Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Maria Rigou
 -- 3186 2023-09-21 13:42:38

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Balaskas, S.; Panagiotarou, A.; Rigou, M. Impact of Personality Traits on Charitable Donations. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49478 (accessed on 22 July 2024).
Balaskas S, Panagiotarou A, Rigou M. Impact of Personality Traits on Charitable Donations. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49478. Accessed July 22, 2024.
Balaskas, Stefanos, Aliki Panagiotarou, Maria Rigou. "Impact of Personality Traits on Charitable Donations" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49478 (accessed July 22, 2024).
Balaskas, S., Panagiotarou, A., & Rigou, M. (2023, September 21). Impact of Personality Traits on Charitable Donations. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49478
Balaskas, Stefanos, et al. "Impact of Personality Traits on Charitable Donations." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 September, 2023.
Impact of Personality Traits on Charitable Donations
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/soc13060144

Given the serious humanitarian crises encountered by the modern world, it is more crucial than ever to build a society based on solidarity, compassion, empathy, and a sense of teamwork and cooperation. It is evident that a person’s personality traits may affect their altruistic attitudes and, consequently, how one behaves across all social contexts. Therefore, how people perceive and interpret their social environments and experiences can be varied depending on their personality, which is an interesting subject of research. 

donation charity behavioral intention personality traits altruism

1. Introduction

Philanthropy, or the provision of services to third parties, differs from mutual aid, which is the dominant social and economic support system for most of the population in industrialized countries [1][2], as the primary recipient of the volunteering is not the group member, but an extended third group, although it should be noted that most people consider philanthropy to include elements of personal achievements and interests [1][3]. Thus, one can say that philanthropy is an attitude; a behavior in which the loving disposition towards others is manifested [3][4]. A philanthropist is someone who experiences internally and expresses externally, the feeling of love, while a charitable work can be described as anything related to and governed by a specific emotional state. Charities are non-profit organizations (NPOs) that focus on charitable purposes, helping fellow human beings in need, thus serving the public interest and the common good [5][6]. They express bonds of comradely and class solidarity of their members, who either participate financially, or contribute through knowledge and volunteer actions to the realization of the mutual goals, and seek as many members as possible to assist in their cause. Thus, excluding specific professions that require volunteering for practicing/learning reasons; in the general case volunteering is identified with charity to give a new virtue, the love for the fellow man. Funding sources are subscriptions, donations, and sponsorships, mainly independent and financially autonomous, relying exclusively on voluntary contributions. Despite the similarities between the concepts of NPOs and volunteering, the latter continues to inspire more, especially in today’s era where individualism dominates [3][7][8][9].
There are a variety of definitions and types of charity [10][11], with each region’s history, politics, religion, and culture having an impact on it. The assumption that one’s volunteer acts will be appreciated by the community underpins philanthropic and giving behavior. The desire for charitable giving is a manifestation of social interactions through which individuals seek to improve not only their own, but also the livelihoods of those in need, and address development issues [10][11]. A rising issue in today’s society that is evolving in response to the pressures of globalization concerns the funding of NPOs. NPOs receive financing from a variety of sources, including general public donations, government and international organization support, and charitable contributions. Funding NPOs that reflect the perspectives of certain groups can help governments collect all important citizen opinions and experiences. For certain groups, it is a productive and representative approach to voice their views on social concerns, making it simpler for governments worldwide to gather all relevant perspectives and experiences of individuals [8][12]. Governments require this information to establish laws and policies that are successful and do not harm the interests of certain groups of people. The economic crisis had a substantial impact on the activity of non-governmental organizations, decreasing the availability of funds and services at a time when their need was greater than ever. Considering the severe political disenchantment, NPOs are increasingly being called upon to fill the hole left by a diminishing welfare state and to promote human rights and democratic ideals [9][13]. This crisis has offered fresh opportunities for the non-profit sector.

2. Personality Traits and Donations

By definition, the “personality” term refers to “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment.” [14][15]. In recent years, in addition to the external factors (which can influence an individual, thus composing their behavior and adapting it to social and personal circumstances), individual internal factors that compose the personality are also observed in each person independently, namely personality traits [16][17]. These are indicators that describe “people in relation to behavioral patterns, thoughts, and emotions while are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals and are relatively consistent over situations” [18][19]. The term “personality” is utilized frequently in common speech, and is acknowledged by both the general public and academic circles to refer to a combination of traits that make each individual unique. Personality questionnaires based on lexical theory are one of the most popular and widely used methods of determining and evaluating human nature, as well as for predicting social behavior over time, with particular attention paid to the effect of personality characteristics on philanthropic behaviors [20][21][22].
The Five-Factor Model (FFM), also known as the Big Five Model, one of the most widely used personality models, piqued the interest of two personality researchers, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae [23][24], who supported the validity of the model in question through empirical studies, providing momentum for conducting personality research studies within the specific context in different cultural contexts and cultures, and in a diverse range of different populations [25]. FFM categorizes an individual’s personality using five primary traits, namely extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Although the Five-Factor Model is one of the most influential models in the history of personality research and theory, it is not the only option that has been proposed.
The six-factor HEXACO model, a variation of the Five-Factor model (Big Five model), has received a lot of attention lately since it served as the theoretical foundation for the development of numerous personality evaluation instruments [26][27][28]. A factor’s high and low levels can be determined by its characteristics. The most frequent technique to test one’s personality characteristics using HEXACO is to utilize an automated report inventory or an observer’s report. Each of the six characteristics is the outcome of a set of questions designed to assess the level of each factor. Each of the six HEXACO components is divided into four “aspects”, one for each personality trait, and is measured by the HEXACO-PI-R [28]. This model incorporates the Big Five model’s five elements, as well as the honesty-humility factor [29], and it also differs in the neuroticism element that it associates it with the emotionality trait.
Through the inclusion of the honesty-humility factor, the HEXACO model was able to explain the uniqueness of some antisocial criteria, such as psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and selfishness, but also prosocial tendencies, such as collaboration [29][30][31]. In these instances, people with low scores of honesty-humility are more prone to act in a manipulative, unjust, self-enhancing, or exploitative way. On the other hand, individuals who demonstrate high scores of honesty-humility are less likely to actively seek out exploitative circumstances and behave in such a way that might lead to advances in reputation inside a cooperation. Low scores on this trait are also linked to negative personality traits, such as selfishness and manipulative tendencies, which are studied in the psychological theory of the dark triad [31]. Conscientiousness has been related to the accomplishment of one’s professional, social, or other commitments, and conscientious people are known for their methodicality and thoughtfulness. People with very high levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness dedicate more time to volunteer activities and are more likely to make monetary donations [30][32][33]. In terms of altruistic attitude, individuals with high levels of conscientiousness may feel obligated to assist others if they believe it is required, or strive towards exemplary citizenship [34], while in some cases altruistic attitudes can be perceived as an obligation by those whose behavior conforms to prosocial principles [32]. Extraversion, according to this theory, operates within the context of social interaction (such as socializing, mentoring, or entertainment). High scores of extraversion are likely to provide social advantages, depending on social or environmental factors (i.e., access to friends, associates, or even partners), and have been directly related to proclivity for volunteering and pro-social activities. Individuals with empathy, a propensity toward helpful acts, and high degrees of empathy are characterized by the personality trait of emotionality [26][27][31]. Despite that, the relationship between this trait and prosocial activities has received little attention, especially regarding charity advertisements that include messages and appeal to empathy [35].
It is evident that a person’s personality traits may affect their altruistic attitudes and, consequently, how one behaves across all social contexts. Therefore, how people perceive and interpret their social environments and experiences can vary depending on their personality, which is an interesting subject of research. The association between prosocial tendencies and personality traits that result in altruistic or charitable activities has received a lot of attention in academia [17][18][19][30][36]. Empathy, or the degree to which one’s behaviors, sense of responsibility, and motives are directed towards the common good, as well as the degree to which one actively promotes this need to assist individuals within their social circle, are the guiding axes of prosocial behavior [33][36]. In [37], the authors conducted a cross-cultural study to assess the influence and relationship between the Big Five, HEXACO traits and gratitude towards God on several aspects of well-being. In the first study, scales for cognitive, psychological, and subjective happiness were examined and correlated with dispositional, religious gratitude and Big Five personality traits of 188 Muslim participants. The results showcased agreeableness to be the main determinant for gratitude, while it had no statistical influence on any of the aspects of well-being, in comparison to dispositional gratitude, which proved to be a predictive factor. In the second study that involved 212 Christian participants, HEXACO’s honesty-humility and extraversion traits were significantly correlated with gratitude. Once again, dispositional gratitude plays an important role in predicting subjective well-being and life satisfaction, while gratitude towards God and extrinsic-personal religiosity had a direct and positive relationship. The researchers note the significance of the results regarding reciprocal altruism, which is correlated with high scores of agreeableness, while gratitude is influenced by honesty-humility.
Lim et al. in [35], approached the issue of the effectiveness of advertising appeals of nonprofit organizations through a 2 × 2 experimental design. The focus was placed on the impact of HEXACO’s personality traits on attitudes towards advertising and intention to donate after being exposed to advertisements on social media, to account for the effectiveness of social media metrics (i.e., likes, comments, etc.). Regression analysis revealed that honesty-humility, emotionality, and agreeableness had a statistically significant impact on positive attitudes, while extraversion and conscientiousness were more likely to result in actual donations. Interestingly, none of the personality traits had a direct or indirect effect on advertising appeal types, either through attitudes or donation intentions.
Yarkoni et al. [38], highlighted the significance of personality traits concerning attitudes toward recipients and donation behavior. In their research design, Analog to Multiple Broadband Inventories (AMBI) were implemented to explore personality, which includes several of the major personality scales. A total of 284 participants were exposed to 16 dynamically generated biographies describing individuals seeking humanitarian aid, while each biography, due to its uniqueness, with the inclusion of a predictive algorithm, was later used to acquire normative attitudes. Agreeableness had a significant impact on all aspects of social evaluation, both for recipient and normative attitudes. In addition, extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness had a positive influence on perceived responsibility and likeability, as people exhibit sympathetic tendencies and are more likely to identify and recognize a person’s need, or even to distinguish individuals who necessitate and require genuine immediate assistance, which generally results in monetary donations.
As mentioned above, attempts have been made to study the role and cruciality of personality traits and their influence on the outcomes of charity marketing. Personality traits allow researchers to explore human nature and discover behavioral patterns in consumers that will allow for designing effective strategies and marketing campaigns for non-profit and charity organizations.

3. Charitable Attitudes and Advertisement

Advertising is one of the most fundamental components of the promotional mix and is often one of the components of a comprehensive marketing and communications program [39][40]. Advertising methods and techniques are implemented to efficiently spread messages while they are employed not just by corporations or organizations, but also by non-profit organizations, museums, charities, government agencies, or any other type of agency that distributes direct messages about a shared aim [41][42][43]. Businesses, in collaboration with other organizations, non-profit or non-governmental, can take local initiatives for a cause, invest resources in support of community issues, make monetary or charitable donations, encourage and support volunteerism and human rights, and acquire financial support through grants and charitable activities [41][44][45].
To reconcile conflicting interests and demanding audiences, most corporations are now compelled to establish strategies, support a social cause, and encourage philanthropy. A business, typically a for-profit organization, distributes a proportion or all of its profits to a philanthropic or humanitarian purpose. It is a policy that is often applied to a certain product and for a limited time period. Implementing such a policy guarantees mutual advantage, both for the firm increasing sales of a certain product and for the financial support of the beneficiary NPO [3][7][9]. At the same time, consumers are given the opportunity to support a cause without spending any extra money by purchasing the products. With these initiatives, corporations attempt to create a respectable social profile that people would recognize via their efforts, monetary donations, and charity. To an extent, several corporations have already begun to feel a sense of obligation to pursue charitable giving as a beneficial part of their social image. By sponsoring a “good cause”, it enhances its social profile and, as a byproduct, indirectly raises its reputation abroad. The non-profit organization may market its cause and attract consumers who will either fund or be intrigued by learning about the cause [46][47][48][49]. However, there is the risk of mistaking social responsibility for marketing activities, which can lead to unfavorable impacts on the firm’s efforts to advertise its aim. It has been observed that, in several cases, marketing “cancels” the goal of social work and is viewed as advertising, as the consumer public interprets advertising messages as a capitalistic drive for profit [46][47][48][49].
To communicate their message, NPOs rely heavily on the psychological aspects of advertising. They evoke emotions such as sadness, remorse, or fear to manipulate the audience [44][50][51]. Charitable and social advertisements use emotional appeals of shame to convince and urge message receivers to acquire products and donate. Emotional appeals emphasizing guilt, in general, are widely implemented to raise audience attention and thus help messages stand out [51][52]. Consumers that feel guilty are those who understand they have disobeyed social rules and betrayed their “beliefs”. Individuals who feel guilty also identify their failure to acknowledge and accept responsibility. Other negative emotions, such as shame, underline other people’s values and “beliefs”, which define what actions should be taken to act upon a social problem [48][49][53][54][55]. Shame depends on unfavorable assessments of “third parties”, whereas guilt is an internal function based on one’s own beliefs. Promoting a message with emotional appeals of guilt, the individual may manage the situation while feeling unpleasant, whereas in fear, the person has little or no power. Guilt appeals elicit sentiments of rage and aggravation, causing the recipient to perceive the message as repulsive, whereas low-guilt appeals hardly maintain the receiver’s attention [43][48][54][56]. Arguably, among the most fundamental motives for purchasing a product or service is the prioritization of human needs and a new higher level of satisfaction, which undoubtedly contributes to the development of new interpersonal methods for appealing to the consumer public. Thus, the importance of consumer behavior becomes an integral task, particularly psychological aspects since they are individual, personal impulses that stem from the qualities of each individual’s personality traits independently. By determining the role of customer personality, marketers could effectively cultivate a plan of action that is more likely to satisfy consumers’ motivations and requirements. The realization of how personality traits can have a significant impact on future purchase intentions prompted the need to classify those reasons that influence consumer behavioral patterns and attitudes towards advertisements, to the extent that their comprehension and study can contribute to the survival and growth of businesses.
In [57], the authors investigate what drives individuals to donate to charitable causes. To study the factors behind altruistic behaviors and behavioral intentions for charitable giving, in their research model, particular emphasis is placed on religious commitment, attitudes towards advertisement, and charitable organizations. The results from the structural equation modelling on 214 participants indicate that there are positive direct effects between attitudes towards charitable organizations and helping others scale with behavioral intentions to donate. While there is no significant impact between attitudes towards helping others and final behavioral intention, interestingly, religiosity proved to have an imperative influence with statistically significant relationships between behavioral intention, and attitudes towards advertising and charitable organizations.
In [58], the authors examined the key factors that influence people’s happiness in the context of life satisfaction. In their research models, the authors approach this issue by examining how different dimensions of religiosity affect individuals (intrinsic, extrinsic social/personal) and the mediating role of altruism through charitable giving and volunteering. The results from 3008 Turkish participants showed that both charitable giving and volunteering were not affected by intrinsic religiosity, whilst social and personal religious orientations had a significant impact on charitable giving. This observation enhances the theoretical foundation surrounding people’s proclivity for altruism when they incorporate their inclusion and projection in a social group, but also on a personal level with the goal of inner well-being and tranquility. It is worth noting that all aspects of religiosity revealed a direct and positive association with life satisfaction.
Researchers have already discussed how emotional appeal in advertising campaigns influences not just the consumer audience and how the presented message is perceived, but also what impact different emotions have on the final behavioral or purchase decision. In [59], researchers attempted to determine how positive and negative appeals on charity advertisements influence consumers’ behavioral intentions to donate through a series of four studies. The first part of their studies focused on identifying whether positive or negative appeals affect attitudes and donation behaviors in different conceptual cases, while the second part focuses on people’s expectations and awareness regarding the displayed charity appeal and its effectiveness on actual donation. Based on the results from the studies, the authors highlight the drastic effect of positive appeals on people’s perception of the featured charity organization, as well as how self-perceived belief was mediated by positive appeals and improved the attitude to donate. In contrast, negative appeals had a significant impact on actual behavior to donate, while no statistically significant differences were found between the unfavorable attitude towards the organization and willingness to donate. In [60] authors conducted a survey with 332 Greek respondents to investigate how the factors of personality traits, altruistic behaviors, and humanitarian actions can positively influence citizens’ behavioral intentions. The findings add to current research by underlining the relevance of individuals’ altruistic character, since our analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between charitable giving and behavioral intention to donate. All HEXACO personality traits, excluding emotionality, demonstrated a statistically significant positive relationship with the attitude towards advertising, while none of the personality traits exhibited a statistically significant positive relationship with the concept of charitable giving, which calls for further investigation.

References

  1. Kotler, P. Strategies for introducing marketing into nonprofit organizations. J. Mark. 1979, 43, 37–44.
  2. Andreoni, J. Philanthropy. In Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 2, pp. 1201–1269.
  3. Payton, R.L.; Moody, M.P. Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2008.
  4. Sulek, M. On the modern meaning of philanthropy. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2010, 39, 193–212.
  5. Hull, C.E.; Lio, B.H. Innovation in non-profit and for-profit organizations: Visionary, strategic, and financial considerations. J. Chang. Manag. 2006, 6, 53–65.
  6. Dolnicar, S.; Lazarevski, K. Marketing in non-profit organizations: An international perspective. Int. Mark. Rev. 2009, 26, 275–291.
  7. Blery, E.K.; Katseli, E.; Tsara, N. Marketing for a non-profit organization. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2010, 7, 57–68.
  8. Prugsamatz, R. Factors that influence organization learning sustainability in non-profit organizations. Learn. Organ. 2010, 17, 243–267.
  9. Wymer, W. Nonprofit marketing research: Developing ideas for new studies. SN Bus. Econ. 2021, 1, 90.
  10. Hopkins, C.D.; Shanahan, K.J.; Raymond, M.A. The moderating role of religiosity on nonprofit advertising. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 23–31.
  11. Vveinhardt, J.; Zygmantaite, R. Impact of social context on strategic philanthropy: Theoretical insight. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 214, 1165–1173.
  12. Cao, X.; Jia, L. The effects of the facial expression of beneficiaries in charity appeals and psychological involvement on donation intentions: Evidence from an online experiment. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2017, 27, 457–473.
  13. Yousef, M.; Dietrich, T.; Rundle-Thiele, S.; Alhabash, S. Emotional appeals effectiveness in enhancing charity digital advertisements. J. Philanthr. Mark. 2022, 27, e1763.
  14. Allport, G.W. Pattern and Growth in Personality; Holt, Reinhart & Winston: Austin, TX, USA, 1961; p. 28.
  15. Allport, G.W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation; Holt, Reinhart & Winston: Austin, TX, USA, 1937.
  16. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Objections to the HEXACO model of personality structure—And why those objections fail. Eur. J. Personal. 2020, 34, 492–510.
  17. Thielmann, I.; Spadaro, G.; Balliet, D. Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 30.
  18. Parks-Leduc, L.; Feldman, G.; Bardi, A. Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 19, 3–29.
  19. De Jong, N.; Wisse, B.; Heesink, J.A.; Van der Zee, K.I. Personality traits and career role enactment: Career role preferences as a mediator. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1720.
  20. Edwards, A.L.; Abbott, R.D. Measurement of personality traits: Theory and technique. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1973, 24, 241–278.
  21. Schneider, D.J. Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychol. Bull. 1973, 79, 294.
  22. Harkness, A.R. Theory and Measurement of Personality Traits; Oxford Academic: Oxford, UK, 2002.
  23. Costa, P.T., Jr.; McCrae, R.R.; Dye, D.A. Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1991, 12, 887–898.
  24. McCrae, R.R.; John, O.P. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Personal. 1992, 60, 175–215.
  25. Costa, P.T., Jr.; McCrae, R.R. The Revised Neo Personality Inventory (Neo-pi-r); Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2008.
  26. Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004, 39, 329–358.
  27. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 150–166.
  28. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. J. Personal. Assess. 2009, 91, 340–345.
  29. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. The HEXACO model of personality structure and the importance of the H factor. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2008, 2, 1952–1962.
  30. Carlo, G.; Okun, M.A.; Knight, G.P.; de Guzman, M.R.T. The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2005, 38, 1293–1305.
  31. Lee, K.; Ashton, M.C. Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2005, 38, 1571–1582.
  32. Jensen-Campbell, L.A.; Adams, R.; Perry, D.G.; Workman, K.A.; Furdella, J.Q.; Egan, S.K. Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. J. Res. Personal. 2002, 36, 224–251.
  33. Claxton-Oldfield, S.; Banzen, Y. Personality characteristics of hospice palliative care volunteers: The “big five” and empathy. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 2010, 27, 407–412.
  34. Omoto, A.M.; Snyder, M.; Hackett, J.D. Personality and motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement. J. Personal. 2010, 78, 1703–1734.
  35. Lim, H.S.; Bouchacourt, L.; Brown-Devlin, N. Nonprofit organization advertising on social media: The role of personality, advertising appeals, and bandwagon effects. J. Consum. Behav. 2021, 20, 849–861.
  36. White, K.M.; Poulsen, B.E.; Hyde, M.K. Identity and personality influences on donating money, time, and blood. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2017, 46, 372–394.
  37. Aghababaei, N.; Błachnio, A.; Aminikhoo, M. The relations of gratitude to religiosity, well-being, and personality. Ment. Health Relig. Cult. 2018, 21, 408–417.
  38. Yarkoni, T.; Ashar, Y.K.; Wager, T.D. Interactions between donor Agreeableness and recipient characteristics in predicting charitable donation and positive social evaluation. PeerJ 2015, 3, e1089.
  39. Goi, C.L. A review of marketing mix: 4Ps or more. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2009, 1, 2–15.
  40. Londhe, B.R. Marketing mix for next generation marketing. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 11, 335–340.
  41. Sargeant, A.; Hudson, J.; West, D.C. Conceptualizing brand values in the charity sector: The relationship between sector, cause and organization. Serv. Ind. J. 2008, 28, 615–632.
  42. Wymer, W.; Gross, H. Charity advertising: A literature review and research agenda. J. Philanthr. Mark. 2021, e1723.
  43. Bhati, A.; Dean, J. Charity advertising: Visual methods, images and elicitation. In Researching Voluntary Action; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2022; pp. 59–69.
  44. Das, E.; Kerkhof, P.; Kuiper, J. Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2008, 36, 161–175.
  45. Freriksen, D. Creating Trust through Charity Advertisement: Focusing on Charity Successes or Future Goals, by Using Statistical or Anecdotal Evidence? University of Twente: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2014.
  46. Bennett, R.; Barkensjo, A. Causes and consequences of donor perceptions of the quality of the relationship marketing activities of charitable organisations. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2005, 13, 122–139.
  47. Anik, L.; Aknin, L.B.; Norton, M.I.; Dunn, E.W. Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior. In Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
  48. Albouy, J. Emotions and prosocial behaviours: A study of the effectiveness of shocking charity campaigns. Rech. Et Appl. En Mark. 2017, 32, 4–25.
  49. Hsieh, M.-H.; Yucel-Aybat, O. Persuasive charity appeals for less and more controllable health causes: The roles of implicit mindsets and benefit frames. J. Advert. 2018, 47, 112–126.
  50. Nunn, H. Emotional death: The charity advert and photographs of childhood trauma. J. Cult. Res. 2004, 8, 271–292.
  51. Hibbert, S.; Smith, A.; Davies, A.; Ireland, F. Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 723–742.
  52. Xu, J. The impact of guilt and shame in charity advertising: The role of self-construal. J. Philanthr. Mark. 2022, 27, e1709.
  53. Sargeant, A.; Ewing, M. Fundraising direct: A communications planning guide for charity marketing. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2001, 9, 185–204.
  54. Bennett, R. Individual characteristics and the arousal of mixed emotions: Consequences for the effectiveness of charity fundraising advertisements. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2015, 20, 188–209.
  55. Hill, E.; Shiparo, S.; Ridinger, L.; Gomez, E. An Examination of Motivations, Attitudes and Charitable Intentions for Running in a Charity Event. J. Amat. Sport 2021, 7, 25–50.
  56. Nelson, M.R.; Brunel, F.F.; Supphellen, M.; Manchanda, R.V. Effects of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine and feminine cultures. J. Consum. Psychol. 2006, 16, 45–56.
  57. Ranganathan, S.K.; Henley, W.H. Determinants of charitable donation intentions: A structural equation model. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2008, 13, 1–11.
  58. Kaya, I.; Yeniaras, V.; Kaya, O. Dimensions of religiosity, altruism and life satisfaction. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2021, 79, 717–748.
  59. Erlandsson, A.; Nilsson, A.; Västfjäll, D. Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2018, 30, 444–474.
  60. Balaskas, S.; Panagiotarou, A.; Rigou, M. Impact of Personality Traits on Small Charitable Donations: The Role of Altruism and Attitude towards an Advertisement. Soc. 2023, 13, 144.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Behavioral Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Stefanos Balaskas
,
Aliki Panagiotarou
,
Maria Rigou
View Times: 510
Revision: 1 time (View History)
Update Date: 21 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback