our model highlights how trust violations have their roots in sectoral-level factors, which trickle-down to influence the ethical infrastructure at the organizational-level, and in turn individual-level factors and violations. We identify how three NFP sectoral features influence trustworthy behavior: corporatization, resource scarcity, and assumed moral integrity. Our findings speak to the importance of looking beyond the organization to understand both the causes and prevention of trust violations and developing the concept of sector-level ethical infrastructure.

AbstractMillions of charities compete for donations, yet no empirical study has examined patterns of shared giving behavior across the nonprofit sector. To understand which types of charities are more likely to share donors, we conducted a social network analysis using behavioral data from 1,504,848 donors to 52 large charities in Australia. Three hypotheses were tested, which considered how patterns of shared donations may be determined by charity sub‐type (e.g., health, social services, religious), type of beneficiaries (i.e., humans, animals, the environment), or geographic focus (i.e., international, national, regional). Overall, results indicate that patterns of shared giving are strongly shaped by geography: international charities typically share donors, as do charities operating in the same local region. Some—albeit inconsistent—evidence also emerged to support the notion that sub‐type may be an organizing principle for donation distributions, but little support was found for the idea that beneficiaries influence shared giving patterns. A key managerial implication is that the practice of supporter list swapping may be most beneficial when lists are shared between organizations that both operate in the same geographic region rather than between organizations that both operate as the same sub‐type of charity or both share similar beneficiaries.

Millions of nonprofits compete for a share of the billions of dollars donated to charity each year. Yet how donors select which charities to support remains relatively understudied. Social norms influence whether people give to charity at all, but no research has yet considered whether norms also communicate information about which causes group members typically support. To address this important question, we surveyed 1,735 people from 117 countries to understand whether they identified normative causes typically supported by their social groups. We found different normative giving profiles for men, women, older people, younger people, conservatives, progressives, religious, and nonreligious people, with varying degrees of consensus within each social group. Results demonstrate empirically—and for the first time—that social identities contain normative content about which charitable causes group members typically support. Some causes were relatively universally approved of or avoided. Results can inform nonprofit fundraising strategy around segmentation and targeting.

There is a double standard in public responses to scandals: Nonprofits are penalized more harshly than commercial organizations for the same transgression (the "moral disillusionment effect"). However, previous research—focused on commercial organizations—has sometimes shown that a positive reputation can insure organizations against the negative effects of scandals. In light of this, we asked whether a second double standard exists when it comes to trust repair: Can nonprofits regain trust and consumer support more quickly than commercial organizations after apologizing? Two experiments ( combined N = 805), considering responses to sexual exploitation and fraud scandals, replicated and extended the moral disillusionment effect. Trust and consumer support were partially restored following an apology (and even a statement acknowledging the scandal without apologizing), but the rate of repair was the same for nonprofits and commercial organizations. Nonprofit managers should therefore implement internal controls to prevent violations and issue public responses when scandals emerge.