Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The United Kingdom is generous toward charitable donations, and this commitment appears robust against a background of economic uncertainty. While prior work has identified a clear preference for domestic over international causes, research has yet to identify the range of variables that significantly correlate with this important element of charitable choice. A survey of 1,004 U.K. residents was designed to assess willingness to donate to local, national, and international causes. For each destination, stepwise multiple regression analysis identified the key variables that correlate to an individual’s willingness to donate. Findings suggest that donor willingness correlates with levels of trust, preferred types of charitable cause, and donation channels. In contrast, the role of donor demographics is relatively limited. The findings suggest some commonality in the variables that associate most significantly with willingness to donate locally and nationally, but those relating to international donation intention are relatively distinct.

Keywords

donation willingness charitable trust charitable choice donation channel domestic versus international charities

Introduction

The increasingly competitive landscape faced by charities is widely acknowledged (e.g., Ein-Gar & Levontin, 2013; O’Hara, 2014). In the last decade, the United Kingdom has experienced the global economic recession followed by economic austerity, with many of its citizens being subject to wage freezes or subinflation salary increases. Such trends put charities under greater pressure to understand not just why people donate (see Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a), but also how donors choose between the ever-increasing numbers of alternatives. Work focusing on what correlates with donations to certain types of charity is surprisingly limited (Bennett, 2003).

A common technique used by donors to segment charities is to distinguish between home and overseas causes (Breeze, 2013). Although national level charities may also provide local services (Hall et al., 2013), there are calls to distinguish between causes which are local, national, and international in nature (Grau & Folse, 2007; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). In addition to social distance (which refers to the physical and emotional distance between donors and recipients: Strombach et al., 2014), choosing which charity to support is further complicated by the plethora of causes actively seeking donations, ranging from medical research through to animal welfare, poverty alleviation, and environmental projects.

The current study provides a comprehensive analysis of the correlates of donation intention to local, national, and international charities (we term this donation destination). This builds upon recent calls for a greater understanding of how donors choose between charities based upon destination (Hart, 2016) and previous work on domestic versus international giving (Casale & Baumann, 2015; Knowles & Sullivan, 2017; Micklewright & Schnepf, 2009). Existing research provides an understanding of why donors support charitable causes (with reasons straddling personal values and experiences, faith, sense of moral obligation, and warm-glow effects: Ottoni-Wilhelm et al., 2017), but research on preferred donation destination is largely lacking (a recent exception being Knowles & Sullivan, 2017). This study investigates whether the specific correlates of donation intention (proven to play a significant role in actual donation behavior: Kashif et al., 2015) differ by local, national, or international destination.

The study draws from the psychological literature on the theory of planned behavior (TPB: Ajzen, 1991) and social identity theory (SIT). These two theoretical perspectives have previously been brought together to understand health behaviors (Chatzisarantis et al., 2009), recycling (Terry et al., 1999), and sustainable agriculture engagement (Fielding et al., 2008). TPB has been found to predict prosocial behaviors, be it more traditional forms of charitable giving like financial donations (Smith & McSweeney, 2007) or volunteering (Warburton & Terry, 2000). In the current study, we will assess an individual’s donation intentions for local, national, and international charities. Previous TPB studies have consistently indicated that donation intentions are powerful predictors of actual donations (France et al., 2007; Smith & McSweeney, 2007).

As donations to these three categories of charities allude to issues of group membership, this study also contributes to our broader understanding of SIT in a charitable context. First developed by Tajfel (1974), SIT considers how an individual identifies based upon group membership, be it friendship, sports team affiliation, or nationality. SIT relates to issues such as prejudice, ethnocentrism, and discrimination (M. A. Hogg, 2006), all of which are potentially relevant to donating to beneficiaries in different geographic locations. Our social identities refer to issues of “us” and “them” (Fielding et al., 2008) that are determined by two processes: social categorization (where boundaries between groups are established) and self-enhancement, where norms are shaped to benefit in-group members. These social identities result in groups wishing to minimize in-group differences and maximize intergroup differences (Terry et al., 1999). In a charitable context, this would result in donors prioritizing charities that aid fellow in-group members (i.e., local and national charities). Of course, the distinction between charities which assist in-groups versus out-groups is complicated by the fact that many serve both (Erlandsson et al., 2019).

Research suggests higher levels of trust and support for domestic causes (Casale & Baumann, 2015; Charity Commission, 2016). We extend the consideration of trust by assessing to what extent trust for specific destinations correlates with donation intention. Equally, the demography of donors represents a core driver of giving. There is evidence that those with higher education and income are more likely to support overseas causes (Bennett, 2003). Further work in this area may aid fundraisers in the effective targeting of donors.

The final two variables considered represent areas of charitable giving notably underrepresented in research, the type of charitable causes supported, and the use of specific donation channels. We argue that the types of charitable cause a donor supports will correlate with their donation destination (for example, those who support charities for ex-military personnel may prefer domestic causes). Equally, certain donation channels (e.g., entering raffles) rely on localized community networks (Schlegelmilch et al., 1997).

The article will next introduce the extant knowledge on donation destination before providing a review of literature covering the variable sets introduced above. The article outlines a quantitative methodology, which leads to the development of separate regression models for local, national, and international charities. The conclusions will summarize the core findings and discuss implications for fundraisers.

Literature Review

Donation Destination

We use “donation destination” to describe the location of the recipients of charitable donations relative to the donor, and categorize these as local, national, or international. The literature suggests that donors typically display a preference for more local causes in line with the principles of SIT (Tajfel, 1974). Focus group research across the United Kingdom and Australasia suggests that donors consider local causes more relevant than causes further afield irrespective of seriousness (Dalton et al., 2008), partially as they represent causes that may be utilized by the donor in the future (Hall et al., 2013). National level charities are often preferred because of a moral obligation to tend to the needs of conationals (Stevenson & Manning, 2010). This links closely to Kessler and Milkman’s (2018) investigation into donor identity. Across two experiments, they concluded that charity appeals which center on a donor as a member of a local community generate greater donations.

Micklewright and Schnepf (2009) interrogated the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data to uncover that while international causes often receive higher individual donations, these tend to be less frequent than domestic donations. Knowles and Sullivan (2017) provide evidence for preference for national over international causes with data from New Zealand, with 71.6% opting for domestic alternatives. The opposite emerges from an Australian perspective, where Lwin et al. (2014) used survey data to conclude that donors have more positive attitudes toward national and international charities than local alternatives. Based on this literature, the underlying premise of SIT, and the view of Bekkers (2010, p. 370) that “people will be more strongly attracted to collective goods in the local community than to the problems of a third world country,” hypothesis H1 suggests the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a greater level of donation intention toward U.K.-based charities, either locally or nationally focussed, compared with donation intention toward those operating internationally.

Donor Demographics

Donor demography encapsulates numerous variables associated with donor intention. For age, various perspectives emerge. Knowles and Sullivan (2017) indicate no significant association, in contrast to Lwin et al. (2014) who indicate a positive association between age and donation intention. Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b) suggest the association is nonlinear, with donations starting to decline in donors aged 65 years and older.

There is an equally varied picture relating to gender. Micklewright and Schnepf (2009), Lwin et al. (2014), and Knowles and Sullivan (2017) all reported no statistically significant differences in domestic versus international preferences between gender groups. Interestingly (and after accounting for earnings, educational attainment, and household composition), Piper and Schnepf (2008) used the same ONS data set as Micklewright and Schnepf (2009) and concluded women are more generous in both financial contribution and frequency of donation, with particular dominance in causes relating to animal welfare, education, and the elderly.

Educational participation and attainment are important demographics in understanding donation behavior. Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b) indicate greater donation intention among the more highly educated, driven by enhanced information access and confidence-based trust in charitable organizations. Bennett (2003) suggests less-educated donors demonstrate greater affinity with domestic concerns, with Micklewright and Schnepf (2009) recognizing that higher educational attainment resonates with international giving. Income also plays a significant role in charitable giving, correlating with higher levels of donation (Lwin et al., 2014).

Supposition exists that political attitudes may partly explain charitable giving, especially toward international causes (Rajan et al., 2009). For example, those with a left-wing political orientation are more predisposed to supporting international causes (Wiepking, 2010) and specifically international disaster relief (Manesi et al., 2019), with the opposite true of Conservative donors (a statistically significant finding from Chapman et al., 2018). Based on this collective body of evidence, hypothesis H2 proposes the following:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Donor demographics correlate with donation intentions toward support for the three charitable destinations.

Trust

Trust can be considered both at a sector (where charity regulation breeds confidence: E. Hogg, 2018) and also at an individual charity level. Bekkers (2003) notes that trust (often assessed through formal accreditations or testimonies) correlates significantly with giving. In their Dutch–U.S. comparative study, Beldad et al. (2014) identified that donor affinity, cause reputation, and donor trust combine to explain repeat donation behavior. Similarly, Naskrent and Siebelt (2011) employed structural equation modeling to identify trust and commitment as the two strongest predictors of donor retention.

A cross-national study conducted by Nfp Synergy (2019) found that fewer people trust overseas aid charities than domestic causes, and this distinction was particularly acute in the United Kingdom (where only 36% trusted international causes). As trust levels have been found to be critical to future donation intentions (Charity Commission, 2018), this may explain the general preference for domestic causes demonstrated thus far. Collating the above arguments, hypothesis H3 proposes the following:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Levels of trust in local, national, and international charities correlate positively with donation intention toward the three respective charitable destinations.

Charitable Choice

Research focusing on which charities people choose to donate to remains limited (Wiepking, 2010). Good causes range from small-scale local charities through to global projects (Daly, 1997); however, donors tend not to share their generosity equally across all causes (Strombach et al., 2014). U.K. donors display preferences for charities in the fields of medical research, animal welfare, and children, while religious organizations are one of the most popular categories across North America (Charities Aid Foundation [CAF], 2017). Bennett (2003) has previously underlined the critical role of personal experience in charitable choice. The experiences of close family or friends may result in support for relevant causes (referred to as “friends of victims” by Small & Simonsohn, 2007).

The current study uses 13 charitable categories that were adapted from typologies used by the CAF (2014) and Mintel (2012). While some categories align to local or national level interests (e.g., military and local development), others clearly have a more global reach (e.g., international disaster relief). It follows then that those charitable causes preferred by individuals will relate to their inclination to support local, national, and international charities. Therefore, H4 proposes the following:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Particular charitable choices have positive correlations with donation intentions toward the three respective charitable destinations.

Donation Channel

An area underassessed within charitable giving research is the preferred means of donation. Donors face numerous channels ranging from traditional cash donations through to direct debits, mobile giving, and engagement with charity retail stores (Shier & Handy, 2012). In the United Kingdom, cash donations, donating to charity stores, and buying raffle tickets are the most preferred channels, whereas online and mobile forms of giving are most common in North America (CAF, 2017). Peloza and Hassay (2007) developed a typology of charity support behavior that distinguished between high and low involvement forms of support. Citizenship behaviors such as volunteering represent highest involvement owing to the necessary time commitment, with donating to charity stores and buying raffle tickets being examples of lower involvement behaviors that also brought personal benefits to the donor.

Donation channel research tends to focus on one specific channel rather than investigating donor preferences across channels. For example, sponsorship of individuals to take part in charity events has become a notable growth area, with one fifth of all Canadian charitable donations originating from event sponsorship (Higgins & Lauzon, 2003). Charity store donations are a common means of giving (e.g., Hibbert et al., 2005). However, these are distinct from other channels as the donor arguably benefits from the act of either donating products (removing clutter) or buying from charity stores. Finally, the internet is a particularly attractive channel for charities because of its cost-effectiveness (Shier & Handy, 2012) and viral capability (as evidenced through successful campaigns such as the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS] Ice Bucket Challenge: Pressgrove et al., 2018). Recent work from Herzog and Yang (2018) demonstrated that having contacts on social media who engage in prosocial actions (either giving to charity or asking others to do so) increases donation intention.

We argue here that the donation channels preferred by individuals will correlate to some extent with their destination preferences. Donation channels such as sponsoring a friend or buying raffles tickets involve either face-to-face contact or have focus in local community institutions (Schlegelmilch et al., 1997), and as such are likely to associate with interest in causes that serve local beneficiaries. Digital forms of giving and direct debits are not constrained by the same geographic boundaries, are less likely to be utilized by smaller charities (Shier & Handy, 2012), and may correlate with more national and international level giving. Therefore, H5 proposes the following:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Particular donation channel access positively correlates with donation intentions toward the three respective charitable destinations.

Differences in Variable Sets Displaying Association With Donation Destination

There are certain variables that associate more strongly with enhancing international donation intention. These include trust, political beliefs, and exposure through travel to developing countries. Certain demographic characteristics also correlate with international preferences (Bennett, 2003; Micklewright & Schnepf, 2009). Combining this evidence with the suite of variables examined in this study, hypothesis H6 proposes the following:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): The ranges of measures relating to donor demographics, trust, charitable choice, and donation channel differ in their associations with donation intentions toward local, national, and international charities.

Method

Study Design

An online survey captured data on donor intention by charitable destination, trust perceptions, charitable choice, and channels of charitable donation. The survey instrument first addressed various demographic variables (including age, gender, geographic location, education, income, and voting behavior). The instrument then utilized a battery of items addressing charitable giving, trust levels, preferred causes, and donation channels, utilizing a combination of 7-point scales and multiple-choice questions (Table 1). A pilot survey with 112 participants helped to refine the instrument.

Table 1.

Scales and Multiple-Choice Questions Adopted in the Study.

Donation intention

I am likely to donate to a charity that helps my local community in the next month

I am likely to donate to a charity that helps causes in my country in the next month

I am likely to donate to a charity that helps other countries in the next month

Charitable choice

Culture and recreation charities (e.g., The National Trust, Sports Aid)

Education and training charities (e.g., any school charity, Duke of Edinburgh’s Award)

Health charities (e.g., British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer’s Society)

Social services charities (e.g., Shelter, Trussell Trust Foodbanks, Samaritans)

Environmental charities (e.g., Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth)

Animal welfare charities (e.g., RSPCA, World Wildlife Foundation)

Armed forces and emergency services charities (e.g., Help for Heroes, St. John’s Ambulance)

Religious charities (i.e., any religious institution)

Political, legal, or human rights charities (e.g., Legal Action Group, Amnesty International)

International charities (e.g., UNICEF, Oxfam)

Local development charities (i.e., community projects)

Children’s charities (e.g., NSPCC, Barnardo’s)

International disaster relief charities (e.g., Disaster Emergency Committee Earthquake appeal)

Charity donation channel

Direct debit

Cash donation (e.g., street collection, collection box)

Donation via mobile text message/online

Sponsoring a friend/relative in an event

Buying items from a charity store

Salary deductions via employer

Buying raffle tickets/entering competitions

Donating items to charity (e.g., clothing)

Aspects of trust in donation destination

I trust local charities to use my donation wisely

I trust national charities (that serve the United Kingdom) to use my donation wisely

I trust international charities to use my donation wisely

Demographics

Gender: female, male

Age band (years): 18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65–74, 75+

Geographic location in the United Kingdom: East Midlands, East of England, London, North East England, North West England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South East England, South West England, Wales, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside

Voting behavior in the EU referendum: remain, leave, did not vote, preferred not to say

Level of qualifications: none, O levels (and equivalents), A level (and equivalents), NVQ Level 2 (and equivalents), NVQ Level 4 (and equivalents), bachelor degree, higher degree(s), qualifications from outside of the United Kingdom

Social class by employment role: professional, middle management, junior management, skilled manual workers, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, unemployed, not sure.

Ethnicity: White, Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups, Asian/Asian British, Black/African/Caribbean/Black British

Annual income band: less than £10K, £10–20K, £20–30K, £30–40K, £40–50K, £50–75K, £75–100K, more than £100K, Prefer not to say

Note. EU = European Union; RSPCA = Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; NSPCC = National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; NVQ = National Vocational Qualification.

Data collection took place between March and April 2017 utilizing a consumer panel accessed through the market researcher Pickersgill Consultancy and Planning. Respondents were required to be aged 18 years and older and be resident in the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales). They were not required to be active donors as the study sought to generate a representative sample. According to the CAF, 60% of the U.K. population donated money to charity in 2018, with a further 59% donating products and 35% sponsoring a charitable activity. Our approach allowed us to capture data from donors and nondonors, following the premise that fundraisers may be equally interested in the donation intentions of those who do not currently support charitable causes.

The sampling frame included individuals who have previously signed up to take part in online surveys via consumer panels deployed by Pickersgill Consultancy and Planning. Emailing consumer panel members achieved agreed quotas, with 1,141 responses received, 137 of which being rejected through incompletion, missing data, or straight-lining (Johnson, 2016). To ensure respondents were considering items fully, a time check for completion was undertaken. The pilot survey indicated the average completion time was 6 to 7 min. To ensure data validity, we removed responses from individuals who completed the survey in less than 5 min. In return for full survey completion, panel members receive points redeemable for shopping vouchers.

Data Analysis

Three separate assessments of the measures assessing local, national, and international donation intention involved using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis. There are three respective statements to assess willingness to donate to these respective destinations. For example, “I am likely to donate to a charity that helps my local community in the next month,” assesses local donation intention. For the three separate models, the dependent variable is the relevant 7-point individual Likert-type scale.

The decision to utilize donation intention as the dependent variables in each multiple regression model reflected two considerations. First, we were concerned with recall accuracy. Respondents indicated their aggregate donations to all charities across the previous 3 months; this longer time period was utilized to minimize the effects of any seasonal fluctuations in donation patterns as identified by the CAF (2018). The down side of such a timeline is difficulty for respondents in accurately recalling the exact charities supported. We felt this was particularly acute for ad hoc lower involvement forms of donation such as street collections. Second, if respondents could recollect the charities they supported, we were concerned they may struggle to suitably categorize these as either local, national, or international in scope (in particular, as national level charities often provide services at a local level: Hall et al., 2013). Therefore, asking respondents to indicate future intentions across these three categories, rather than relying on potentially erroneous historical behavior, appears a more robust approach to grouping future donations by destination.

There is a general acceptance of the value of donor intention as a predictor of actual donations (Kashif et al., 2015), evidenced with financial donors in the United Kingdom (Smith & McSweeney, 2007), mainland Europe (Verhaert & Van den Poel, 2011), and blood donors in the United States (France et al., 2007). Lee et al. (1999) had earlier demonstrated that intention was a powerful predictor of future behaviors spanning the three major forms of giving (money, time, and blood).

For all the three multiple regression models, the potential predictor variables consisted of trust, charitable choice, donation channels, and donor demographics. The first three variable groups were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 = very unlikely through 4 = neither unlikely nor unlikely to 7 = very likely. Multiple-choice demographic questions were prepared for the respective multiple regression models by converting them into appropriate (1, 0) dummy variables. The respective numbers of dummy variables for each were gender (1), age (7), geographic location in the United Kingdom (12), voting behavior at the June 2016 European Union (EU) referendum (4—including did not vote and preferred not say), level of qualifications (9), social class by employment role (7), ethnicity (4), and annual income band (9).

There are potentially 77 independent variables covering trust, charitable choice, donation channel, and demographics presented in an appropriate dummy variable form. To assist in developing a suite of parsimonious regression models and limiting the potential for multicollinearity, a stepwise process of variable selection was adopted. The forward method of stepwise was actioned starting with no independent variables, with sequential variable entry, and based on correlation with the dependent measure donation intention and partial correlation thereafter until further variable addition ceases to improve the module in a statistically significant way. The assessment of each model considers the overall model significance using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, model fit by adjusted R², and a residual analysis. For all the three models, issues of multicollinearity involve examination of the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each retained independent variable. Guided by Berenson et al. (2002), variables with a VIF exceeding 5 were removed.

Survey Findings

Sample Overview

The sample comprises 1,004 U.K. respondents, demonstrating some resonance with the wider U.K. population (Table 2). In summary, 51.7% of respondents were female and 92.0% reported their ethnicity as White, with the most commonly read national newspapers being the Mail, the Sun, and the Mirror. In the 2016 referendum, 51.2% voted to leave the EU. The breakdown by age band is 18 to 24 (8.6%), 25 to 34 (16.5%), 35 to 44 (16.7%), 45 to 54 (18.9%), 55 to 64 (15.6%), and 65 and older (23.6%; of which 3.4% of the total data set was aged 75 years or older). Gender and age band are representative of the wider population data (ONS, 2017), as is referendum voting declaration. The profile based on ethnicity represents an underrepresentation of participants from the Black and Minority Ethnic groupings, while there is some overrepresentation of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the sample. Around half of the sample indicated earnings between £10,001 and 30,000 per annum, which is in line with wider economic data.

Table 2.

Sample Comparison With the U.K. Population.

Characteristic	No. of respondents	% Respondents	U.K. population (%)	t value	Level of significance
Sample size	1,004
Gender
Men	485	48.3	49.3	−0.63	.526
Women	519	51.7	50.7	0.63	.526
Age group (years)
18–24	86	8.6	8.3	0.35	.730
25–34	166	16.5	17.7	−1.00	.319
35–44	168	16.7	16.5	0.17	.864
45–54	190	18.9	18.3	0.49	.623
55–64	157	15.6	15.4	0.18	.861
65 and older	237	23.6	23.7	−0.08	.941
Ethnicity
White	924	92.0	86.0	5.48	<.001
BME groups	80	8.0	14.0	−5.48	<.001
U.K. country of residence
England	500	49.8	84.2	−29.88	<.001
Northern Ireland	101	10.1	2.8	14.02	<.001
Scotland	200	19.9	8.2	13.51	<.001
Wales	203	20.2	4.7	23.21	<.001
Vote—EU referendum
Remain	500	49.8	49.2	0.38	.704
Leave	514	51.2	51.8	−0.38	.704
Intention to donate
Yes	809	80.6	89.0	−8.501	<.001

Note. EU = European Union; BME = Black and Minority Ethnic.

More than 80% of the sample reported donating to charity within 3 months of data collection, the majority of these supporting two or three charities. The most common donation amounts in the time period were £11 to 20 (17.5%), £6 to 10 (14.2%), £1 to 5 (13.9%), and £21 to 30 (13.7%). The most common charitable causes supported by the sample were health, children’s, and animal causes. The most common forms of assisting charities were donating to/buying from charity stores, cash donations, and sponsorship, aligning closely with CAF (2018) giving report.

Assessment of Donor Intentions

The means for donation intention to local, national, and international concerns are 4.36, 4.58, and 3.61, respectively (Table 3). The first two statistics are significantly greater in value than the midpoint of 4.0, the converse being the case for the item assessing international donation intention (for each, p < .001). For the pairwise assessment of donation intention, significant differences between the pairs of donation destination were statistically significant (each p < .001). The strongest level of donation intention relates to country-level alternatives, followed by local charities, which in turn are significantly more likely to receive donations than international charities.

Table 3.

Donation Intention for Local, National, and International Charities—Percentage of Responses and Summary Statistics.

Donation Intention	Very unlikely (1; %)	Unlikely (2; %)	Somewhat unlikely (3; %)	Neither unlikely nor likely (4; %)	Somewhat likely (5; %)	Likely (6; %)	Very likely (7; %)	M	SD	Difference in mean from 4.0
I am likely to donate to a charity that helps my local community in the next month	9.0	14.1	18.2	39.6	7.6	4.2	7.3	4.36	1.53	^†††
I am likely to donate to a charity that helps causes in my country in the next month	11.4	16.8	20.3	36.6	5.7	3.2	6.1	4.58	1.52	^†††
I am likely to donate to a charity that helps other countries in the next month	6.9	8.5	10.6	35.5	9.9	8.9	19.9	3.61	1.78	***

Note. Mean—significantly lower than 4.0: *5% level, **1% level, ***0.1% level. Mean—significantly greater than 4.0: †5% level, ††1% level, †††0.1% level.

Regression Models by Donation Destination

Local charities

The stepwise multiple regression model developed to explain local donation intention comprises 16 predictor variables being statistically significant in combination (Table 4).

Table 4.

Multiple Regression Model: Local Donation Intention.

Variable	Coefficient	t value	p value	VIF
Trust local charities to use donations wisely	0.26	7.59	<.001	1.98
Donate to local development charities	0.24	7.76	<.001	2.34
Buy raffle tickets/enter competitions	0.11	4.36	<.001	1.87
Trust national charities to use donations wisely	0.21	6.12	<.001	2.09
Trust international charities to use donations wisely	−0.11	−3.80	<.001	1.91
Donate to education and training charities	0.16	5.00	<.001	2.42
Donate to health charities	−0.10	−3.42	<.001	2.16
55 to 64 years old (1 = yes, 0 = no)	−0.25	−2.47	<.014	1.04
Donating items to charity	0.09	3.28	<.001	2.10
Donate to international disaster relief charities	−0.06	−2.19	<.029	2.32
Salary deductions via employer	0.07	2.66	<.008	1.50
West Midlands (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.42	2.61	<.009	1.03
Wales (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.21	2.29	<.022	1.03
Donate to environmental charities	−0.06	−2.23	<.026	2.02
Skilled manual workers and equivalent (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.20	2.20	<.028	1.04
Uncertain about employment status (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.40	2.12	<.035	1.02
F_{(16, 987)} = 53.90, p < .001. Adjusted R² = 45.8%, standard error of the estimate = 1.12Y = willingness to donate to local causesx₁ = Trust local charities to use donations wiselyx₂ = Donate to local development charitiesx₃ = Buy raffle tickets/enter competitionsx₄ = Trust national charities to use donations wiselyx₅ = Trust international charities to use donations wiselyx₆ = Donate to education and training charitiesx₇ = Donate to health charitiesx₈ = 55 to 64 years old (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₉ = Donating items to charityx₁₀ = Donate to international disaster relief charitiesx₁₁ = Salary deductions via employerx₁₂ = West Midlands (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₁₃ = Wales (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₁₄ = Donate to environmental charitiesx₁₅ = Skilled manual workers and equivalent (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₁₆ = Uncertain about employment status (1 = yes, 0 = no)

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor.

There is a significant correlation for each of the predictor variable groups identified (trust, charitable choice, donation channels, and donor demographics). The predictor variables indicate the multiple role of trust. This points to positive correlation with trust in local causes x₁ (b = 0.26, t = 7.59, p < .001) and trust in national causes x₄ (b = 0.21, t = 6.12, p < .001), but a negative association with trust in international causes x₅ (b = −0.11, t = −3.80, p < .001). Trust developed for causes close to home has a positive association on local intentions compounded by a lack of trust for causes based more remotely.

Various charitable causes also contribute to local donation intention. These comprise local development charities x₂ (b = 0.24, t = 7.76, p < .001) and education training charities x₆ (b = 0.16, t = 5.00, p < .001). There is a negative correlation with each of the health charities x₇ (b = −0.10, t = −3.42, p = .001), international disaster relief charities x₁₀ (b = −0.06, t = −2.19, p = .029), and environmental charities x₁₄ (b = −0.06, t = −2.23, p = .026). This shows some intuitive resonance with commitment to local issues through local development and education, with a more negative perception of concerns further afield.

Channels of donation support local donation intention through buying raffle tickets x₃ (b = 0.11, t = 4.36, p < .001), donating items to charity x₉ (b = 0.09, t = 3.28, p = .001), and through employer salary deductions x₁₁ (b = 0.07, t = 2.66, p = .008). Finally, demographics contribute to the prediction of local donation intention. Those resident in the West Midlands x₁₂ (b = 0.42, t = 2.61, p = .009) and Wales x₁₃ (b = 0.21, t = 2.29, p = .022), skilled employees x₁₅ (b = 0.20, t = 2.20, p = .028), and those with uncertain job status x₁₆ (b = 0.40, t = 2.12, p = .035) all correlate positively. The converse is true for those aged 55 to 64 years old x₈ (b = −0.25, t = −2.47, p = .014).

The model is statistically significant, F_{(16, 987)} = 53.90, p < .001. The level of fit is moderate with an adjusted R² value of 45.8%, albeit based on a large data set. Further analysis of the model’s residuals shows no departure from normality, constant variance, and randomness. Only 10 cases recorded high-value standardized residuals, outside of the range ±3 (<1% of the sample). In terms of assessing multicollinearity, none of the 16 independent variables introduced into the multiple regression model have a VIF value above 5 (values range from 1.02 to 2.42—Table 4) and are therefore retained within the model.

National charities

The second model developed to explain national donation intention comprises nine predictor variables that are statistically significant in combination (Table 5). Consistent with local donation intentions presented above, there is a role to play for each of trust, charitable choice, donation channels, and donor demographics.

Table 5.

Multiple Regression Model: National Donation Intention.

Variable	Coefficient	t value	p value	VIF
Trust national charities to use donations wisely	0.30	8.72	<.001	2.09
Donating items to charity	0.14	5.63	<.001	1.62
Donate to armed forces and emergency services charities	0.09	3.45	<.001	1.80
Trust local charities to use donations wisely	0.22	6.74	<.001	1.91
Donate using direct debit	0.08	4.81	<.001	1.19
Trust international charities to use donations wisely	−0.15	−5.74	<.001	1.57
Donate to education and training charities	0.07	2.80	<.005	1.78
West Midlands (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.47	2.98	<.003	1.01
Donate to health charities	0.07	2.47	<.014	2.16
F_{(9, 994)} = 97.76, p < .001. Adjusted R² = 46.5%, standard error of the estimate = 1.11Y = willingness to donate to national causesx₁ = Trust national charities to use donations wiselyx₂ = Donating items to charityx₃ = Donate to armed forces and emergency services charitiesx₄ = Trust local charities to use donations wiselyx₅ = Donate using direct debitx₆ = Trust international charities to use donations wiselyx₇ = Donate to education and training charitiesx₈ = West Midlands (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₉ = Donate to health charitiesx₁₆ = Uncertain about employment status (1 = yes, 0 = no)

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor.

The multiple role of trust mirrors that presented in the explanation of local donation intention. There is a positive correlation with trust in national causes x₁ (b = 0.30, t = 8.72, p < .001) and trust in local causes x₄ (b = 0.22, t = 6.74, p < .001), but a negative correlation with trust in international concerns x₆ (b = −0.15, t = −5.74, p < .001).

Various charitable causes also contribute positively to national donation intention. These include armed forces and emergency services charities x₃ (b = 0.09, t = 3.45, p = .001), education and training charities x₇ (b = 0.07, t = 2.80, p = .005), and health charities x₉ (b = 0.07, t = 2.47, p = .014), all of which appear nationally focussed. Two donation channels also correlate positively with increasing national donation intention; these are donating items to charity x₂ (b = 0.14, t = 5.63, p < .001) and direct debit x₅ (b = 0.08, t = 4.81, p < .001), the former again being a channel with potentially high levels of visibility in the donor’s immediate locality.

In contrast, associations with demographics is limited, based only on respondents located in the West Midlands x₈ (b = 0.47, t = 2.98, p = .003).

The model for national donation intention is statistically significant, F_{(9, 994)} = 97.76, p < .001. Like the model for local intention, the level of fit is moderate with an adjusted R² value of 46.5%, with assessment of the model’s residuals again showing no concerns around normality, constant variance, and randomness, with nine cases recording high-value standardized residuals outside of the range ±3 (<1% of the sample). Multicollinearity is of no concern; none of the nine independent variables have a VIF value above 5 (values range from 1.01 to 2.16—Table 5).

International charities

This final model comprises 13 predictor variables that are statistically significant in combination (Table 6). Trust, charitable choice, channels of donation, and demographics again combine to correlate with attitudes toward international donation destination, although there is a more distinct suite of individual predictor variables identified here compared with the local and national alternatives.

Table 6.

Multiple Regression Model: International Donation Intention.

Variable	Coefficient	t value	p value	VIF
Donate to international charities	0.16	4.93	<.001	3.22
Trust international charities to use donations wisely	0.31	12.48	<.001	1.63
Donate to international disaster relief charities	0.23	7.47	<.001	3.09
Salary deductions via employer	0.06	2.43	<.015	1.78
Donate to armed forces and emergency services charities	−0.11	−4/76	<.001	1.66
Donate to religious charities	0.09	3.95	<.001	1.70
Donate using direct debit	0.07	3.68	<.001	1.40
Annual income of £100,001+ (1 = yes, 0 = no)	0.99	3.27	<.001	1.02
Vote Leave in the EU referendum (1 = yes, 0 = no)	−0.20	−2.77	<.006	1.15
Donate via mobile text message/online	0.06	2.82	<.005	1.73
Donate to social services charities	0.08	2.55	<.011	2.46
Sponsoring a friend/relative in an event	−0.05	−2.20	<.028	1.47
Aged 75+ years-old (1 = yes, 0 = no)	−0.39	−2.02	<.44	1.06
F_{(13, 990)} = 138.25, p < .001. Adjusted R² = 64.0%, standard error of the estimate = 1.07Y = willingness to donate to international causesx₁ = Donate to international charitiesx₂ = Trust international charities to use donations wiselyx₃ = Donate to international disaster relief charitiesx₄ = Salary deductions via employerx₅ = Donate to armed forces and emergency services charitiesx₆ = Donate to religious charitiesx₇ = Donate using direct debitx₈ = Annual income of £100,001+ (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₉ = Vote leave in the EU referendum (1 = yes, 0 = no)x₁₀ = Donate via mobile text message/onlinex₁₁ = Donate to social services charitiesx₁₂ = Sponsoring a friend/relative in an eventx₁₃ = Aged 75+ years old (1 = yes, 0 = no)

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor; EU = European Union.

The only dimension of trust acting as a significant correlate with international donation intention is that involving international causes x₂ (b = 0.31, t = 12.48, p < .001), with no significant association in either direction for trust in local or national equivalents. Charitable choice also has a greater combined role to play. In a positive sense, these comprise international charities x₁ (b = 0.16, t = 4.93, p < .001), international disaster relief charities x₃ (b = 0.23, t = 7.47, p < .001), religious charities x₆ (b = 0.09, t = 3.95, p < .001), and social services charities x₁₁ (b = 0.08, t = 2.55, p = .011), three of which have an explicit international remit. There is a negative association involving armed forces and emergency services charities x₅ (b = −0.11, t = −4.76, p < .001), which have a much stronger national focus.

Donation channels make multiple contributions to explaining international donation intention. There is a positive correlation with salary deductions x₄ (b = 0.06, t = 2.43, p = .015), direct debit x₇ (b = 0.07, t = 3.68, p < .001), and donation via mobile text message x₁₀ (b = 0.06, t = 2.82, p = .005). Contrasting is the negative association with the more immediate and face-to-face channel of sponsoring a friend or relative x₁₂ (b = −0.05, t = −2.20, p = .028). In terms of personal characteristics, willingness to donate internationally correlates more positively with those donors earning in excess of £100,000 per year x₈ (b = 0.99, t = 3.27, p = .001). The opposite is true for leave voters in the EU referendum x₉ (b = −0.20, t = −2.77, p = .006) and for those in the age range 75 years and above x₁₃ (b = −0.39, t = −2.02, p = .044).

The model of international donation intention is statistically significant, F_{(13, 990)} = 138.25, p < .001. In comparison with the previous two models, the level of fit is better with an adjusted R² value of 64.0%, with no concerns around normality, constant variance, and randomness emerging from the residual analysis, with eight cases recording high-value standardized residuals, outside of the range ±3 (similar to Models 1 and 2). Multicollinearity is again unproblematic; the VIF values for the 13 independent variables range from 1.02 to 3.22 (Table 6), leading to variable retention.

Discussion

The relative preference for national causes mirrors prior work in this setting (Micklewright & Schnepf, 2009) and supports hypothesis H1. The additional contribution made here is the delineation between national and local alternatives, with respondents seemingly more positive toward donating to national level causes (which we acknowledge may also provide services on a local level).

The association between donor demographics on willingness to donate to the three distinct destinations is limited. The lack of gender association has some support in literature (Einholf, 2011; Knowles & Sullivan, 2017; Lwin et al., 2014), although the absence of qualification contrasts with previous research (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a; Micklewright & Schnepf, 2009; Neumayr & Handy, 2019). Those with higher incomes displayed higher donation intention for international causes, which contradicts recent work from Neumayr and Handy (2019) who instead concluded that income was positively associated with domestic giving. As indicated by existing literature (e.g., Chapman et al., 2018), older respondents and donors with more right-wing political views appear less likely to support international causes. With these limited associations identified, there is only partial support for hypothesis H2.

Donor trust in both local and domestic causes correlates positively with donation intentions toward local and national charities, with donors reporting lower levels of trust in international alternatives. Willingness to donate internationally correlates positively with trust in international causes. Therefore, one or more of the assessments of trust is significantly associated with intention for each donation destination, supporting hypothesis H3. The positive role of trust accords with various previous studies (Bekkers, 2003; Naskrent & Siebelt, 2011).

Charity choice is associated with donation destination in an intuitive manner. Local donation willingness correlates with increased likelihood to donate to local development charities; nationally donation willingness associates positively with greater attachment to armed forces and emergency services charities, while international donation intention increases with support for international disaster relief and religious charities. While many of the associations are arguably unsurprising, the data clearly demonstrates that the role of charity choice correlates positively with donation intention across all three destinations, supporting hypothesis H4.

Donation intention by destination also associates with preferred channels of donation. Donating items to a charity store and buying raffle tickets from family or friends have a positive correlation with donating to local charities. For national charities, donating items has a role, as does the opportunity to set up a direct debit. This visibility also correlates with willingness to donate to international concerns, with salary deductions, direct debit, and donation via mobile device, all having a positive marginal association. With the various donation channels offering significant associations across the three destinations, this supports hypothesis H5.

The willingness to donate to local and national charities shares various common significant associations across the variable sets considered. Willingness to donate to both destinations correlates positively with trust in both local and national concerns wisely, but for both, they are less likely to trust international alternatives. Like all destinations, the donation is independent of gender, donor qualifications, or ethnicity. In this study, it is worth remembering that 92% of the study participants belong to a single ethnic group (a clear sampling limitation), offering no opportunity to differences by ethnic groups.

A distinct set of variables correlates significantly with willingness to donate to international charities. While trust locally and nationally plays no significant part, willingness to donate outside the United Kingdom correlates significantly with trust in international charities to use the donations wisely. Those supporting international disaster relief, social services, and religious charities are more likely to donate internationally, with the same individuals less likely to support armed forces and emergency charities. These donors are more likely to favor the technological/banking channels of donation and exhibit distinct demographics relating to higher income, being anti-Brexit, and being relatively younger. Combining these findings, there is evidence to conclude that the suite of variables differ according to donation destination, thereby supporting hypothesis H6. Table 7 summarizes the similarities and differences between the variables that correlate significantly with donation willingness by destination.

Table 7.

Difference in Explanatory Variables for Donation Intention by Destination.

Variable sets	Local donation	National donation	International donation
Trust	Positive correlation with trust in local and national charities, but negative correlation with international ones	Positive correlation with trust in local and national charities, but negative correlation with international ones	Positive correlation with trust in international charities
Charitable choice	Positive correlation with local development charities and education, but negative association with health, environment, and international disaster concerns	Positive correlation with armed forces and emergency services, education, and health charities	Positive correlation with international, international disaster relief, religious charities, and social services charities, but negative association with armed forces and emergency services
Charity donation channel	Positive association with each of the buying raffle tickets, donating items to charity, and salary deductions	Positive association with donating items to charity and via direct debit	Salary deductions, direct debit, and donation via mobile device each have a positive association, but sponsoring a friend/relative a negative one
Demographics	Donors located in the West Midlands and Wales, skilled workers, and those of uncertain job status show a positive association, but there is a negative association with 55- to 64-year-olds	Donors located in the West Midlands are more likely to donate	Donors earning more than £100K per year show a positive association, but there is a negative association with voters of leave in the EU referendum and being 75 years old or more
Demographics—no significant association	Gender, qualifications, and ethnicity

Note. EU = European Union.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Donation destination intention appears only marginally associated with donor demographics, with gender, ethnicity, and qualifications playing no part whatsoever. Age and social class (defined by income and employment category) play some role, with the younger and more affluent tending to be more international in their donation focus. Such findings suggest that charities may wish to limit their dependence on classic demographic data as a means of identifying potential donors. Voting behavior in the EU membership referendum suggests that political voting data may provide a useful alternative means of targeting potential donors. The accessibility of charities to donors’ voting behaviors and record is unlikely, but there are indirect means to targeting (or avoiding) potential donors based on such measures (e.g., through specific newspapers or targeting certain geographic regions).

Respondents appear loosely segmented into two groups; those willing to support local or national level causes and those with a predisposition toward international concerns. This aligns with the principles of SIT, whereby individuals possess an inherent desire to minimize inequality between group members and will subsequently support charitable (i.e., domestic) causes that enable this. Previous research has indicated that out-groups are typically less trusted (Tanis & Postmes, 2005) which aligns with the trust levels reported for international charities in this study. SIT recognizes the role of power and status in intergroup relations and suggests that members of a group with greater power will act to maintain the status quo (Fielding et al., 2008).

Education and training causes appear to resonate locally, in contrast to environmental causes and international disaster relief. Nationally, education and training have a positive role, as do initiatives focusing on the armed forces and emergency services. Those who report intention to support international causes typically identify preferences for disaster relief, social services, and religious causes (but also national options relating to social services). In summary, a donor’s preference for donation destination correlates significantly with the type of charitable causes they opt to support. The findings suggest that donation channels may be associated with donation preferences. Face-to-face channels tend to appeal more to those respondents favoring local and national level causes, while more remote forms of giving such as mobile applications relate more to international charities.

The role played by trust is central to donation intention across all destinations. Both local and national charities can leverage higher levels of public trust in their future fundraising efforts and may benefit from the fact that many people hold a more cynical view toward international charities. Conversely, those individuals with higher trust in international causes are in turn more likely to support them independent of whether they trust local or national charities.

Limitations and Future Research

While we are content that the sample is broadly representative of the U.K. population for particular measures, this study group may not reflect donor preferences in other parts of the world. More comparative research across nations (particularly those characterized by varying levels of nationalistic and patriotic tendencies) would facilitate a more global picture of preferred donation destination. One specific sampling limitation identified was the representation of donors from Black and Minority Ethnic groups (8.0% of the sample presented compared with 14.0% of the U.K. population, ONS, 2017). Given the increased mobility of various populations, there exists a need to understand the giving patterns of migrant populations and their attitudes to supporting causes based in their home and host countries.

Notwithstanding our prior justification of basing our multiple regression models on future donation intentions, we acknowledge that collecting data on past giving patterns would add further nuance to the research area. In this study, our rationale for opting for intentions accounted for accurate recall and categorization of donations by respondents over a 3-month period. Future work may wish to address this issue by capturing intentions and behaviors via a more longitudinal format. Research which builds upon Fajardo et al. (2018) work, which calls for a distinction between charitable choice and amount donated, also appears worthwhile, given previous assertions that international charities receive fewer but higher value donations (Micklewright & Schnepf, 2009). It would also be beneficial to add context to the findings through qualitative work, particularly among those predisposed to local and national concerns who self-report greater nationalistic tendencies. Such research may add further insights from those who support domestic over international causes and will aid fundraisers in producing appropriate campaign messaging.

The key message emerging from this study is that an individual’s intention to support local, national, and international causes is significantly associated with a range of issues spanning trust, charitable type, and donation channel. The finding that demographic variables largely fail to correlate with preferred destination donations highlights the need for further work to help fundraisers truly understand how donors feel about charitable causes in different parts of the world.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

David John Hart

Author Biographies

Andrew Robson is a professor in Business Modeling in the Department of Marketing,Operations and Systems at Northumbria University. His teaching focuses on business modeling and associated quantitative methods,with research interests spanning across marketing,pedagogy,and management.

David John Hart is an associate professor in Marketing in the Department of Marketing,Operations and Systems at Northumbria University. His primary research interests are charitable marketing,customer loyalty,and customer complaint behavior. LinkedIn:

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Bekkers

(2003). Trust, accreditation and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003258102

Bekkers

(2010). Who gives what and when? A scenario study of intentions to give time and money. Social Science Research, 39(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.008

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712

Beldad

Snip

van Hoof

(2014). Generosity the second time around: Determinants of individuals’ repeat donation intention. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012457466

Bennett

(2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.198

Berenson

M. L.

Levine

D. M.

Krehbiel

T. C.

(2002). Basic business statistics: Concepts and applications (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Breeze

(2013). How donors choose charities: The role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080513X667792

10.

Casale

Baumann

(2015). Who gives to international causes? A sociodemographic analysis of US donors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013507141

11.

Chapman

C. M.

Louis

W. R.

Masser

B. M.

(2018). Identifying (our) donors: Toward a social psychological understanding of charity selection in Australia. Psychology & Marketing, 35(12), 980–989.

12.

Charities Aid Foundation. (2014). UK giving 2014. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/personal-giving/caf_ukgiving2015_1891a_web_230516.pdf

13.

Charities Aid Foundation. (2017). Charitable giving in the USA 2017. https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2017-publications/charitable-giving-in-the-usa-2017

14.

Charities Aid Foundation. (2018). UK Giving 2018. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/caf-uk-giving-2018-report.pdf

15.

Charity Commission. (2016). Recent charity register statistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-register-statistics/recent-charity-register-statistics-charity-commission

16.

Charity Commission. (2018). Trust in charities 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trust-in-charities-2018

17.

Chatzisarantis

N. L.

Hagger

M. S.

Wang

C. J.

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

(2009). The effects of social identity and perceived autonomy support on health behaviour within the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology, 28(1), 55–68.

18.

Dalton

Madden

Chamberlain

Carr

Lyons

(2008). “It’s gotten a bit old, charity”: Young adults in New Zealand talk about poverty, charitable giving and aid appeals. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.966

19.

Daly

(1997). Charity begins at home: A cross-national view of the voluntary sector in Britain, Canada, and the United States. In Huth

M. J.

Wright

(Eds.), International critical perspectives on homelessness (pp. 168–184). Praeger.

20.

Ein-Gar

Levontin

(2013). Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.002

21.

Einholf

C. J.

(2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010385949

22.

Erlandsson

Nilsson

Tinghög

Andersson

Västfjäll

(2019). Donations to outgroup charities, but not ingroup charities, predict helping intentions toward street-beggars in Sweden. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 814–838.

23.

Fajardo

T. M.

Townsend

Bolander

(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.

24.

Fielding

K. S.

Terry

D. J.

Masser

B. M.

Hogg

M. A.

(2008). Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 23–48.

25.

France

J. L.

France

C. R.

Himawan

L. K.

(2007). A path analysis of intention to redonate among experienced blood donors: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Transfusion, 47(6), 1006–1013.

26.

Grau

S. L.

Folse

J. A. G.

(2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367360402

27.

Hall

Jones

S. C.

Andrews

Cridland

(2013). Community perceptions of and suggested fundraising strategies for local charities. In Brodie

(Ed.), ANZMAC 2013 conference proceedings (pp. 1–7). University of Auckland.

28.

Hart

D. J.

(2016). Charity begins at home? Setting a future research agenda for national identity and charitable ethnocentrism. Social Business, 6(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1362/204440816x14715138381621

29.

Herzog

P. S.

Yang

(2018). Social networks and charitable giving: Trusting, doing, asking, and alter primacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 376–394.

30.

Hibbert

S. A.

Horne

Tagg

(2005). Charity retailers in competition for merchandise: Examining how consumers dispose of used goods. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.011

31.

Higgins

J. W.

Lauzon

(2003). Finding the funds in fun runs: Exploring physical activity events as fundraising tools in the nonprofit sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.226

32.

Hogg

(2018). What regulation, who pays? Public attitudes to charity regulation in England and Wales. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 72–88.

33.

Hogg

M. A.

(2006). Social identity theory. Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, 13, 111–1369.

34.

Johnson

J. S.

(2016). Improving online panel data usage in sales research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36(1), 74–85.

35.

Kashif

Sarifuddin

Hassan

(2015). Charity donation: Intentions and behaviour. Market Intelligence & Planning, 33(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-07-2013-0110

36.

Kessler

J. B.

Milkman

K. L.

(2018). Identity in charitable giving. Management Science, 64(2), 845–859.

37.

Knowles

Sullivan

(2017). Does charity begin at home or overseas? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 944–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017703710

38.

Lee

Piliavin

J. A.

Call

V. R.

(1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 276–290.

39.

Lwin

Phau

Lim

(2014). An investigation of the characteristics of Australian Charitable Donors. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(4), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2014.965074

40.

Manesi

Van Lange

P. A.

Van Doesum

N. J.

Pollet

T. V.

(2019). What are the most powerful predictors of charitable giving to victims of typhoon Haiyan: Prosocial traits, socio-demographic variables, or eye cues? Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 217–225.

41.

Micklewright

Schnepf

S. V.

(2009). Who gives charitable donations for overseas development? Journal of Social Policy, 38(2), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279408002869

42.

Mintel. (2012). Charitable giving report. https://store.mintel.com/charitable-giving-uk-may-2012

43.

Naskrent

Siebelt

(2011). The influence of commitment, trust, satisfaction, and involvement on donor retention. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 757–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9177-x

44.

Neumayr

Handy

(2019). Charitable giving: What influences donors’ choice among different causes? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 783–799.

45.

Nfp Synergy. (2019). Fundraising around the world. https://nfpsynergy.net/free-report/charity-fundraising-around-the-world#downloads

46.

Office for National Statistics. (2017). Overview of the UK population. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/july2017

47.

O’Hara

(2014). Austerity bites: A journey to the sharp end of cuts in the UK. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt13x0q6t

48.

Ottoni-Wilhelm

Vesterlund

Xie

(2017). Why do people give? Testing pure and impure altruism. American Economic Review, 107(11), 3617–3633. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141222

49.

Peloza

Hassay

D. N.

(2007). A typology of charity support behaviors: Toward a holistic view of helping. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 17(1–2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v17n01_07

50.

Piper

Schnepf

S. V.

(2008). Gender differences in charitable giving in Great Britain. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19, 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9057-9

51.

Pressgrove

McKeever

B. W.

Jang

S. M.

(2018). What is contagious? Exploring why content goes viral on Twitter: A case study of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 23(1), Article e1586. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1586

52.

Rajan

S. S.

Pink

G. H.

Dow

W. H.

(2009). Sociodemographic and personality characteristics of Canadian donors contributing to international charity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008316056

53.

Schlegelmilch

B. B.

Love

Diamantopoulos

(1997). Responses to different charity appeals: The impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations. European Journal of Marketing, 31(8), 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569710176574

54.

Shier

M. L.

Handy

(2012). Understanding online donor behavior: The role of donor characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1425

55.

Small

D. A.

Simonsohn

(2007). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542.

56.

Smith

J. R.

McSweeney

(2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behavior model in predicting donating intentions and behavior. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 363–386.

57.

Stevenson

Manning

(2010). National identity and international giving: Irish adults’ accounts of charitable behaviour. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1029

58.

Strombach

Jin

Weber

Kenning

Shen

Kalenscher

(2014). Charity begins at home: Cultural differences in social discounting and generosity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1802

59.

Tajfel

(1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65–93.

60.

Tanis

Postmes

(2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 413–424.

61.

Terry

D. J.

Hogg

M. A.

White

K. M.

(1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 225–244.

62.

Varadarajan

P. R.

Menon

(1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Marketing, 52, 58–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251450

63.

Verhaert

G. A.

Van den Poel

(2011). Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1288–1295.

64.

Warburton

Terry

D. J.

(2000). Volunteer decision making by older people: A test of a revised theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 245–257.

65.

Wiepking

(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, 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.005