In this article, we develop and validate a comprehensive self-report scale of why people make charitable donations, relying on a theoretical model of private versus public benefits to donors. In Study 1, we administered an initial pool of 54 items to a general adult sample online. An exploratory factor analysis supported six final factors in the Motives to Donate scale: Trust, Altruism, Social, Tax benefits, Egoism, and Constraints. We then verified this factor structure in a confirmatory factor analysis. Study 1 also examined the final 18-item scale’s demographic correlates and construct validity using the same sample. We found that the scale correlated in predictable ways with personality traits and motives to volunteer. In Study 2, we also found test–retest correlations between .67 and .80 after 2 weeks. Taken together, we provide initial evidence for the scale’s internal reliability, test–retest reliability, and validity, and we suggest future directions for research.
AdloffF. (2016). Approaching philanthropy from a social theory perspective. In JungT.PhillipsS. D.HarrowJ. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philanthropy (pp. 56-71). London, England: Routledge.
2.
AndreoniJ. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1447-1458.
3.
AndreoniJ. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.
4.
AutenG. E.SiegH.ClotfelterC. T. (2002). Charitable giving, income, and taxes: An analysis of panel data. American Economic Review, 92, 371-382.
5.
BarrioV. D.AlujaA.GarcíaL. F. (2004). Relationship between empathy and the Big Five personality traits in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32, 677-681.
6.
BeckerG. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 1063-1093.
7.
BekkersR. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 596-615.
8.
BekkersR. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 349-366.
9.
BekkersR.BoonstoppelE.de WitA. (2013). Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS). Amsterdam: Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU University. Retrieved from http://www.giving.nl/giving-the-netherlands
10.
BekkersR.SchuytT. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50, 74-96.
11.
BekkersR.Ottoni-WilhelmM. (2016). Principle of care and giving to help people in need. European Journal of Personality, 30, 240-257.
12.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924-973.
13.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011b). Testing mechanisms for philanthropic behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 291-297.
14.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011c). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2, 337-365.
15.
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.
16.
BentlerP. M.BonnetD. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
17.
BernheimB. D. (1994). A theory of conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 841-877.
18.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. SAGE Focus Editions, 154, 136.
19.
CarloG.OkunM. A.KnightG. P.de GuzmanM. R. T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1293-1305.
20.
ClaryE. G.SnyderM. (1999). The motivations to volunteer theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156-159.
21.
ClaryE. G.SnyderM.RidgeR. D.CopelandJ.StukasA. A.HaugenJ.MieneP. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530.
22.
CrosonR.HandyF.ShangJ. (2009). Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19, 467-489.
23.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
24.
DawsonS. (1988). Four motivations for charitable giving: Implications for marketing strategy to attract monetary donations for medical research. Marketing Health Services, 8(2), 31.
25.
DuL.QianL.FengY. (2014). Influences of altruistic motivation, shared vision, and perceived accessibility on microcharity behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42, 1639-1650.
26.
DuncanB. (1999). Modeling charitable contributions of time and money. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 213-242.
27.
DunnE. W.AkninL. B.NortonM. I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 23(1), 41-47.
28.
ElsterJ. (2000). Social norms and economic theory. In RabinJ.StevensG. (Eds.), Handbook of monetary policy (pp. 117-133). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
FeldmanN. E. (2010). Time is money: Choosing between charitable activities. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 103-130.
30.
FongC. M. (2007). Evidence from an experiment on charity to welfare recipients: Reciprocity, altruism and the empathic responsiveness hypothesis. The Economic Journal, 117, 1008-1024.
31.
FreyB. S.MeierS. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. The American Economic Review, 94, 1717-1722.
32.
FriedmanL. J.McGarvieM. D. (Eds.). (2003). Charity, philanthropy and civility in American society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
FurnhamA. (1984). Many sides of the coin: The psychology of money usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 501-509.
35.
FurnhamA. (1995). The just world, charitable giving and attitudes to disability. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 577-583.
36.
Giving USA. (2017). The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2016 (Researched and written by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy). Retrieved from https://givingusa.org/tag/giving-usa-2017/
37.
GlazerA.KonradK. A. (1996). A signaling explanation for charity. The American Economic Review, 86, 1019-1028.
38.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
39.
GraceD.GriffinD. (2009). Conspicuous donation behaviour: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8, 14-25.
40.
GreenC. L.WebbD. J. (1997). Factors influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 5(3), 19-40.
41.
HandyF. (2000). How we beg: The analysisof direct mail appeals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 439-454.
42.
HandyF.CnaanR. A.BrudneyJ. L.AscoliU.MeijsL. C.RanadeS. (2000). Public perception of “who is a volunteer”: An examination of the net-cost approach from a cross-cultural perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(1), 45-65.
43.
HandyF.KatzE. (2008). Donating behavior: If time is money, which to give? A preliminary analysis. Journal of Economic Studies, 35, 323-332.
44.
HarbaughW. T. (1998). The prestige motive for making charitable transfers. American Economic Review, 88, 277-282.
45.
HarbaughW. T.MayrU.BurghartD. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622-1625.
46.
HibbertS.HorneS. (1996). Giving to charity: Questioning the donor decision process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 4-13.
47.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
48.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
49.
JacksonE. F.BachmeierM. D.WoodJ. R.CraftE. A. (1995). Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 59-78.
50.
KarlanD.ListJ. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. The American Economic Review, 97, 1774-1793.
51.
KolmS. C.YthierJ. M. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity: Foundations (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Elsevier.
52.
KonrathS. (2016). The joy of giving. In BurlingameD.SeilerT.TempelG. (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 11-25). Hookben, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
53.
KonrathS.Fuhrel-ForbisA.LouA.BrownS. (2012). Motives for volunteering are associated with mortality risk in older adults. Health Psychology, 31(1), 87.
54.
ListJ. (2011). The market for charitable giving. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25, 157-180.
55.
LowN.ButtS.EllisP.Davis SmithJ. (2007). Helping Out: A national survey of volunteering and charitable giving. Retrieved from http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/2547/
56.
MichelG.RieunierS. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65, 701-707.
57.
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.
58.
OzerD. J.Benet-MartinezV. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
59.
PaytonR. L.MoodyM. P. (2008). Understanding philanthropy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
60.
PennerL. A.FritzscheB. A.CraigerJ. P.FreifeldT. R. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. Advances in Personality Assessment, 10, 147-163.
61.
PiliavinJ. A.CharngH. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27-65.
62.
RabinM. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 1281-1302.
63.
RaykovT.TomerA.NesselroadeJ. R. (1991). Reporting structural equation modeling results in Psychology and Aging: Some proposed guidelines. Psychology and Aging, 6, 499.
64.
RibarD. C.WilhelmM. O. (2002). Altruistic and joy-of-giving motivations in charitable behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 425-457.
65.
Rose-AckermanS. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 701-728.
66.
SargeantA.FordJ. B.WestD. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 155-165.
67.
SargeantA.WoodliffeL. (2007). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 275-307.
68.
SchervishP. G.HavensJ. J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8, 235-260.
69.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
70.
SeilerT. L.WilliamsC. (Eds.). (2001). Understanding donor dynamics: The organizational side of charitable giving. New York, NY: Wiley.
71.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
72.
SteinbergR. (1990). Taxes and giving: New findings. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1, 61-79.
73.
StevensJ. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74.
StrahanR.GerbasiK. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191-193.
75.
StukasA. A.HoyeR.NicholsonM.BrownK. M.AisbettL. (2016). Motivations to volunteer and their associations with volunteers’ well-being. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 112-132.
76.
SugdenR. (1984). Reciprocity: The supply of public goods through voluntary contributions. The Economic Journal, 94, 772-787.
77.
Van IwaardenJ.Van der WieleT.WilliamsR.MoxhamC. (2009). Charities: How important is performance to donors?International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26, 5-22.
78.
Van LeeuwenM. H.WiepkingP. (2013). National campaigns for charitable causes: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 219-240.
79.
VesterlundL. (2006). Why do people give. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2, 168-190.
80.
WebbD. J.GreenC. L.BrashearT. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 299-309.
81.
WiepkingP.HandyF. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook on global philanthropy. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
82.
WiepkingP.HeijnenM. (2011). The giving standard: Conditional cooperation in the case of charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 13-22.
83.
WiepkingP.MaasI. (2009). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87, 1973-1995.
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.
