Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

What difference does “nonprofitness” make is a fundamental question for nonprofit research. Although being held as the basic assumption of the contract failure theory, the sector difference perceived by individuals remains as an open question for multiple methodological problems. Here, we present evidence from three experiments for further empirical exploration of the perceived sector difference with improved research design. Our findings suggest a general pattern of sector stereotype: people perceive nonprofits as being warmer and slightly more competent than for-profits. More importantly, we show that such stereotypical understanding mainly results from people’s repugnance against profit-seeking intention instead of preferences toward nonprofits in the social service market. Such pattern differs slightly across three subareas being tested. Finally, we find more relevant information about the organization serves as a potential moderator that weakens the effect of being a nonprofit, which blurs the sector boundary in a given market.

Keywords

sector boundary sector stereotype nonprofitness public perception social enterprise

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaker

Vohs

K. D.

Mogilner

(2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566

Amirkhanyan

A. A.

Kim

H. J.

Lambright

K. T.

(2008). Does the public sector outperform the nonprofit and for-profit sectors? Evidence from a national panel study on nursing home quality and access. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(2), 326–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20327

Beisland

L. A.

Pascal Ndaki

Mersland

(2019). Influence of ownership type and CEO power on residual loss: Evidence from the global microfinance industry. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 998–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019848498

Ben-Ner

Hamann

D. J.

Ren

(2018). Does ownership matter in the selection of service providers? Evidence from nursing home consumer surveys. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(6), 1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018790698

Bhattacharjee

Dana

Baron

(2017). Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(5), 671–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000093

Campbell

M. C.

Kirmani

(2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/314309

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

Beninger

(2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004

DiMaggio

P. J.

Anheier

H. K.

(1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. American Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.

10.

Drevs

Tscheulin

D. K.

Lindenmeier

(2014). Do patient perceptions vary with ownership status? A study of nonprofit, for-profit, and public hospital patients. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012458179

11.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

12.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

(2017). Social cognition: From brains to culture (3rd ed.). SAGE.

13.

Galaskiewicz

Barringer

S. N.

(2012). Social enterprise and social categories. In B. Gidron & Y. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Social enterprise (pp. 47–70). Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Handy

Seto

Wakaruk

Mersey

Mejia

Copeland

(2010). The discerning consumer: Is nonprofit status a factor? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010362113

15.

Hansmann

H. B.

(1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja804069n

16.

Hansmann

H. B.

(1981). The rationale for exempting nonprofit organizations from corporate income taxation. The Yale Law Journal, 91(1), 54–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/795849

17.

Judd

C. M.

James-Hawkins

Yzerbyt

Kashima

(2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899

18.

Kahneman

Frederick

(2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich

Griffin

Kahneman

(Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004

19.

Lee

Bolton

L. E.

Winterich

K. P.

(2017). To profit or not to profit? The role of greed perceptions in consumer support for social ventures. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx071

20.

Paul

J. A.

Quosigk

MacDonald

(2020). Does hospital status affect performance? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019877249

21.

Salamon

L. M.

(1989). Of market failure, voluntary failure and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16(1–2), 29–49.

22.

Schlesinger

Mitchell

Gray

B. H.

(2004). Restoring public legitimacy to the nonprofit sector: A survey experiment using descriptions of nonprofit ownership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 673–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004269431

23.

Stellar

J. E.

Willer

(2018). Unethical and inept? The influence of moral information on perceptions of competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000097

24.

Suchman

M. C.

(1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331

25.

Todorov

Mandisodza

A. N.

Goren

Hall

C. C.

(2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589

26.

Tost

L. P.

(2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0227

27.

Walker

R. M.

Lee

M. J.

James

S. M. Y.

(2018). Analyzing the complexity of performance information use: Experiments with stakeholders to disaggregate dimensions of performance, data sources, and data types. Public Administration Review, 78, 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12920

28.

(2018, August 9). The effect of social enterprises’ sector information on people’s perceptions and behavioral intentions. AEA RCT Registry. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3104-1.0

29.

Young

D. R.

Lecy

J. D.

(2014). Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors. Voluntas, 25(5), 1307–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9396-z

30.

Zucker

L. G.

(1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303

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.

0.00 MB

1.52 MB

The Perceived Differences: The Sector Stereotype of Social Service Providers

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material