The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

APJML
26,5
Moderating role of religious
beliefs on attitudes towards
charities and motivation
738 to donate
Min Teah and Michael Lwin
School of Marketing, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, and
Isaac Cheah
School of Marketing, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between image of charitable
organizations, attitudes towards charities and motivation to donate. In addition, the study will
investigate the moderating effects of religious beliefs on attitudes towards charities and motivation
to donate.
Design/methodology/approach – Data are collected using a self-administered questionnaire.
Trained interviewers employed a mall-intercept method in downtown Kuala Lumpur over both
weekdays and weekends. The scales are adapted from established sources.
Findings – It was found that religious beliefs moderates the relationship between attitudes towards
charities and motivation to donate. In addition, image of charitable organizations has a positive
influence on attitudes towards charities. It was also found that both image of charitable organizations
and attitudes towards charities influence motivation to donate.
Research limitations/implications – The study is conducted within downtown Kuala Lumpur
and is not generalizable across Malaysia and other countries. In addition, this study only looked at
general religious beliefs, therefore findings are not specific to a religion. As a result, possible religious
differences may be neglected. Lastly, the study only focused on donors and further studies need to be
conducted on non-donors to further understand donation behaviour.
Practical implications – The findings from the study provide valuable insights to charities,
government bodies and policy makers as it highlights the linkages between image of charitable
organizations, attitudes towards charities and the motivation to donate of past donors. Additionally,
religious bodies can also use the findings to formulate communication strategies to benefit charities as
well as the broader community.
Originality/value – The study provides insights into the motivations of donors to donate to charities.
More importantly, it also examines the influence of religious beliefs on donation behaviour, thus
shedding insights on the opportunities for fundraising by charities.
Keywords Malaysia, Motivations, Consumer behaviour, Donation behaviour, Religious beliefs
Paper type Research paper

Background
It has been ten years since the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami rippled through the Indian
Ocean. The tragedy observed the empathy and concern of millions of people around
the world through their generous donations to support the relief work to the affected
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and countries. In Australia alone, donations were at $375 million (Wade, 2014); in the US,
Logistics $127million was raised (Dickler, 2011); and internationally, a total of US $14 billion
Vol. 26 No. 5, 2014
pp. 738-760 was raised in response to the tragedy (Cosgrave, 2007). At the first instance, many
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-5855
charitable organizations were quick to set up web sites for donations to provide
DOI 10.1108/APJML-09-2014-0141 humanitarian aid. It was also found that many donors flocked to better known
charitable organizations to make their donations (Michel and Rieunier, 2012). However, Moderating role
with the rising number of charitable organizations, there is intense competition for
charitable donations (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008; Sargeant, 1999). According
of religious
to the Charities Aid Foundation (2013b), by 2030 charitable giving could rise to $224 beliefs
billion a year. This forecast is deemed to be achievable, only if the world donates
0.4 per cent of their average spending to charity (Charities Aid Foundation, 2013b).
When it comes to charitable donations, it is often associated with religion or 739
religious beliefs. In fact, Ranganathan and Henley (2008, p. 1) states that “charity and
religion go hand in hand”. In addition, doctrines of major religions, such as
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam have documented the importance of
helping those in need. Therefore, with the understanding that most of the major
religions highlight the importance of helping others and charitable actions, it can be
assumed that people with religious beliefs and affiliations would donate generously
to charitable organizations (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008). However, it has been
debatable as to whether religion impacts on acts of charity (Ryckman et al., 2004), due
to evidence from past literature showing that people who are religious can be intolerant
and less concerned about others (Batson et al., 1993; Fisher et al., 1994). While other
studies have found that individuals who are deeply religious are extremely caring and
more willing to perform charitable acts (e.g. donations) (Ryckman et al., 2004).
Extant literature reveals that studies on donation behaviour has been a constant
interest of researchers for decades (e.g. Guy and Patton, 1989; O’Malley and Andrews,
1983). The plethora of studies on donation behaviour are mostly centred around
donation motivations (Van Slyke and Brooks, 2005; Kottasz, 2004; Clary and Snyder,
1995); donation decision-making process (Hibbert and Horne, 1996; Smith and
McSweeney, 2007); influence of perceptual and attitudes on donation behaviour
(Sargeant et al., 2006; Webb et al., 2000; Radley and Kennedy, 1995); donor
characteristics (e.g. Schlegelmilch et al., 1997a, b); blood (e.g. Otto and Bolle, 2011;
Glynn et al., 2002) or organ donation (e.g. Ryckman et al., 2004; Lee et al., 1999;
Randhawa, 1998). However, there is also an increasing interest on the impact
of religion on charitable giving and donation behaviour (e.g. Reitsma et al., 2006;
Jackson et al., 1995; Lam, 2002). However, there are still inconsistencies in the findings
which leads to a largely fragmented understanding towards the impact of religiosity
on charitable giving (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008). Previous studies in the area have
predominantly studied the influence of religion or spirituality on organ donation
(e.g. Randhawa, 1998; Stephenson et al., 2008) and volunteerism (e.g. Einolf, 2011;
Bekkers and Schuyt, 2008; Farmer and Fedor, 2001; Clary and Snyder, 1995). However,
associations of religiosity and monetary donations is an area which warrants
further investigation (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008). Considering that two-thirds of
the world’s population holds some form of religious perspective, it is important to
further understand the influence of one’s religious beliefs on monetary donations
and charitable giving (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008). Therefore, this study aims to
further bridge the gap between religious beliefs and its relationship with other
variables (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008), more specifically with image of charitable
organizations, attitudes towards charities and the motivations to donate.
In addition, this study is focused on studying donation behaviour in Malaysia.
In 2013, the World Giving Index report ranked Malaysians at the 42th place out of the
160 countries surveyed in terms of generosity towards monetary donations (CAF,
2013a). Malaysia is considered as an Islamic country, however the blend of ethnicities
within the country also lends to a blend of the major religions (Wong, 2010).
APJML The population have sizeable percentages that are adherents to the four of the world’s
leading religions, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity (Mokhlis, 2009).
26,5 Therefore, religious beliefs would play a significant cultural and social role in the
donation behaviour (Lau and Tan, 2009; Mokhlis, 2009). Most studies on donation
behaviour are conducted predominantly in the western context, such as the USA,
Canada, Australia and UK (e.g. Stephenson et al., 2008; Ryckman et al., 2004; Bekkers
740 and Schuyt, 2008; Reitsma et al., 2006). Therefore, this calls for more research to be
done on donation behaviour within the Asia region (Lwin et al., 2013). As a result of the
multi-racial and multi-culture nature of Malaysia, it is apt to take a more holistic
approach on religion and examine the religious beliefs rather than a specific religion
(Loch et al., 2010).
The aims of this study are therefore fourfold. First, it examines the relationship
between “image of charitable organizations” and “attitudes towards charities” of
Malaysian donors. In order to understand if attitudes will result in motivation to
donate, “attitudes towards charities” is tested for its relationship towards “motivation
to donate”. Thirdly, the study examines if “image of charitable organizations” will
influence “motivation to donate”. Lastly, and most importantly, it investigates
the moderating effects of “religious beliefs” on the relationship between “attitudes
towards charities” and “motivation to donate”.
This paper will be structured into the following sections, beginning with a review
of the extant literature which is followed by the hypotheses development. This is
followed by a discussion on the methodology employed in this study. Subsequently,
the paper will present the findings and analysis, and discussion on the managerial
implications. Lastly, it will conclude with limitations and future directions of
the study.

Relevant literature review and hypotheses development

Theory of giving behaviour
There are a number of theories to understand the motivations behind a charitable
donation. One of the prominent theories that is frequently discussed by scholars to
explain the concept of charitable donation is the theory of altruism. The theory of
altruism explains that charitable donation or a simple act of giving to others is a
response to the concern for the welfare of others (Otto and Bolle, 2011; Gates and
Steane, 2009; Dixon, 2008; Gates and Steane, 2007; Simmons and Emanuele, 2007; Webb
et al., 2000). “Altruism” was first conceptualized by Comte (1858, 1865, 1891) and
subsequently scholars have provided numerous definitions of altruism. For example, it
is defined as a prosocial action intended to benefit others (Staub, 1978; Eisenberg, 1986),
a cognitive activity to help others by Brewer (2003), an unconditional and conscious
action to improve other’s welfare (Monroe, 1990), an image by (Hou et al., 2009), an
attitude by Frydman et al. (1995), a motivation by Sober (1990), a helping behaviour
Schwartz (1970) and a desire to improve another’s condition by Karylowski (1982).
Scholars from social-psychology defined altruism as empathetic response, the
empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that individuals are not always self-seeking
and they are driven by empathy to help those in need Eveland and Crutchfield (2007).
Altruistic motivation is defined as a helping motive drive by sympathy responding
to a request, believing in the cause, and a moral sense of obligation to give back to
society (Myers, 1990; Hibbert et al., 2005). These conceptual definitions have given way
to what is now known as emotional utility of altruism in the literature.
 However, the theory of altruism is questioned by numerous researchers as it does Moderating role
not effectively explain charitable donation behaviour. Research from other disciplines
have suggested other methods to explain giving behaviour, for example, the “private
of religious
consumption” model explains that individuals experience a personal “warm glow” from beliefs
the act of charitable donation (Handy and Katz, 2008). The volunteering literature
shows that donors donating their time and money create a private “warm glow” and
also provides a public good to the society (Handy and Katz, 2008). Other scholars have 741
explored other views on the drivers of charitable donations; some suggested that
charitable donations is driven by the image of the charitable organization (Hou et al.,
2009), while others have suggested that charitable donations is driven by normative
influences (Heiser, 2006), and others have suggested egoistic drivers of donation
behaviour (e.g. Batson, 1991). Additionally, there are numerous studies that attempt to
explain charitable donations by developing an understanding of the characteristics of
the charitable donor (e.g. Riecken and Yavas, 2005; Sargeant, 1999; Dvorak and
Toubman, 2013). These conceptual definitions have given way to what is now known
as demonstrable utility of altruism in the literature.

Donor characteristics
When it comes to understanding donation behaviour and charitable giving, previous
research have largely focused on uncovering the relationship between key
demographic factors, such as age, gender, marital status, income levels and donation
behaviour (Lee et al., 1999; Burgoyne et al., 2005; Dvorak and Toubman, 2013; Riecken
and Yavas, 2005; Sargeant, 1999). Some studies have found that females are more likely
to donate (Roberts and Roberts, 2012; Simmons and Emanuele, 2007; Schlegelmilch
et al., 1997a), whereas others have found the results to be untrue (Croson and Gneezy,
2009; Dvorak and Toubman, 2013).
In addition, age has been investigated without conclusive results, some studies
found that younger individuals are less likely to donate (Smith and McSweeney, 2007),
while others found it be insignificant when considering donor characteristic (Louie and
Obermiller, 2000). Some studies identified that the likelihood of a donation is up to the
age of 65, beyond this age there is a lower level of donation (Danko and Stanley, 1986;
Schlegelmilch et al., 1997b). From another perspective, Radley and Kennedy (1995)
states that age and lifecycle affects ones’ attitudes and intentions towards giving to
charity, because of more matured and worldly views can encourage a householder to
become more willing to donate.
Further, charitable donation is frequently shown to have a positive relationship to
income ( James and Sharpe, 2007) and wealth (Andreoni and Scholz, 1998). Research
shows that individuals with more discretionary income are more likely to donate
(Schlegelmilch et al., 1997a). In the same vein, individuals with a higher income are
more likely to donate to charities that are concerned with the third world and global
issues (Radley and Kennedy, 1995; Bennett, 2003). While attempts have been made to
profile donors based on demographic characteristics, the exercise has been inconclusive
due to inconsistencies across numerous researches. Therefore, more studies are
encouraged in order to better understand donation behaviour (Lwin et al., 2013).

Brand image of charities

According to the American Marketing Association (AMA), a brand is a name, term,
sign, drawing or a combination of these that serves to identify a firm’s goods or
APJML services to differentiate itself from the competitors (AMA, 1995; Michel and Rieunier,
2012). The concept of brand image in marketing can be dated back to the 1950s where
26,5 brand image was used to differentiate a firm’s product from the competitor’s (Padgett
and Allen, 1997). There are numerous definitions of brand image, some scholars defined
brand image with the idea of brands having a personality (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990),
others defined it as functional, psychological and symbolic attributes and associations
742 (Martineau, 1958) and other have viewed it as, consumer’s mental picture of the brand
in response to brand-related stimuli (Padgett and Allen, 1997; Shimp, 1997; Kotler
and Armstrong, 1996). Therefore, non-profit image can be defined as, attributes and
functional consequences and the symbolic meanings donors associate with a charitable
organization (Michel and Rieunier, 2012; Padgett and Allen, 1997).
Branding has become a critical component of the charitable donation industry due
to the increasingly competitive nature of the industry (Michel and Rieunier, 2012;
Bennett and Gabriel, 2003). The literature shows the importance of self-image and
the charity’s image, it proposes that donations are more likely if they two are congruent
(Polonsky, 2000). Therefore, charities are differentiating themselves on a number of
identifiable, functional and symbolic associations (Hankinson, 2001; Keller, 1993;
Aaker, 1991). Despite this, there is limited research on the area of non-profit branding
(Michel and Rieunier, 2012). Specifically, non-profit brand image is an important
concept that marketers and scholars need to address as it has been shown be to a key
driver of charitable donations (Hou et al., 2009; Bennett and Gabriel, 2003). Typically
a non-profit brand image consists of compassion, dynamism, idealism, beneficiaries
and non-political image (Michel and Rieunier, 2012). For charitable organizations they
create their brand image and associations through the charity’s mission and tangible
qualities (Michel and Rieunier, 2012). Furthermore, these charities also use intangible
attributes such as values of the organization and emotional brand attachment with
the brand to differentiate itself from the competitors. As a result, brand image has
shown to have positive effect on donation intentions (Hou et al., 2009).
It is therefore postulated that:

H1. Image of charitable organizations will have a significant relationship with

attitudes towards charities.

Attitudes towards charities

A charity’s primary function is to raise funds that enables them to carry out their
service for the society, whether it is for the relief of poverty or for the relief of a disaster,
or for the welfare of human rights, or for the advancement of education, or for the
advancement of religion or for other purposes that are beneficial for the community
(Charities Digest, 1995; Knowles et al., 2012). Therefore, creating a favourable attitude
is one of the key objectives for charitable organizations as they strive to raise more
funds to help them carry out their services for the community. Attitude towards
charities is defined as a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable
or unfavourable manner towards the charity (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). This
conceptual definition is well supported by Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) definition of
attitudes. Past studies have indicated that a positive relationship exists between
attitude towards the charity and intentions to donate (Lwin and Phau, 2014). Similarly,
a favourable attitude towards the charity will have a positive effect on motivation
to donate. The Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a theoretical foundation on this
relationship and explains that a favourable attitudes will result in favourable intentions
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Webb et al. (2000) further reiterates that an individual’s Moderating role
attitudes towards charitable organizations correlates with charitable giving, therefore
resulting in making donations to charities.
of religious
Schlegelmilch et al. (1997a, b) shows the change in the level of involvement and beliefs
donations from the government, and the public within the charity industry.
Traditionally, the government has provided the donations to the needy (Schlegelmilch
et al., 1997b), however, due to changing economics and societal values much of the 743
donations come from the public. It is important to understand the “norms” of the
donation process (e.g. does the donor perceive that they are liable for the donation?
Or is the emphasis on the government?). Thus, this is one of the key variables to help
understand how donors’ attitudes towards charities effect their motivation to donate.
Furthermore, studies show that charities are operating more like businesses
and donors are demanding greater effectiveness from their donations and more
clarification on how their donations are being spent (Szper and Prakash, 2011; Dart,
2004). The existing perception is that international charities are more efficient as they
are able to provide the support for the much needed group of individuals (Bennett,
2003; Sloan, 2009; Szper and Prakash, 2011) and respond to donors’ demands. Empirical
studies have confirmed that donors value organization effectiveness and they seek this
information internally and externally when making a decision to donate (Iwaarden
et al., 2009; William, 2007; Schlegelmilch et al., 1997b). One of key issues that is faced by
national and international charities is donors’ perception on the amount of
donations that actually reaches the cause (Szper and Prakash, 2011). Due to high
administration and fundraising costs, donors are uncertain how much of the donations
will go to aiding the actual cause. Lack of government legislation and organisational
accountability has further heightened this issue. Based on these factors, past studies
have shown that attitude towards charity has a positive influence on motivations to
donate for international charities (Lwin et al., 2013).

Motivation to donate
The keen interest in understanding the key factors and drivers for donors to donate
to a cause has been a continuous quest (Sargeant et al., 2006; Dawson, 1988). There are
varied reasons why people give to charity. A few that were highlighted by Lasby (2004)
includes feeling compassion towards other people; helping the cause in which one
personally believes in; you or someone you know is affected by the cause; feel you
owe something to your community; fulfil religious obligations or beliefs; and
government will give credit on income tax. Guy and Patton (1988) states that people
have an innate drive to help others whether it is an intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.
In explaining the various motives for charitable giving, Dawson (1988) categorized
the motivations into four categories. They are namely reciprocity motive, self-esteem
motive, income or tax motive, and career motive. In addition, Sargeant et al. (2006)
states that the motivations to donate are based on the perceptions of the benefits they
receive. The benefits that were highlighted are demonstrable, emotional and familial.
For example, an individual may be motivated to donate if their donations are
acknowledged, or made visible to others within their social group (Stroebe and Frey,
1982). Therefore conveying a demonstrable utility. In giving to a charitable cause,
a person may experience emotional benefits that can result in feeling a sense of duty
and the satisfaction of helping someone else. These are described as the change
in emotions that their act of charity evokes (Sargeant et al., 2006). The third type of
motivation, which is familial utility stems from the need to help one’s friends or loved
APJML ones (Sargeant, 1999). It has been recognized that motivations can be a result of one’s
personal link or experience with a cause, therefore driving them to associate and donate
26,5 to a particular cause Kotler and Clarke (1987).
Building on the above discussion, it is postulated that:

H2. Attitude towards charities will have a significant relationship with motivation
744 to donate.

H3. Image of charitable organizations will have a significant relationship with

motivation to donate.

Religious beliefs
The concept of religiosity has been defined and many researchers (King and
Boyatzis, 2004; Mokhlis, 2009). In addition, religion has been acknowledged by
researchers as an important influencer of human behaviour (Lau and Tan, 2009).
According to Mokhlis (2009), religion is a cultural factor that is one of the most
universal and influential social institutions that has an impact on the behaviour,
attitudes and values of an individual and the society as a whole. Scholars have
explained that religious belief is a key psychographic characteristic to help determine
the differences between donors and non-donors (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008;
Simmons and Emanuele, 2012). It is conceptualised that individuals that are perceived
to be more religious are more likely to donate (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008).
However, there is limited research on this important psychographic characteristic
(Lwin et al., 2013). There are some studies that show a number of issues regarding
religious ethicalities for organ donations (e.g. Mohammed, 2012; Randhawa et al., 2010).
However, there is a lack of research that examine the indirect impact of religious
beliefs on motivations to donate.
Schlegelmilch et al. (1997a) clearly highlighted that “donating” is a fundamental
religious teachings and thus it is a key consideration when evaluating the influence of
religiosity on donation behaviour. Some of the past studies have shown that there is
a direct impact between religiosity and attitude towards helping others and attitude
towards the charity (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008). Studies have also found that
religious involvement will have positive influence on various forms of civic behaviour
and charitable giving (Perks and Haan, 2011; Jackson et al., 1995; Hodgkinson et al.,
1990). Prior research have shown that religious Christians were motivated to give for
religious reasons and out of their sense of duty to society (Van Slyke and Brooks, 2005).
In addition, McKeown et al. (2004) found that donors who held religious beliefs and who
attends religious services are the most generous donors. However, others have rejected
these findings and found that there are no significant relationships between religiosity
and charitable donation in an Australian context (Kanabar, 2004). The findings suggest
that there must be more to religious belief than a direct impact on charitable donations.
Based on religious teachings, and it is predicted that it could have moderating effect in
a charitable donation context. That is, if an individual is bounded by strong religious
beliefs, they will value the charity’s work even more. As the result, it will increase the
likelihood of the donation. According to Ranganathan and Henley (2008), their study
found that the higher ones’ level of religiosity, it will influence the person to have better
attitudes towards charitable organizations and donation intentions. Therefore, it can be
argued that religiosity can also play a role in moderating the relationship between
attitudes and motivations to donate.
 Therefore, it is postulated that: Moderating role
H4. Religious beliefs will moderate the relationship between attitudes towards
of religious
charities and motivation to donate. beliefs
Methodology
Data collection
Data were collected using a mall-intercept method in downtown Kuala Lumpur, 745
Malaysia. Trained interviewers were given instructions to approach every fifth
shopper to cross a designated spot to participate in a self-administered questionnaire.
The collection occur across three weeks, covering both weekdays and weekends.
Interviewers were also instructed to include respondents from different demographic
profiles. This method has proved to be appropriate for data collection for studies on
donation behaviour (Lwin et al., 2013; Dawson, 1988).

Survey instrument
The survey instrument consists of four sections and was developed using established
scales. The questionnaire is made up of four sections and the description of the scale
reliabilities and sources are detailed in Table I. Section A consisted of a screening
question measuring the respondents past donation behaviour. Section B measured
image of charitable organizations and attitudes towards charities. Section C measured
religious beliefs and motivation to donate. Lastly, Section D comprised demographic
questions of respondents. All items are measured on a seven-point Likert scale with 1
representing “strongly disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”.

Results and analysis

Sample
A total of 310 questionnaires were collected. Primarily, responses that were incomplete
were removed. As this study aims to examine the donation behaviour of donors,
the respondents who answered “no” to the screening question asking if they have ever
made donations to a charity were discarded. As a result, only 203 useable responses
were retained and analysed using SPSS 22.
Based on Table II, 58.1 per cent of the donors age between 19 and 25. Furthermore,
52.2 per cent of the donors are females. The majority of the donors (54.7 per cent) earn
RM 20, 000 and below per annum. In total, 87.7 per cent of the donors are from Malaysia.
In total, 54.2 per cent of the donors hold a Bachelor degree, followed by 21.7 per cent of
the donors hold a College Diploma. While the sample distribution has a higher majority
of respondents belonging to the younger age groups, according to reports by Charities
Aid Foundation (CAF), it was found that there is a growth in charitable acts by

Scale measure Source No. of items α

Image of charitable organizations Adapted from Webb et al. (2000) 6 0.757-0.827

Attitude towards charities Schlegelmilch et al. (1997a, b) 6 0.709-0.735
Religious beliefs Adapted from Hodge 6 0.700-0.842
Adapted from Dawson (1988); Table I.
Motivation to donate Sargeant, Ford and West (2005) 17 0.790-0.891 Source and reliabilities of
Note: All scales rated on a seven-point Likert scale scales
APJML Sample
26,5 Characteristics Categories Frequency Valid percentage

Gender Male 97 47.8

Female 106 52.2
Age 18 and below 17 8.4
746 19-25 118 58.1
26-35 32 15.8
36-45 17 8.4
46 and above 19 9.4
Marital status Single 141 69.5
Engaged 18 8.9
Married 38 18.7
Divorced 4 2.0
Widowed 2 1.0
Annual household income
(per annum in Ringgit Malaysia) RM 20,000 and below 111 54.7
RM 20,001-35,000 27 13.3
RM 35,001-45,000 18 8.9
RM 45,001-60,000 14 6.9
RM 60, 001-75,000 8 3.9
RM 75,001-90,000 14 6.9
RM 90,001 and above 7 3.4
Others, please specify 4 2.0
Country of origin Singapore 10 4.9
Malaysia 178 87.7
Hong Kong 5 2.5
China 7 3.4
Mauritius 1 0.5
Others, please specify 2 1.0
Highest level of education Secondary school 39 19.2
College/TAFE 44 21.7
Bachelor degree 110 54.2
Table II. Postgraduate level 9 4.4
Respondent profiles Others, please specify 1 0.5
of donors Note: n = 203

individuals in younger age groups e.g. 15-24 (Charities Aid Foundation, 2013a). Therefore,
this is representative of the possible drift in the ages of donors (Lwin et al., 2013).

Factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis was independently conducted on the Image of Charitable
Organizations, Attitudes towards Charities and Motivation to Donate scale. Through
Varimax rotation, two factors emerged for Image of Charitable Organizations and were
named “Positive Image” and “Negative Image”. Subsequently, Varimax rotation
revealed two factors for Attitudes towards Charities which are namely “Government
Responsibility” and “International Support”. Factor analysis on Motivation to
Donate revealed two factors, which are “Demonstrable Utility” and “Emotional Utility”.
The factors were within acceptable range of reliabilities and results are reflected in
Table III. Each of the scales revealed two factors and they are used independently
for subsequent analyses.
 Factor
Moderating role
Items loadings of religious
beliefs
Motivation to donate
Demonstrable utility (DU) (α ¼ 0.891)
Recognition/reward by employer 0.883
Will make valuable business contacts 0.883 747
Recognition by co-workers 0.819
Emotional utility (EU) (α ¼ 0.790)
Charity organizational support for the causes I believe in 0.785
Civic responsibility 0.860
Personal satisfaction/reward 0.713
Image of charitable organizations
Positive image (α ¼ 0.827)
My image of charitable organizations is positive 0.692
Charities have been successful in helping the needy 0.854
Charities perform a useful function for society 0.885
Charities do good things for the community 0.804
Negative image (α ¼ 0.757)
Many charitable organizations are dishonesta 0.891
Much of the money donated to charities is wasteda 0.892
Attitude towards charities
Government responsibility (α ¼ 0.735)
The government has a basic responsibility to take care of people who cannot take
care of themselves 0.767
The government ought to help more and not rely on charities to raise money 0.829
International support (α ¼ 0.709)
It is better to give overseas because that is where the “need” is 0.842
International charities make better use of my donations than local charities 0.800
Religious beliefs
Positive beliefs (α ¼ 0.842)
When I am faced with an important decision, my religious beliefs is always the
overriding consideration 0.814
When I think of the things that help me to grow and mature as a person, my religious
beliefs is absolutely the most important factor in my personal growth 0.870
My religious beliefs affect absolutely every aspect of my life 0.878
Negative beliefs (α ¼ 0.700)
Growing religious belief is of no importance to mea 0.822
Religious beliefs are not part of my lifea 0.883 Table III.
Note: aReverse coded questions Table for factor analysis

Regression analysis
Influence of image of charitable organizations on attitudes towards charities. Multiple
regression was conducted between “Positive Image”, “Negative Image” and “Government
Responsibility”. The results in Table IV show that there is a significant negative
relationship between “Positive Image” and “Government Responsibility” (po0.000,
β ¼ −0.458, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.217) and a significant positive relationship between “Negative
Image” and “Government Responsibility” (po0.004, β ¼ 0.182).
Multiple regression was conducted between “Positive Image”, “Negative Image” and
“International Support”. It was found that only “Negative Image” has a positive
significant relationship towards “International Support” (p o 0.010, β ¼ 0.183, Adj.
R2 ¼ 0.03). Therefore, results show that “Positive Image” has no significant relationship
APJML Independent variables Coefficients SE β t-value Sig. R2
26,5
Image of Charitable Organizations
Positive image −0.599 0.082 −0.458 −7.316 0.000** 0.217
Negative image 0.176 0.061 0.182 2.902 0.004**
Attitudes towards charities (government responsibility) a
748 Image of Charitable Organizations
Positive image 0.033 0.088 0.026 0.377 0.707 0.026
Negative image 0.171 0.065 0.183 2.616 0.010**
Attitudes towards charities (international support) a
Attitudes towards charities
Government responsibility −0.191 0.074 −0.178 −2.575 0.011** 0.043
National/international support −0.180 0.077 −0.162 −2.341 0.020**
Motivation to donate (demonstrable utility) a
Attitudes towards charities
Government responsibility −0.198 0.061 −0.224 −3.245 0.001** 0.043
National/international support 0.027 0.063 0.030 0.433 0.666
Motivation to donate (emotional utility) a
Image of charitable organizations
Positive image 0.271 0.098 0.193 2.781 0.006** 0.037
Negative image −0.124 0.072 −0.119 −1.715 0.088
Motivation to donate (demonstrable utility) a
Image of charitable organizations
Positive image 0.339 0.078 0.294 4.327 0.000** 0.077
Negative image −0.007 0.058 −0.008 −0.116 0.908
Table IV. Motivation to donate (emotional utility) a
Multiple regressions Notes: aDependent variable, **Sig. o 0.05

towards “National/International Support” (p o 0.707, β ¼ 0.377). As such, H1 is

partially supported.
Influence of attitudes towards charities on motivation to donate. Multiple regression
was conducted between “Government Responsibility”, “International Support” and
“Demonstrable Utility”. Based on the results in Table IV, it was found that
“Government Responsibility” (p o0.011, β ¼ −0.178) and “International Support”
(p o 0.020, β ¼ −0.162) have a significant negative relationship towards “Demonstrable
Utility” (Adj. R2 ¼ 0.043).
Similarly, multiple regression was conducted between “Government Responsibility”,
“International Support” and “Emotional Utility”. It was found that only “Government
Responsibility” has a significant negative relationship towards “Emotional Utility”
(p o 0.006, β ¼ −0.224, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.043). The results show that “International Support”
has no significant relationship towards “Emotional Utility” (p o 0.666, β ¼ 0.030). As
such, H2 is partially supported.
Influence of image of charitable organizations on motivation to donate. Multiple
regression was conducted between “Positive Image”, “Negative Image” and
“Demonstrable Utility”. It was found that only “Positive Image” has a significant
positive relationship towards “Demonstrable Utility” (β ¼ 0.193, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.037). It was
found that “Negative Image” has no significant relationship towards “Demonstrable
Utility” (p o 0.088, β ¼ −0.119).
Similarly, multiple regression was also conducted between “Positive Image”,
“Negative Image” and “Emotional Utility”. It was found that only “Positive Image” has
a significant positive relationship towards “Emotional Utility” (β ¼ 0.294, Adj. Moderating role
R2 ¼ 0.077). The results show that “Negative Image” has no significant relationship
towards “Emotional Utility” (p o 0.908, β ¼ −0.008). As such, H3 is partially supported.
of religious
beliefs
Hierarchical moderated regression analysis
In order to test the moderating role of religious beliefs on the relationship between
attitudes towards charities and motivations to donate, an exploratory factor analysis 749
was conducted on the Religious Beliefs scale. Through Varimax rotation, the original
six-item scale was reduced to five-items with two factors, namely “Positive Religious
Beliefs” and “Negative Religious Beliefs”. Each of the factors are used independently
for subsequent moderation analysis.

Positive religious beliefs

Hierarchical moderated regression was used to test the moderating role of religious
beliefs on the relationship between attitudes towards charities and motivation to
donate. Hierarchical moderated regression is employed to detect if the addition of
the moderator-independent variable interaction term to the relationship between
attitudes towards charities and motivation to donate will result in a significant R2
change (Anderson, 1986). Based on the results in Table V, it is found that only “Positive
Religious Beliefs” moderates the relationship between “International Support” and
“Demonstrable Utility” (p o 0.003, ΔR2 ¼ 0.041, β ¼ 0.710). “Positive Religious Beliefs”
was not found to be a moderator on the relationship between “Government
Responsibility” and “Demonstrable Utility”.
In addition, it was also found that “Positive Religious Beliefs” does not moderate
the relationship between “Government Responsibility” and “Emotional Utility”.
Similarly, it was also found that “Positive Religious Beliefs” does not moderate the
relationship between “International Support” and “Emotional Utility”.

Negative religious beliefs

Based on the results in Table VI, “Negative Religious Beliefs” was found to be
a moderator for two relationships. Hierarchical moderated regression was conducted
on “Negative Religious Beliefs”, “Government Responsibility”, “International Support”,
and “Demonstrable Utility”. It was found that “Negative Religious Beliefs” moderates
the relationship between “International Support” and “Demonstrable Utility”
(p o 0.007, ΔR2 ¼ 0.033, β ¼ 0.272). However, no significant moderating relationship
was found for the effect of “Negative Religious Beliefs” on “Government
Responsibility” and “Demonstrable Utility”.
It was also found that “Negative Religious Beliefs” moderates the relationship
between “International Support” and “Emotional Utility” (p o 0.024, ΔR2 ¼ 0.025,
β ¼ −0.623). However, “Negative Religious Beliefs” was not found to be a significant
moderator between “Government Responsibility” and “Emotional Utility”. Based on the
results above, H4 is partially supported.

Discussion and implications

The findings from this study has shed interesting insights into the psychological
makeup of donors, more specifically the donors from Malaysia. The results showed
that image of charitable organizations has a significant relationship with attitudes
towards charities. In fact, the finding suggests that the government needs to put in
 26,5

beliefs
750

Table V.

moderated
Results for
APJML

hierarchical

regression for
positive religious
Independent variables Sig. R2 F df ΔR2 F change df β

Government responsibility 0.021 0.021 5.417 1 0.026 5.417 201 0.477

Government responsibility+ positive religious beliefs 0.000 0.078 9.559 1 0.061 13.368 200 −0.023
Government responsibility+ positive religious beliefs + (government
responsibility × positive religious beliefs) 0.240 0.080 6.848 1 0.006 1.389 199 −0.389
Motivation to donate (demonstrable utility)a
International support 0.026 0.016 4.272 1 0.021 4.272 201 −0.460
International support + positive religious beliefs 0.001 0.030 4.104 1 0.019 3.874 200 −0.645
Local/international support+positive religious beliefs + (international support×positive
religious beliefs) 0.003 0.066 5.778 1 0.041 8.808 199 0.710**
Motivation to donate (demonstrable utility)a
Government responsibility 0.353 0.052 10.965 1 0.052 10.965 201 0.180
Government responsibility+ positive religious beliefs 0.255 0.090 9.841 1 0.038 8.317 200 0.252
Government responsibility+ positive religious beliefs + (government
responsibility×positive religious beliefs) 0.844 0.090 6.542 1 0.000 0.039 199 −0.065
Motivation to donate (emotional utility)a
International support 0.747 0.003 0.551 1 0.003 0.551 201 −0.067
International support + positive religious beliefs 0.266 0.072 7.744 1 0.069 14.900 200 0.206
International support + positive religious beliefs + (international support×positive
religious beliefs) 0.713 0.073 5.186 1 0.001 0.136 199 0.088
Motivation to donate (emotional utility)a
Notes: aDependent variable; **Sig. o0.05
Independent variables Sig. R2 F df ΔR2 F change df β

Government responsibility 0.757 0.021 5.417 1 0.026 5.417 201 −0.083

Government responsibility +negative religious beliefs 0.069 0.086 10.450 1 0.068 15.102 200 −0.540
Government responsibility+negative religious beliefs+(government
responsibility×negative religious beliefs) 0.335 0.085 7.276 1 0.004 0.934 199 0.383
Motivation to donate (demonstrable utility)a
International support 0.305 0.021 4.272 1 0.021 4.272 201 0.074
International support+negative religious beliefs 0.000 0.070 7.499 1 0.049 10.523 200 −0.433
International support+negative religious beliefs+(international support×negative
religious beliefs) 0.007 0.103 7.632 1 0.033 7.416 199 0.272**
motivation to donate (demonstrable utility)a
Government responsibility 0.347 0.047 10.965 1 0.052 10.965 201 −0.256
Government responsibility+negative religious beliefs 0.089 0.043 5.523 1 0.001 0.128 200 −0.513
Government responsibility+negative religious beliefs+(government
responsibility×negative religious beliefs) 0.068 0.054 4.852 1 0.016 3.378 199 0.741
Motivation to donate (emotional utility)a
International support 0.048 −0.002 0.551 1 0.003 0.551 201 0.516
International support+negative religious beliefs 0.029 −0.007 0.286 1 0.000 0.024 200 0.508
International support+negative religious beliefs+(international support x negative
religious beliefs) 0.024 0.013 1.907 1 0.025 5.137 199 −0.623**
Motivation to donate (emotional utility)a
Notes: aDependent variable; **Sig. o0.05
of religious

negative religious beliefs

Results for hierarchical
751
beliefs
Moderating role

moderated regression for

Table VI.
APJML more effort in helping charities and the people in need. In fact, the views are that the
government is taking insufficient action to help those in need. Similar to studies
26,5 from numerous countries, individuals believe that government should be doing
more to help those in need rather than solely depending on the public to do so
(Hall et al., 2000). Along a similar vein, donors who have a negative image towards
charities also share the perspective that government responsibility towards
752 charities is lacking (Smith and McSweeney, 2007). While the relationship may
not be causal, it can be argued that donors hold negative views towards the lack of
government support and input into charities. In order to improve donations,
government departments will need to take the lead. In fact, better outcomes
can be achieved if CSR is also practiced from a governmental point of view. This
could be a potential political campaign for the government to win votes in the
upcoming election.
It was interesting to find that negative image towards charities lead to more positive
attitudes towards international support. The general perception of local charities is
that they are susceptible to wasting resources. It is perceived that international or
oversea charities perform better at helping the needy more effectively (Schlegelmilch
et al., 1997a). This is an important insight for domestic/local charities or all charities to
manage their brand image and perceptions. This is a reflection for the local/domestic
charities, who need to change the brand image and perception of their efficiencies by
becoming more transparent with their processes. Effective communication strategies
with existing and potential donors need to be in place to be able to encourage
a positive image of charities and to help the local community more effectively. Efficient
communication by providing donor feedback is crucial to building strong emotional
bonds to a charitable organization (Merchant et al., 2010; Michel and Rieunier, 2012)
and therefore building sustainable relationships with donors.
The results highlighted that government responsibility does not hold a positive
relationship towards the demonstrable utility of motivation to donate. This therefore
highlights a fundamental psychological issue, that is, because the government is doing
so little to help charities and the needy, it is therefore logical for a citizen to donate to
help others. This concept is well supported by the normalization theory, which explains
that ideas or actions that are perceived to be normal is shaped by our society (May et al.,
2009). As a result, the government needs to be more involved with the donation process
to provide an incentive to the donors. It needs to be “seen” in public as an exemplar to
demonstrate that Malaysians also need to support local and international charities.
Based on the results, the donations from current donors are mainly due to their own
initiatives rather than seeking assurance and recognition from work, co-workers and to
increase their business networks. Therefore, the donation culture can be encouraged,
and donors and potential donor can possibly receive positive emotional incentives by
doing “good” for the community. Similarly, even when donations are made to overseas
or international charities, there is very little motivation in terms of external incentives
that donors can receive.
In addition, attitudes towards charities in particular government responsibility is
shown to have a negative influence towards motivation to donate. This finding
reiterates the lack of government involvement and the perceived lack of help from the
government towards charities and people in need. Therefore, in turn influences the
emotional utility derived from donating as they feel the lack of government support for
the causes people believe in, the sense of personal satisfaction and the duty of civic
responsibility to be a Good Samaritan. Advertising appeals can highlight the
importance of an individual and the relationship to society at large, thereby making the Moderating role
process of giving a personal act (Radley and Kennedy, 1995).
Interestingly, it is found that image of charitable organizations play an important
of religious
role in encouraging donation behaviour. In fact, when donors perceive a positive image beliefs
towards charitable organizations, they are more likely to achieve demonstrable
utility. This is when the charities that they are involved in has a positive image of
helping the needy and doing “good” for the society, and in turn translates these positive 753
associations to the donor by achieving recognition and rewards. In addition, image
also plays a key role in influencing emotional utility. When the image of charitable
organizations is positive, donors feel a sense of personal satisfaction and a sense of
duty to society, in turn the feeling that a worthy cause is being supported. Therefore,
it is important to maintain transparency between the operations of a charity and the
communication of these operations to donors and potential donors. Therefore,
crafting messages to show the outcomes of various programmes can highlight the
effectiveness of the donation. The fact is that individuals like to see charities
making a positive change, which means there needs to be more programmes involving
the local community. This will help maintain engagement with the charity. As such,
there is potential for local charities to encourage local communities to be part of
their programmes and enhance their connection with the charity (Radley and
Kennedy, 1995).
One of the key contributions of this study is to examine the moderating effects of
religious beliefs on attitudes towards charities and motivation to donate. Religious
beliefs is found to be a significant moderator. This therefore highlights the importance
of individual’s religious beliefs and their donation behaviour. Positive religious beliefs
only moderates the relationship between international support and demonstrable
utility, which means that donors with religious beliefs are more motivated to donate.
Donors with positive religious beliefs will also be more likely to feel that donating to
international charities can build important business contacts and gain recognition
from employers and co-workers. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of
crafting promotional messages that are aligned to the motivations of the donors
(e.g. Clary and Snyder, 1995). Therefore, for donors with strong religious beliefs, it is
important to tailor to the messages that align with the doctrines of their religion.
Interestingly, even with negative religious beliefs, it was found to enhance the
relationship between international support and demonstrable utility. This was found
to be a weaker relationship as compared to positive religious beliefs. Therefore
suggesting that international charities are overall better perceived and the value of
supporting international charities can achieve outcomes such as recognition and
develop networks and business contacts. This has important implications for
international charities as they are seen to be more efficient and are better at managing
funds to help those in need. Therefore, for local charities, it is important to portray the
image that the charity is helping the needy efficiently. This can be done through
newsletters and communicating with donors by updating them on a regular basis.
Within the communication programmes, it is important to acknowledge and provide
recognition to the individuals who have donated and making mentions of their
achievements would highlight the demonstrable utility and allow donors to receive
recognition from peers. By providing such recognition, it highlights the good feelings
associated with charitable donation (Clary and Snyder, 1995).
Negative religious beliefs has a negative moderating role between international
support and emotional utility. While donors supporting international charities are a
APJML result of civic responsibility and personal satisfaction, if donors have negative religious
beliefs, it would result in a negative impact on the relationship between international
26,5 support and emotional utility. Therefore, religious beliefs are important when it comes
to emotional utility. It can affect the self-empowerment of individuals as they feel it is
their own duty to donate and are rewarded by a sense of satisfaction. Therefore, when
crafting communication programmes it is important to note the difference between
754 donors who are religious and those who are not.

Concluding comments
It is evident from the results that image towards charitable organizations, attitudes
towards charities has a positive influence on the motivations to donate. More
importantly, religious beliefs is found to be a significant moderator to encourage
donations. Therefore, this finding is in alignment with previous studies emphasizing
the importance of religious beliefs on donation behaviour (e.g. Ranganathan and
Henley, 2008; Reitsma et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 1995).
However, there are a number of limitations from this study that is worth noting. The
research is conducted using a mall-intercept method in downtown Kuala Lumpur, as
mostly young consumers will be the ones who are available especially during working
hours to participate in the study, there is a possible bias in terms of a younger donor
group. The mall-intercept method may limit the population that is reached for this
study (Phau and Teah, 2009). In addition, the questions regarding donation behaviour
and government support may draw social desirability bias. During the time when data
was collected, it was noted that there may be negative sentiments towards the
government which may bias consumer responses to questions pertaining to views
on government responsibility. The findings of this study is also limited to the capital
city of Malaysia, which is not generalizable to other parts of Malaysia. The study
also did not study specific religions, but only focused on holistic religious beliefs,
therefore future studies can examine specific religions and influences on donation
behaviour (Mokhlis, 2009).
Further research should focus on younger donors especially when findings suggests
that donation behaviour of the older age groups have begun to stagnate (CAF, 2013b).
Recent reports have highlighted the growth of youth donations and volunteering due to
greater exposure and education of global issues and welfare. Other personality and
social factors should also be studied (e.g. guilt and normative influences). In fact,
specific charities and donation behaviour can be observed and compared to gauge
possible behavioural differences. Other studies can also compare the behavioural
differences between donors and non-donors (Ranganathan and Henley, 2008; Lwin
et al., 2013).
Instead of studying religious beliefs, future studies can examine spirituality as
opposed to religious beliefs as there are key differences between the two. For example,
a person can be spiritual without being religious. Therefore, the differences can present
further insights into the impact of religiosity and spirituality on donation behaviour.
Lastly, it is important to note the difference between people who are in a religion and
those who are religious. Individuals who are religious would largely adhere to the
teachings of the religion, whereas individuals in a religion may just feel an affiliation
and association with the religion but may not adhere to the lifestyle and the religious
teachings (Bekkers and Schuyt, 2008). Therefore, this is an important difference to be
taken into account for future studies.
References Moderating role
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY. of religious
American Marketing Association (AMA) (1995), “AMA dictionary”, available at www.ama.org/
resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter ¼ B (accessed 10 August 2014). beliefs
Anderson, C.H. (1986), “Hierarchical moderated regression analysis: a useful tool for retail
management decisions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 186-203.
Andreoni, J. and Scholz, J. (1998), “An econometric analysis of charitable giving with 755
interdependent preferences”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 410-428.
Batson, C.D. (1991), The Altruism Question: Toward a Social Psychological Answer, L. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Batson, C.D., Schoenrade, P.A. and Ventis, W.L. (1993), Religion and The Individual, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Bekkers, R. and Schuyt, T. (2008), “And who is your neighbour? Explaining denominationa
differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands”, Review of Religious
Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 74-96.
Bennett, R. (2003), “Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity”,
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 12-29.
Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (2003), “Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable
organizations: an empirical study”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 276-289.
Brewer, G.A. (2003), “Building social capital: civic attitudes and behavior of public servants”,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Burgoyne, C.B., Young, B. and Walker, C.M. (2005), “Deciding to give to charity: a focus group
study in the context of the household economy”, Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 383-405.
Charities Aid Foundation (2013a), “World giving index 2013: a global view of giving trends”,
available at: www.cafonline.org/publications/2013-publications/world-giving-index-2013.
aspx (accessed 6 September 2014).
Charities Aid Foundation (2013b), “Future world giving – unlocking the potential of global
philantrophy”, available at: www.cafonline.org/publications/2013-publications/future-world-
giving.aspx (accessed 6 September 2014).
Charities Digest (1995), “Charities digest”, available at: www.charitychoice.co.uk/.
Clary, E.G. and Snyder, M. (1995), “Motivations for volunteering and giving: a functional
approach”, New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 111-123.
Comte, A. (1858), The Catechism of Positive Religion (trans by R. Congreve), John Chapman,
London.
Comte, A. (1865), A General View of Positivism (Trans by J.H. Bridges), Trubner and Co, London.
Comte, A. (1891), The Catechism of Positive Religion (Trans by R. Congreve), 3rd ed., Kegan Paul,
London, 1st published in French 1852, in English trans. 1858).
Cosgrave, J. (2007), “Tsunami evaluation coalition, synthesis report: expanded summary, joint
evaluation of the international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami”, TEC – Tsunami
Evaluation Coalition, available at: http://www.alnap.org/resource/5536 (accessed
6 September 2014).
Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009), “Gender differences in preferences”, Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 1-27.
Danko, W.D. and Stanley, T.J. (1986), “Identifying and reaching the donation prone individual:
a nationwide assessment”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2,
pp. 117-122.
APJML Dart, R. (2004), “Being ‘business-like’ in a non-profit organization: a grounded and inductive
typology”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 290-310.
26,5
Dawson, S. (1988), “Four motivations for charitable giving: implications for marketing strategy to
attract monetary donations for medical research”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 31-37.
Dickler, J. (2011), “Donations to Japan lag far behind Haiti or Katrina”, CNN Money, March 18,
756 available at: http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/18/pf/japan_earthquake_aid/ (accessed
6 September 2014).
Dixon, T. (2008), The Invention of Altruism: Making Moral Meanings in Victorian Britain, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), “In search of brand image: a foundation analysis”, in
Goldberg M., Gom G. and Pollay R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 110-119.
Dvorak, T. and Toubman, S.R. (2013), “Are women more generous than men? Evidence from
alumni donations”, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 121-131.
Einolf, C.J. (2011), “Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving”,
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1092-1112.
Eisenberg, N. (1986), Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Eveland, V. and Crutchfield, T. (2007), “Understanding why people do not give: strategic funding
concerns for AIDS related nonprofits”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Farmer, S.M. and Fedor, D.B. (2001), “Changing the focus on volunteering: an investigation of
volunteers’ multiple contributions to a charitable organization”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 191-211.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fisher, R.D., Derison, D., Polley, C.F. III, Cadman, J. and Johnston, D. (1994), “Religiousness,
religious orientation, and attitudes towards gays and lesbians”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 614-630.
Frydman, M., Ledruc, I., Hofmans, V. and Molinier, C. (1995), “The development of altruistic
attitudes”, Enfance, Vol. 1, pp. 89-100.
Gates, D.K. and Steane, P. (2007), “Historical origins and development of economic rationalism”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 330-358.
Gates, D.K. and Steane, P. (2009), “Altruism – an alternative value in policy formation and
decision making”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 962-978.
Glynn, S.A., Kleinman, S.H., Schreiber, G.B., Zuck, T., McCombs, S., Bethel, J., Garratty, G. and
Williams, A.E. (2002), “Motivations to donate blood: demographic comparisons”,
Transfusion, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 216-225.
Guy, B. and Patton, W. (1988), “The marketing of altruistic causes: understanding why people
help”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Guy, B.S. and Patton, W.E. (1989), “The marketing of altruistic causes: understanding why people
help”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Hall, M., Greenberg, L. and McKeown, L. (2000), Talking About Charities: Canadians’ Opinions on
Charities and Issues Affecting Charities, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Edmonton.
Handy, F. and Katz, E. (2008), “Donating behaviour: if time is money, which to give?
A preliminary analysis”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 323-332.
Hankinson, P. (2001), “Brand orientation in the charity sector: a framework for discussion and Moderating role
research”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 231-242. of religious
Heiser, R.S. (2006), “Normative influences in donation decision”, Journal of Nonprofit and Public beliefs
Sector Marketing, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 127-149.
Hibbert, S. and Horne, S. (1996), “Giving to charity: questioning the donor decision process”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 4-13. 757
Hibbert, S., Horne, S. and Tagg, S. (2005), “Charity retailers in competition for merchandise:
examining how consumers dispose of used goods”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58
No. 6, pp. 819-828.
Hodgkinson, V., Weitzman, M. and Kirsh, A. (1990), “From commitment to action: how religious
involvement affects giving and volunteering”, in Wuthnow R. and Hodgkinson V.A. (Eds),
Faith and Philanthropy in America, Jossey-Bass, San Franscisco, CA, pp. 93-114.
Hou, J., Du, L. and Tian, Z. (2009), “The effects of nonprofit brand equity on individual giving
intention: mediating by the self-concept of individual donor”, International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 215-229.
Iwaarden, J., Wiele, T., Williams, R. and Moxham, C. (2009), “Charities: how important is
performance to donors”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Jackson, E.F., Bachmeier, M.D., Wood, J.R. and Craft, E.A. (1995), “Volunteering and charitable
giving: do religious and associational ties promote helping behaviour?”, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 59-78.
James, R.N. and Sharpe, D.L. (2007), “The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving
profile”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 218-238.
Kanabar, T. (2004), “Characteristics affecting charitable donations in Australia”.
Karylowski, J. (1982), “Two types of altruistic behavior: doing good to feel good or to make the
other feel good”, in Derlega, V.J. and Grzelak, J. (Eds), Cooperation and Helping Behavior:
Theories and Research, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
King, P.E. and Boyatzis, C.J. (2004), “Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development:
current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives”, Applied Developmental Science,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2-6.
Knowles, S.R., Hyde, M.K. and White, K.M. (2012), “Predictors of young people’s charitable
intentions to donate money: an extended theory of planned behavior perspective”, Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 2096-2110.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1996), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Clarke, R.N. (1987), Marketing for Health Care Organizations, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kottasz, R. (2004), “How should charitable organisations motivate young professionals to give
philanthropically?”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 9-27.
Lam, P.Y. (2002), “As the flocks gather: how religion affects voluntary association participation”,
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 405-422.
Lasby, D. (2004), The Volunteer Spirit in Canada: Motivations and Barriers, Canadian Centre for
Philanthropy, Toronto.
APJML Lau, T.C. and Tan, B.C. (2009), “Religiosity as an antecedent of attitude towards green products:
an exploratory research on young Malaysian consumers”, Asean Marketing Journal, Vol. 1
26,5 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Lee, L., Piliavin, J.A. and Call, V.R. (1999), “Giving time, money, and blood: similarities and
differences”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 276-291.
Loch, A., Hilmi, I.N., Mazam, Z., Pillay, Y. and Choon, D.S.K. (2010), “Differences in attitude
758 towards cadaveric organ donation: observations in a multiracial Malaysian society”, Hong
Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 236-243.
Louie, T. and Obermiller, C. (2000), “Gender stereotypes and social desirability effects on charity
donation”, Journal of Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 121-136.
Lwin, M. and Phau, I. (2014), “An exploratory study of existential guilt appeals in charitable
advertisements”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 30 Nos 13/4, pp. 1467-1485.
Lwin, M., Phau, I. and Lim, A. (2013), “Charitable donations: empirical evidence from Brunei”,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 215-233.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), “An empirical examination of the structural antecedents
of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 48-65.
Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of the retail store”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 32,
October, pp. 47-55.
May, C.R., Mair, F., Finch, T., MacFarlane, A., Dowrick, C., Treweek, S., Rapley, T., Ballini, L.,
Ong, B.N., Rogers, A., Murray, E., Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Gunn, J. and Montori, V.M. (2009),
“Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process
theory”, Implementation Science, Vol. 4 No. 29, doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.
McKeown, L., McIver, D., Moreton, J. and Rotondo, A. (2004), Giving and Volunteering: The Role of
Religion, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Toronto.
Merchant, A., Ford, J. and Sargeant, A. (2010), “Charitable organizations’ storytelling influence
on donors’ emotions and intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 7,
pp. 754-762.
Michel, G. and Rieunier, S. (2012), “Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable
giving”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 701-707.
Mohammed, G. (2012), “Religio-ethical discussions on organ donation among muslims in Europe:
an example of transnational islamic bioethics”, Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 207-220.
Mokhlis, S. (2009), “Religious differences in some selected aspects of consumer behaviour:
a Malaysian study”, The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 67-76.
Monroe, K.R. (1990), “Altruism and the theory of rational action: rescuers of jews in nazi-Europe”,
Ethics, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 103-122.
Myers, G.M. (1990), “Optimality, free mobility, and the regional authority in a federation”, Journal
of Public Economics, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 107-121.
O’Malley, M.N. and Andrews, L. (1983), “The effect of mood and incentives on helping: are there
some things money can’t buy?”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 179-189.
Otto, P.E. and Bolle, F. (2011), “Multiple facets of altruism and their influence on blood donation”,
The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 558-563.
Padgett, D. and Allen, D. (1997), “Communicating experiences: a narrative approach to creating
service brand image”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 49-62.
Perks, T. and Haan, M. (2011), “Youth religious involvement and adult community participation: Moderating role
do levels of youth religious involvement matter?”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 107-129. of religious
Phau, I. and Teah, M. (2009), “Devil wears (counterfeit) prada: a study of antecedents and beliefs
outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Polonsky, M. (2000), “Helping behaviour models – are they appropriate in Australia?”, 759
in O’Cass, A. (Ed.), Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Queensland.
Radley, A. and Kennedy, M. (1995), “Charitable giving by individuals: a study of attitudes and
practice”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 685-709.
Randhawa, G. (1998), “An exploratory study examining the influence of religion on attitudes
towards organ donation among the Asian population in luton, UK”, Nephrology Dialysis
Transplantation, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 1949-1954.
Randhawa, G., Brocklehurst, A., Pateman, R., Kinsella, S. and Parry, V. (2010), “Opting-in or
opting-out? – the views of the UK’s faith leaders in relation to organ donation”, Health
Policy, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Ranganathan, S.K. and Henley, W.H. (2008), “Determinants of charitable donation intentions:
a structural equation model”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Reitsma, J., Scheepers, P. and Te Grotenhuis, M. (2006), “Dimensions of individual religiosity and
charity: cross-national effect differences in European countries”, Review of Religious
Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 347-362.
Riecken, G. and Yavas, U. (2005), “The attitudes of donors and non-donors to the march of dimes
charity in the United States: a case study in non-profit marketing”, International Journal of
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 572-581.
Roberts, J.A. and Roberts, C.R. (2012), “Money matters: does the symbolic presence of money
affect charitable giving and attitudes among adolescents?”, Young Consumers: Insight and
Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 329-336.
Ryckman, R.M., Thornton, B., van den Borne, B. and Gold J.A. (2004), “Intrinsic-extrinsic
religiosity and university students’ willingness to donate organs posthumously”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 196-205.
Sargeant, A. (1999), “Charitable giving: towards a model of donor behaviour”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 40, pp. 215-238.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J.B. and West, D.C. (2006), “Perceptual determinants of non-profit giving
behaviour”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 155-165.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Diamantopoluos, A. and Love, A. (1997a), “Characteristics affecting
charitable donations: empirical evidence from Britain”, Journal of Marketing Practice:
Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Love, A. and Diamantopoluos, A. (1997b), “Response to different charity
appeals: the impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 548-560.
Schwartz, S.H. (1970), “Elicitation of moral and self-enhancing behavior, an experimental study
of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 283-293.
Shimp, T.A. (1997), Advertising, Promotion and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing
Communications, Dryden, Fort Worth, TX.
Simmons, W. and Emanuele, R. (2007), “Male-female giving differentials: are women more
altruistic?”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 534-550.
APJML Simmons, W. and Emanuele, R. (2012), “Giving patters by religious and non-religious people”,
The Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1243-1251.
26,5 Sloan, M. (2009), “The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior”, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 220-236.
Smith, J.R. and McSweeney, A. (2007), “Charitable giving: the effectiveness of a revised theory
of planned behavior model in predicting donating intentions and behavior”, Journal of
760 Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 363-386.
Sober, E. (1990), “What is psychological egoism?”, Behaviorism, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 89-102.
Szper, R. and Prakash, A. (2011), “Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based
regulation”, Voluntas, Vol. 21, pp. 112-141.
Staub, E. (1978), Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Personal and Social Influences, Vol. 1,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Stephenson, M.T., Morgan, S.E., Roberts-Perez, S.D., Tyler, H., Walid, A. and Long, S.D. (2008),
“The role of religiosity, religious norms, subjective norms, and bodily integrity in signing
an organ donor card”, Health Communications, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 436-447.
Stroebe, W. and Frey, B.S. (1982), “Self-interest and collective action: the economics and
psychology of public goods”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 121-137.
Van Slyke, D.M. and Brooks, A.C. (2005), “Why do people give?: New evidence and strategies for
nonprofit managers”, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 35, pp. 199-222.
Wade, M. (2014), “Donating: charity begins at disasters, ends at war”, The Sydney Morning
Herald, March, p. 16, available at: www.smh.com.au/comment/donating-charity-begins-at-
disasters-ends-at-war-20140315-34tl6.html (accessed 16 March 2014).
Webb, D.J., Green, C.I. and Brashear, T.G. (2000), “Development and validation of scales to
measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 299-309.
Wong, L.P. (2010), “Information needs, preferred educational messages and channel of delivery,
and opinion on strategies to promote organ donation: a multicultural perspective”,
Singapore Medical Journal, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 790-795.

Further reading
Capizzi, M.T. and Ferguson, R. (2005), “Loyalty trends for the twenty-first century”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 72-80.
Charities Aid Foundation (2013c), Growing Up Giving – Insights into How Young People Feel
About Charity, available at: www.cafonline.org/pdf/Growing_Up_Giving.pdf, (accessed
6 September 2014).
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1995), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 33, March/April, pp. 33-39.
Handy, F. and Katz, E. (2008), “Donating behavior: if time is money, which to give? A preliminary
analysis”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 323-332.
Hankinson, P. and Rochester, C. (2005), “The face and voice of volunteering: a suitable case for
branding?”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 93-105.

Corresponding author
Dr Michael Lwin can be contacted at: michael.lwin@cbs.curtin.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints