Research shows that personal values influence the decision to donate to charity. However, studies of values and charitable giving have not yet examined how refined values relate to an individual donor’s choice of charitable cause. In this article, we examine relations between donors’ value priorities and their support for nine different types of charitable cause. We do this across two samples of donors from Australia and the United States. We show clear evidence of refined value motivations for donations to environmental, animal welfare, religious or spiritual, and international aid charities, as well as giving to other types of causes (i.e., arts or culture, education, health services, community or welfare services, and sporting clubs). Our findings suggest that the study of donor’s values can offer a more nuanced understanding of what motivates their choice of charitable cause, with the potential to inform fundraising research and practice.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2006). To give or not to give, that’s the question: How methodology is destiny in Dutch giving data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 533–540.
2.
BennettR. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29.
3.
BockD. E.EastmanJ. K.EastmanK. L. (2018). Encouraging consumer charitable behavior: The impact of charitable motivations, gratitude, and materialism. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1213–1228.
4.
BodyA.BreezeB. (2016). What are “unpopular causes” and how can they achieve fundraising success?International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 57–70.
5.
BreezeB. (2013). How donors choose charities: The role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), 165–183.
6.
CasaleD.BaumannA. (2015). Who gives to international causes? A sociodemographic analysis of US donors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 98–122.
ChristianoA.NeimandA. (2018). The science of what makes people care. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 16, 2–9.
10.
DickertS.SagaraN.SlovicP. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376.
11.
FajardoT. M.TownsendC.BolanderW. (2018). Toward an optimal donation solicitation: Evidence from the field of the differential influence of donor-related and organization-related information on donation choice and amount. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 142–152.
12.
Giving USA Foundation. (2019). Giving USA 2019: The annual report on philanthropy for the Year 2018.
13.
HitlinS.PiliavinJ. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.
14.
JohnsonM. K.RowattW. C.LaBouffJ. P. (2012). Religiosity and prejudice revisited: In-group favoritism, out-group derogation, or both?Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(2), 154–168.
15.
KahleL. R. (1983). Social values and social change. Praeger.
16.
KonrathS.HandyF. (2018). The development and validation of the motives to donate scale. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 347–375.
17.
LeeI. A.PreacherK. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. http://quantpsy.org
18.
LeeJ.SneddonJ.DalyT.SoutarG.LouviereJ.SchwartzS. H. (2019). Testing and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a best-worst scaling approach. Assessment, 26(2), 166–180.
LönnqvistJ.VerkasaloM.WichardtP. C.WalkowitzG. (2013). Personal values and prosocial behavior in strategic interactions: Distinguishing value-expressive from value-ambivalent behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 554–569.
21.
LouviereJ. J.FlynnT. N.MarleyA. A. J. (2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
22.
MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 266–285.
23.
McDonaldK.ScaifeW. (2011). Print media portrayals of giving: Exploring national “cultures of philanthropy.”International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 311–324.
MicklewrightJ.SchnepfS. V. (2009). Who gives charitable donations for overseas development?Journal of Social Policy, 38(2), 317–341.
26.
NeumayrM.HandyF. (2019). Charitable giving: What influences donors’ choice among different causes?VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30, 783–799.
RoccasS.SagivL. (2010). Personal values and behavior: Taking the cultural context into account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(1), 30–41.
29.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press.
30.
RooneyP. M.WangX.Ottoni-WilhelmM. (2018). Generational succession in American giving: Donors down, dollars per donor holding steady but signs that it is starting to slip. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 918–938.
31.
SagivL.RoccasS.CieciuchJ.SchwartzS. H. (2017). Personal values in human life. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(9), 630–639.
32.
SagivL.SchwartzS. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 437–448.
33.
SagivL.SverdlikN.SchwarzN. (2011). To compete or to cooperate? Values’ impact on perception and action in social dilemma games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 64–77.
34.
SargeantA.JayE. (2014). Fundraising management. Analysis, planning and practice. Routledge.
35.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.
36.
SchwartzS. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). American Psychological Association.
37.
SchwartzS. H. (2013). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology, Vol. 8. The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
SchwartzS. H.BilskyW. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.
39.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.. . .KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688.
40.
SchwartzS. H.HuismansS. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 88–107.
ToddS. J.LawsonR. W. (1999). Towards a better understanding of the financial donor: An examination of donor behavior in terms of value structure and demographics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4(3), 235–244.
44.
VerplankenB.HollandR. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447.
45.
WiepkingP. (2010). Democrats support international relief and the upper class donates to art? How opportunity, incentives and confidence affect donations to different types of charitable organizations. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1073–1087.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
