Suchergebnisse

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.

Nonprofit organization (NPO) marketers are now increasingly turning online to recognize donors, with little understanding as to how online donor appreciation influences behavior. A scenario-based research design using an online survey was administered to a random sample of voluntary blood donors ( n = 356). The findings contribute to identity theory by demonstrating that online recognition (digital badge shared to Facebook) can strengthen subjective impressions of identity-related behavior above a private thank-you email alone. Furthermore, outcomes of a positive identity appraisal (accountability and emotional value) were found to differentially drive NPO-benefiting activities (positive electronic word-of-mouth and donation intentions) depending on donation experience. The results strategically inform online donor appreciation activities to improve donor retention.

Across two studies ( Ns = 265 and 735), we investigated whether women's endorsement of hostile (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) moderates their experience of collective threat and subsequent hostility toward traditional and non-traditional female subtypes. As expected, HS was positively associated with intra-gender hostility toward the non-traditional subtype, and these effects were mediated by collective threat. HS was negatively associated with collective threat and hostility toward the traditional subtype, but only when the target endorsed prescriptive gender beliefs that explicitly reinforced gender inequality. BS was associated with collective threat and hostility toward the non-traditional subtype, but these effects did not emerge consistently across both studies. These results suggest that women are not a homogeneous group whose members all find the same subtypes collectively threatening. Rather, the extent to which women internalize patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes influences the behaviors they find threatening and deserving of hostility.

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.