Rev. Adm. (São Paulo) vol.52 número4

(1)

Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

Revista

de

Administração

http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração52(2017)363–373

Social

Responsibility

What

motivates

money

donation?

A

study

on

external

motivators

O

que

motiva

a

doa¸cão

de

dinheiro?

Estudo

sobre

motivadores

externos

¿Qué

factores

motivan

la

donación

de

dinero?

Un

estudio

sobre

motivadores

externos

Nivea

Coelho

Degasperi

∗

_,

_Emerson

_Wagner

_Mainardes

Funda¸cãoInstitutoCapixabadePesquisaemContabilidade,EconomiaeFinan¸cas,Vitória,ES,Brazil

Received27April2016;accepted1December2016

Availableonline6September2017

ScientificEditors:PaulaSaritaBigioSchnaiderandFlavioHourneauxJunior

Abstract

Theobjectiveof thisstudy isto identifyexternalmotivatingfactors that favorindividualmoney donation. Methodologically,weadopteda descriptiveandquantitativecross-sectionalstudy.Inordertocollectdata,wepreparedaquestionnairecontaining49statementsbasedonexternal motivatingvariablesofregularindividualmoneydonationfoundintheliteratureonthesubject.Aftertestingthequestionnaire,weappliedit to1073Brazilians,regularmoneydonorsandweperformedanexploratoryfactoranalysis.Conclusively,weidentified8externalfactorsthat motivateindividualmoneydonation:Trust,Reward,Leadershipinfluences,Characteristicsoftheorganization,Environmentalinfluences,Personal benefits,CharacteristicsofbeneficiariesandFutureInterests.Weexpectthatthese8factorscombined,couldbecomeausefultooltoimprovethe managementofcharitableorganizations,especiallyindefiningcampaignsorothermarketingstrategiestoattractnewdonorsandraisefundson occasionsthatarefavorabletoindividualmoneydonation.

©2017DepartamentodeAdministração,FaculdadedeEconomia,AdministraçãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Keywords:Philanthropy;Individualdonation;Motivatorsfordonation;Moneydonation

Resumo

Nesteestudo,Buscou-seidentificarosfatoresmotivadoresexternosquefavorecemadoaçãoindividualdedinheiro.Metodologicamenteadotou-se umapesquisadescritiva,quantitativacomcortetransversal.Paracoletadosdadosfoielaboradoumquestionáriocontendo49afirmativasbaseadas nasvariáveismotivadorasexternasdedoaçãoindividualregulardedinheiroencontradasnaliteraturasobreotema.Depoisdetestado,oquestionário foiaplicadoa1073brasileiros,doadoresregularesdedinheiroerealizadaaanálisefatorialexploratória.Conclusivamente,foramidentificados oitofatoresexternosque,navisãodosdoadorespesquisados,motivamadoaçãoindividualdedinheiro:Confiança,Recompensa,Influênciasde lideranças,Característicasdaorganização,Influênciasdoambiente,Benefíciospessoais,CaracterísticasdosbeneficiárioseInteressesfuturos. Espera-sequeessesoitofatores,conjuntamente,possamsetornarumaferramentaútilparamelhoraragestão dasorganizaçõesdecaridade, principalmentenadefiniçãodecampanhasououtrasestratégiasdemarketingparaatrairnovosdoadoreseangariarfundosemocasiõesfavoráveis àdoaçãoindividualdedinheiro.

©2017DepartamentodeAdministração,FaculdadedeEconomia,AdministraçãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este éumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicençaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Palavras-chave:Filantropia;Doaçãoindividual;Motivadoresparaadoação;Doaçãodedinheiro

∗_{Corresponding}_author_at:_Avenida_Fernando_Ferrari,₁₃₅₈_CEP_29075-505,_Vitória,_ES,_Brazil.

E-mail:[email protected](N.C.Degasperi).

PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo

–FEA/USP.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2017.08.002

(2)

Resumen

Elobjetivoenesteestudioesidentificarlosfactoresmotivadoresexternosquefavorecenladonaciónindividualdedinero.Sehaadoptadocomo metodologíaunestudiodescriptivo,cuantitativo,conseccióntransversal.Paralarecopilacióndedatossehaelaboradouncuestionariocon49 afirmacionesqueteníancomobaselasvariablesmotivacionalesexternasdedonaciónindividualregulardedineroencontradasenlaliteratura sobreeltema.Elcuestionario,previamentepuestoaprueba,sehaaplicadoa1073brasile˜nos,donantesregularesdedinero,yseharealizadoel análisisfactorialexploratorio.Comoconclusión,sehanidentificadoochofactoresexternosque,enlaopinióndelosencuestadosdonantes,motivan ladonaciónindividualdedinero:confianza,recompensa,influenciasdeliderazgo,característicasdelaorganización,influenciasdelambiente, beneficiospersonales,característicasdelosbeneficiarioseinteresesfuturos.Seesperaqueestosochofactores,juntos,puedanconvertirseenuna herramientaútilparamejorarlagestióndelasorganizacionesdecaridad,sobretodoenladefinicióndecampa˜nasyotrasestrategiasdemarketing destinadasaatraeranuevosdonantesyarecaudarfondosenocasionesfavorablesaladonaciónindividualdedinero.

©2017DepartamentodeAdministração,FaculdadedeEconomia,AdministraçãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Palabrasclave: Filantropía;Donaciónindividual;Motivadoresparaladonación;Donaciónenefectivo

Introduction

Philanthropy,brieflydefinedasaprivateactionforthe pub-lic good (Payton, 1988), represents contributions (of money, time,goodsandspecializations)voluntarilydonatedtothe com-mongood(Schuyt,Smit,&Bekkers,2004).Thesedonations canbeintermediatedbythethirdsectorornon-profit organiza-tions,suchasreligious,educational,scientific,health,charitable, amongotherbodies(Payne,1998).

Infaceoftheacknowledgmentofthecollaborationthat phi-lanthropybringstotheeconomicandsocialdevelopmentofa nation,Wiepking(2009)statesthatthepillarsoffuture prosper-itywill be sustainable economicgrowth, politicaldemocracy andabasiclevelofsocialservices.Inthiscontext,socialand publicwelfareinstitutions,willpossiblybefinanciallysupported bythreesourcesoffundraising:governmentfinancing,feesand charges andphilanthropy. However,duetochangesinsocial, politicalandeconomicenvironmentsintheworld,resourcesthat oughttobeprovidedorfinancedbythegovernmenthavebeen madeincreasinglymorescarcetowardthesupportofcharitable organizations(Grace&Griffin,2006).

Basedonthisscenario,anoverallincreaseinindividual dona-tions of money is estimated for charitable organizations. In 2013,for example, theamount donated tocharity worldwide was335.17billionUSD,with72%beingfromindividual dona-tions.In the Brazilianreality, 22%of individuals are already donorsorhavedonatedtocivilsocietyorganizations(Charities AidFoundation,2014).

With that taken into account, this subject has been much discussed in the academia, Bekkers and Wiepking (2011d) reviewedapproximately550articleswiththepurposeofbetter knowingthebehavioroftheindividualdonorandtheattributes thataretiedtothesedonors.Otherresearchers,inadditiontothe previousauthors,suchasGraceandGriffin(2009),Verhaertand VandenPoel(2011),MichelandRieunier(2012)andCasaleand Baumann(2013),alsoseektounderstandthereasonswhy indi-vidualsdonatetocharitybyidentifyingvariablesthataredirectly relatedtothebehaviorofthisindividualdonor.However,mostof thesestudieshaveconcentratedtheirresearchonfactors, mech-anismsorsetofvariablesthatshapethedonorbehavior.Asan

exception,BekkersandWiepking(2007,2011b)grouped vari-ablesin8donationmechanisms,however,theydidnotseparate theexternalmotivatorsfromtheinternalones,despitethe dif-ferencesbetweenthem.Moreover,wedidnottestthemodels empirically.

Asawayoffillingtheliteraturegap,especiallyonthelack ofempiricalstudiesandwithregardtothegroupingofexternal motivatorsofdonation,thisstudyintendstoanswerthe follow-ingquestion:Whataretheexternalmotivatingfactorsthatfavor individualdonationsofmoneybyBrazilians?

Wehighlightthatunderstandingthebehaviorofthe individ-ualdonorthroughtheexternalmotivatingfactorsthatfavorthe donation of money is relevant for two reasons: the first con-cernsacademiccontribution,sincetheexistingliteraturelacks researchonthesubject,mainlyfocusedongroupingvariables and conducting empirical research. The second reason refers tothepracticalfield,sincecharitableorganizationsincreasingly havetheneedofknowingtheexternalmotivatorsthatfavor dona-tion,mainlyduetoapossibletransitioninwhichthese organiza-tionsareinserted,whichprovidesforaconsiderablereduction ofgovernmentfundingandtheconsequentneedtoincreasethe individualdonationofmoney.Inthisenvironment,foragood performanceofcharitableorganizations,aconstantrefinement offundraisingtechniquesisrequiredinordertoobtainpotential donorstofinancecharitableprojects(DeHaven,2010).

Asaresultofnotfindingnationalstudiesthatapproachthe external motivators of the individual donation of money, we opted toidentify themininternationalliterature toverify the adherenceof theseexternalmotivatorsinBrazil.The motiva-torsarepossiblythesameforallofsociety,regardlessofwhich countryitis,andsomemotivatorsappearashavingmoreorless strengthdependingonthecountry.However,ingeneralterms, these externalmotivatorstend tobethe sameor very similar amongthevariouscountries,whichalsomakestheuseofthese motivatorsbecomeapossibilitywithintheBrazilianreality.

(3)

N.C.Degasperi,E.W.Mainardes/RevistadeAdministração52(2017)363–373 365

donationof money.In thisresearch,we wereabletoidentify 49externalmotivatorsthat favorthe donationof money, pre-sentedinthisstudythroughaframework.Inordertoverifyifthe variablescontainedintheliteraturemotivatethebehaviorofthe Brazilianindividualdonor,weconductedaquantitativeresearch with1073frequentdonorsofmoney.And,asawaytoreducethe amountofvariables,weproposeitsgroupingthroughthe fac-torialanalysisthatallowedustoidentify8externalmotivating factorsthatfavorthedonationofmoney.

Theoreticalframework

It is estimated that rich individuals, middle-class entrepreneurs, as well as ordinary people, i.e., the major-ity of citizens, are becoming increasingly involved with the commongood (Schuytetal.,2004).In thissituation, philan-thropicorganizationsalreadyknowthatindividualsareproneto donatingmoneyand/orgoods(Bachke,Alfnes,&Wik,2014).

Inviewofthisscenario,academiaeffortsareaimedat know-ingthereasonswhyindividualsmaketheirdonations.Bekkers andWiepking (2011c),for example,argued that acts of phi-lanthropy can be inspired by a concern for the welfare of beneficiaries.Thisleadstoanunderstandingofwhathadbeen pointedoutbyGraceandGriffin (2006),bystatingthat indi-vidualpersonalitycharacteristicsanddemographicfactorscan providearangeofinformationtoexplaindonationbehavior.

Ontheotherhand,researcherssuchasBennett(2003) ques-tionedthefactthatmotivationspredictorsofdonationarerelated onlytothedesiretohelporbydemographicissues.InBennett’s (2003)view,thereareotherfactorsthatsupposedlyinfluencethe propensitytodonate,suchas:theimageandbrandofthe charita-bleorganization;theperceptionthattheorganizationisefficient; thefactthatpeople’sgenerosityisoftenrelatedtotheir affilia-tionwithanetwork,society,politicalgroup,socialmovement orareligious,artisticorscientificcommunity.

Inthislineof research,Knowles, Hyde,andWhite(2012) corroborate these arguments and emphasize that, despite the importance and the amount of research conducted on dona-tionstocharityfocusingondemographicvariables,theydonot providean explanationof whypeoplechoose togetinvolved withadetermineddonationanddonotforeseestrategicgoalsto encouragethemtodonatemore.

Itseems that before engagingwith charity, individualsgo throughaprocessofdeciding whichorganizationtheyshould supportwithdonationsofmoney and/orgoods. Thusoverthe yearsonebeginstoconsiderarangeofinfluencesoncharitable donations,including externalmotivationstodonate(Smith& McSweeney,2007).

Attheendofthe20century,researcherssuchasAmos(1982), Guyand Patton(1989), Kelly(1995) andBendapudi, Singh, andBendapudi(1996) identified that someissuesexternal to theindividualcouldinfluencethedonationofmoney/goodsto charitableorganizations.Amos(1982),for example,observed thatpeoplemaybeinducedbytheiremployersotocontributeto charitableorganizations.Theauthoralsoidentifiedthatpeople tendtodonateforreligiousmotivationasawaytosecuretheir salvation.Itisfurtherstatedthatpeoplecandevelopthehabit

ofgivingmoneyand/orgoodsforpoliticalreasons,i.e.,whena politicalaspirantcontributestoacharitableorganizationaiming tobuildareputationasasolidcommunityleader.

Attheendoftheeighties,GuyandPatton(1989)made con-siderations about the need for philanthropic organizations to seekmoney donationstohelpthemfulfilltheirpurpose.They warnedthatthevolumeofmoneycollectionwoulddetermine the successoforganizations inthemissionofhelping others. The authors also argued that organizations should beable to show, through historical data, positive results on the philan-thropicworkdeveloped,asthereputationofacharitycanobtain anewdonor.

Furthermore,otherauthors(Banks&Tanner,1999; Benda-pudietal.,1996;Kelly,1995)composethehistoricalevolution ofthe firstinvestigationsontheexternalmotivatorsofmoney and/orgoodsdonation.ThestudybyKelly(1995),forexample, notedthatthecredibilityoftherecipientorganizationcouldbe an importantattributetopositively influencethe donation,as wellaswhenthedonorisbenefitedand/orrewardedbytheact ofcharity,theremaybegreaterinterestindonating(Bendapudi etal.,1996).Itwasalsofoundthatseasonaleffectsmaymotivate donations,withahigherprobabilityofitoccurringinthefourth quarter(Banks&Tanner,1999).

Givingcontinuitytostudieswhichrevealedexternalvariables thatmotivatetheactsofmoneydonation,moreresearchemerged withthisfocusfromtheyear2000onwardsandtheapproaches range from the appearance of the recipient of the donation (Sargeant&Woodliffe,2007)totransparencyinthe account-abilityofcharitableorganizations,which,inthiscase,tendstobe fundamentalforthemaintenanceofmoneyand/orgoods dona-tion(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013).Inthisregard,forVan Iwaarden, vander Wiele,Williams,andMoxham (2009), the need for bettermanagement of charitableorganizations rises, aimingat the developmentof measuresof internalefficiency andexternaleffectiveness,sincedespitetheamountofdonations received,therearesignsthatdonorsarenotsatisfiedwiththe per-formanceof charitableorganizationsandmostofthemwould liketoknowmoreaboutwhathappenswiththeirdonations.

Therefore,itisrelevanttohighlightthatattributesrelatedto thecharacteristicsofcharitableorganizationswereevidencedas importantpredictorsofmoneydonation.Theverytypeof orga-nizationandthe causeitadvocatescaninterferepositivelyor negativelyinaperson’sdecisiontodonatemoney/goods(Okten & Weisbrod, 2000). In this context, according to Bowman (2006), the clarity of an organization’s mission andthe trust assignedtoitsleadertendtointerferepositivelywiththedecision todonate,whichcangeneratemoretrustincharitable organi-zations(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011c),aswellastheinfluence of image andbrand,studied by Michel andRieunier (2012), alsotendstoberelatedtothechoiceofcharitableorganization to whichthe individual will assist with money and/or goods donation.

(4)

andgeographicrangeofcampaigns.Inthelastitem,itshouldbe notedthatthereisastrongtendencyfordonorstoprefer donat-ingtonational causes,i.e.,for campaignsintended tobenefit peoplefromtheirowncountry.

Inthesamewaythatthecharacteristicsoftheorganizations relatedtotheirmanagementcaninterferepositively inmoney donation,wealsoobservedthatotherexternalmotivatorstend topromotedonation,suchasclimateinfluence.Inthestudyby BekkersandWiepking (2007),it isevidencedthatpeopleare more likelyto donate money to charity when the weather is milder.Inthissamestudy,theauthorspointedoutthat individ-ualsare morelikelytodonateatcommemorativetimes,such as Christmas, however, in cases of economic recession, this behaviormaynotberepeated,becauseaccordingtoBreezeand Morgan (2009),individuals tend todonate less inperiods of economiccrisis.

For Smith andMcSweeney (2007), a catastrophic natural phenomenontendstosignificantlyraise thelevel of contribu-tionfromindividualdonors,suggestingthattheconsciousness ofneedofapopulationinfluencescharitabledonations(Bekkers &Wiepking,2011c).Inanotherstudy,BekkersandWiepking (2011b)conductedanextensiveresearchonpredictorsof dona-tionandhighlightedseveralotherattributesthattendtohavea strongrelationshipwithindividualmoneydonation:thefactthat theindividualisaccompaniedwhenoneisaskedtodonate;the factthattheindividualobtainsagiftfromtherecipientofthe donation; thevery actof requestingor invitingtheindividual todonate,and,inthisregard,whentherequestisdone person-ally,thetendencyoftheresponsebeingpositiveincreaseseven more if the requestor hassome physical appeal.In addition, therequestor’sgendercanalsopositivelyinfluencedonations, sincementendtodonatemorewhentheyreceiverequestsfrom attractivewomen(Landry,Lange,List,Price,&Rupp,2005). Theuseofcelebritiesindonationcampaignsisalsoconsidered intheinvestigationsbyVanLeeuwenandWiepking(2013),as theytendtoincreasethelevelofpublicconfidenceincharitable organizations,sinceordinarycitizensmayfeel aspecial bond withacelebrityandbecomemorewillingtodonate.

Inarecentstudyontheexternalmotivatorsofdonationsof money/goodsconductedbyMainardes,Laurett,Degasperi,and Lasso(2015),theauthoridentifiedthatthechoiceforthe charita-bleorganizationcanalsobemotivatedwhenindividualsperceive thatthe beneficiaryorganization doesnotreceivegovernment aid.Moreover,thissamestudyshowsthatthevalueofthe reg-ularcontributiontendstointerferewiththedecisiontodonate moneytoacharity,i.e.,thelowerthevalueofthecontribution, itis possibletoincreasethenumberof donorsofmoney and consequentlytheamountcollected.Mainardesetal.(2015)also emphasizedthat theserviceprovidedtothedonortendstobe essentialinmaintainingthisdonation.

Insummary,throughthevariousstudiescitedinthisliterature review,weidentifiedforty-nineexternalvariablesthat,insome way,canfavortheindividualdonationofmoney.Thesevariables areshowninTable1.

Inthistopic,wesoughttoidentify asmanyexternal moti-vatingvariablesaspossiblethatfavortheindividualdonationof money.However,weconsiderthatitmaybeverydifficultfor

managers ofcharitableorganizations tomanage awiderange of variablessuchas thosepresented inTable1,thusrises the needtogroupthemas tofacilitatetheunderstandingofallof thembythemanagersofcharitableorganizations.Theirusecan beencouragedtostimulatepotentialdonorsorevendirect mar-ketingcampaignsfocusingonthoseindividualsmostlikelyto donate.

Researchmethodology

To achievethe objectiveof thisstudy,whichistoidentify external motivatingfactorsthat favorindividualmoney dona-tionsbyBrazilians,weadoptedaquantitativeapproach,witha cross-sectionalanddescriptivecharacter.

Thepopulationdefinedforthisresearchisformedbyregular Brazilianindividualdonorsofmoney.Therefore,toparticipate inthisstudy,theindividualshouldclaimtobearegulardonorof money,evenifonedoesnothaveadefinedregularity(weekly, monthly,etc.).

Wechoseanon-probabilisticsamplingprocedureby acces-sibility, since the quantity of the population investigated is unknown. In this regard, as part of the sample we included 1073Brazilianindividualsofvariousages,gender,levelof edu-cation,residentsinsmallandlargecitieswhoclaimedtomake regular,individualmoneydonations.Weaimedatobtainingthe sampleasdiversifiedaspossible,avoidingtofocusononlyone typeofdonationorcharitableorganization.

Forthe datacollection,we elaborated aquestionnairethat contemplated 49statements basedon the externalmotivating variablesofindividualmoneydonationidentifiedintheliterature review (Table1),11questions for the characterization of the sampleandonecontrolquestion.

Atthetopofthequestionnairewepresentthefirstthree ques-tions,withthefirstonebeingrelatedtothecontrolquestionand the other two on the characterization of the sample. For the controlquestionweasked:“Doyoumakeregularmoney dona-tions?”. The optionswere “Yes, money (or newgoods, such asfood,forexample)”,“No”.Iftherespondentreported“No”, theywereexcludedfromthesample.Then,twoquestionswere insertedtostartthecharacterizationofthesample,onetoknow the frequencywithwhichthe respondentmadethe donations andtheothertoknowhowlongthedonationswereconducted for. In the sequence,we requested the respondent to answer thequestionnairethinkinginageneralmanner,howthedonor of money behaves, indicating their degreeof agreementwith respecttothe49statements.Thesestatementswere accompa-niedbyaLikertscale,inwhichtherespondents’answersranged from1(“Totallydisagree”)and5(“Totallyagree”).Attheend of thequestionnaire,afurtherninequestionswereinsertedto finalizethecharacterizationofthesample:age,gender,marital status,whetheronehaschildren,levelofeducation,occupation, monthlyincome,regionwhereonelivesinandthesizeofthe city.

(5)

N.C.

De

gasperi,

E.W

.

Mainar

des

/

Re

vista

de

Administr

ação

52

(2017)

363–373

367

Table1

Externalmotivatorsthatfavorthedonationofmoney.

No. Variables Definitionofvariables

01 Campaignsgeographicalamplitude Donorstendtodonatemorefornationalcampaigns(Casale&Baumann,2013;VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

02 Appearanceofthedonationbeneficiary Abeneficiarywithagoodimagetendstobemorelikelytobeconsideredworthyofdonation(Sargeant&Woodliffe,2007)

03 Donorservice Donorserviceisessentialformaintainingthedonationofmoneyand/orgoods(Mainardesetal.,2015)

04 Beneficiariesseenasinnocent Donor’sperceptionofbeneficiarybeinginnocentincreasesdonationpropensity(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

05 Catastrophe Individualstendtodonateintimesofenvironmentalcatastrophesandpubliccalamities(SmithandMcSweeney,2007)

06 Climateconditions Individualsaremorelikelytodonatemoneytocharitywhentheweatherismild,neithertoohotnortoocold(Bekkers&Wiepking,2007)

07 Trustintheorganization Whenthebeneficiaryorganizationinspirestrust,individualsaremorewillingtomakedonations(VanIwaardenetal.,2009)

08 Trustintheorganization’sleadership Thedonorknowingthefounderordirectorofthebeneficiaryorganizationcaninfluencethedonationprocess(Bowman,2006)

09 Contributionvalue Low,regularandfixeddonationcontributiontendstoincreasedonationofmoney(Mainardesetal.,2015)

10 Conditionalcooperation Individualsdonatemoremoneywhentheyhavetheinformationthatotherindividualsalsodonate(Wiepking&Heijnen,2011)

11 Credibilityoftheorganization Thecredibilityofthebeneficiaryorganizationtendstoinfluencethedonationprocess(Kelly,1995)

12 Influentialdonors Releasinginfluentialdonornamescanpromotepositivedonorengagement(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

13 Leadershipeffect Observingotherindividualsdonatingcaninfluencedonation(Bekkers&Wiepking,2007)

14 Seasonaleffects Individualstendtodonatemoreinthefourthquarteroftheyear(Banks&Tanner,1999)

15 Efficiencyandeffectivenessofthe

organization

Thebeneficiaryorganizationbeingefficientandeffectiveinusingtheresourcesandexecutedprojectstendstoobtainmoredonors(Bekkers&Wiepking,

2011c;Scaifeetal.,2012)

16 Companioninfluence Individualsaccompaniedatthetimeofbeinginvitedtomakethedonationaremorelikelytodonate(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011b)

17 Requestor’sgender Maleindividualstendtodonatemorewhentheyreceiverequestsfromattractivewomen(Landryetal.,2005)

18 Imageoftheorganization Theimagethatdonorshaveinrelationtothebeneficiaryorganizationcontributestothedonation(Michel&Rieunier,2012)

19 Celebrityinfluence Usingacelebrityasaspokespersontendstoincreasedonation(Michel&Rieunier,2012)

20 Economyinfluence Individualstendtodonatelessincaseofeconomicrecession(Breeze&Morgan,2009)

21 Churchinfluence Frequencyofchurchattendanceincreasestheamountdonated(Schuytetal.,2004)

22 Acquaintancesinfluence Anindividualcandonatebecausetheiracquaintancesactivelysupportthisbehavior(Grace&Griffin,2006)

23 Influenceofcommemorativedates Atcommemorativedates,individualstendtobemorepronetodonation(Bekkers&Wiepking,2007)

24 Employerinfluence Whenanindividualisinducedbyanemployertomakedonations(Amos,1982)

25 Brandimageoftheorganization Thebrandimageofthebeneficiaryorganizationtendstoinfluencedonors(Michel&Rieunier,2012)

26 Missionoftheorganization Clarityaboutthemissionofthebeneficiaryorganizationmayfavordonation(Bowman,2006)

27 Religiousmotivation Individualstendtodonatetoreligioninexchangeforspiritualbenefitsoreternalsalvation(Amos,1982)

28 Politicalmotivation Individualstendtodonatetothebeneficiaryorganizationtobuildupapoliticalimage(Amos,1982)

29 Lackofpublicfunding Individualsdonatemoremoneyand/orgoodswhentheyrealizethatthebeneficiaryorganizationdoesnotreceivegovernmentaid(Mainardesetal.,2015)

30 Taxbenefit Itreferstotaxbenefitswhenmakingdonations(Wiepking,2009)

31 Participatinginspecificgroups Theindividualwhoispartofaparticulargroup(e.g.,Association,Club)tendstoincreasethedonation(Wiepking&Maas,2009)

32 Interestinsweepstakes Donateandwinatickettoparticipateinaprizedraw(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

33 Interestinfutureservice Donormayrequirethatorganizationinthefuture(Amos,1982)

34 Socialpressure Individualsfeelingpressuredtodonatetendtodonateless(Bekkers&Wiepking,2007)

35 Reciprocity Theindividualtendstodonateforreciprocity,forexample,whenonereceivesaninvitationfromanyorganizationforadinner(DeHaven,2010)

36 Publicacknowledgment Publiclyacknowledgingthedonor’snametendstoincreasedonation(DeHaven,2010)

37 Rulesandregulations Beneficiaryorganizationsbeingsubjecttowell-defineddonationrulesandregulationstendtoincreasereceivingdonations(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

38 Reputationoftheorganization Thereputationofthebeneficiaryorganizationtendstointerfereinthedecisionoftheindividualtomakethedonation(Guy&Patton,1989)

39 Receivingreward Benefitsperceivedbytheindividualwhenmakingdonations.Ex:gifts,amongothers(Bendapudietal.,1996)

40 Consciousnessofneed Whenthedonorbecomesawareoftheneedtodonatetothatpurpose(Bekkers&Wiepking,2007)

41 Identificationofthedonor Theindividualusessomeobjecttobeidentifiedasadonor(Grace&Griffin,2009)

42 Receivinggifts Individualstendtodonatemoretoobtainapresentfromthebeneficiaryofthedonation(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011b)

43 Beinginvitedtodonate Therequest/invitationtendstoincreasedonors’donation(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011b)

44 Donationrequestheldpersonally Theindividualtendstoacceptthedonationrequestwhenitisdonepersonally(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011b)

45 Physicalappearanceoftherequestor Individualswhoaremorephysicallyattractivetendtogetmoredonation(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011b)

46 Typeoforganization Thetypeoforganizationandthecauseitadvocatesinterferewiththedecisiontodonate(Okten&Weisbrod,2000)

47 Transparencyinaccountability Transparencyinaccountabilitytendstobefundamentalformaintainingthedonation(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

48 Useofmediaandtechnology Mediauseviatechnologytendstoincreasedonation(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013)

49 Useofthe“love”concept Usingtheconceptof“love”incampaignscanpromotedonation(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011c)

(6)

distributed,electronicallybye-mailto2200individuals.Thelink ofthequestionnairewasalsosharedthroughsocialmediasuch asFacebookandtheWhatsappapplication,withtherespondent beinginvitedtosharethequestionnaireintheircontactsnetwork. Furthermore,wedistributedintechnicalschools,collegesand churches,750printedquestionnaires,ofwhich480returned.The surveywasconductedbetweenthemonthsofMaytoJuly2015. Attheendofthedatacollection,weobtained1073answers,all consideredasvalid.

Inordertoverify thatthesample usedintheresearchwas adequate to respond tothe purpose of this investigation, we performedthecharacterizationoftheprofileofthedonors partic-ipatingintheresearch.Inthisanalysis,weobservedthat66.4% ofrespondentswerefemale.Mostweremarried(40.4%)andthat 51.7%donothavechildren.Withregardtoage,ahigher concen-trationwasobservedamongpeopleagedfrom25to30(21.01%), 19to24years(18%)and31to36years(17.5%). Regarding education,42.5%ofrespondentshadcompletedsecondary edu-cationand27.3%hadcompletedhighereducation.Inaddition, themajorityofrespondentsdeclaredthattheywereemployees (70.1%),whosemostfrequentindividualincomeisabove1and upto3minimumwages.Thesamplewasformedbyrespondents livinginurbanareas(68.7%),however,themajorityresidein small cities(46.4%). With regardto the periodicityof dona-tion,the majorityof respondents (58%) admittedtodonating frequently,butwithnoregularitydefined.Nextisthemonthly donation(19.1%). Amongthosewhodonateregularly, 28.8% assumedtomakingdonationsforover10yearsand21%between 3and5years.

Finally,uponcompletionofthisfirstanalysis,wefoundthat thetypicaldonorprofiledescribedintheliteraturedivergedat somepointstotheprofileobservedintheusedsample.Thatis, we canconsiderthat,exceptfor someparticularities,such as age, numberofchildren andlevelof education,the Brazilian donorresemblesthedonorfromdifferentpartsoftheworld,a resultofthecharacteristicsobservedinthescientificliterature onthesubject.Therefore,weconsiderthatthesampleobtained isadequatefortheexploratoryfactoranalysis,presentedinthe followingsection.

Analysisofresults

Inordertoidentifytheexternalmotivatingfactorsthatfavor individualmoneydonationsandtoachievethecentralobjective ofthisresearch,weperformedanexploratoryfactoranalysis. Thus,afterperformingthevarimaxorthogonalrotation,46 vari-ableswere synthesizedresulting in8 factors, as described in Table2.

Theresult ofthe analysisorganizedthevariablesbyorder of importance of each variablefor each factor. By observing Table2,wewereabletoverifytheloadingofeachcomponent inthefactorcomposition.Afactorloadingrepresentsthe cor-relationbetweenanoriginalvariableandthefactor.Thatis,it indicateshowmucheachvariableisassociatedwitheachfactor generated.Theminimumacceptablevalueforthecontribution ofthevariabletoafactorloadingis0.40.However,the

contri-Table2

Componentsoffactorswithvarimaxrotation.

Factor Variable Factorloading

F1 Trustintheorganization .760

Credibilityoftheorganization .632

Trustintheorganization’sleadership .616

Catastrophe .591

Consciousnessofneed .536

Imageoftheorganization .535

F2 Receivinggifts .748

Identificationofthedonor .737

Reciprocity .691

Receivingareward .684

Publicacknowledgment .450

Physicalappearanceoftherequestor .427

F3 Leadershipeffect .616

Seasonaleffects .605

Influentialdonors .574

Conditionalcooperation .565

Requestor’sgender .536

Celebrityinfluence .528

Efficiencyandeffectivenessoftheorganization .495

CompanionInfluence .485

F4 Typeoforganization .653

Transparencyinaccountability .644

Useofmediaandtechnology .608

Useofthe“love”concept .563

Beinginvitedtodonate .508

Rulesandregulations .484

F5 Churchinfluence .682

Acquaintancesinfluence .672

Influenceofcommemorativedates .526

Economyinfluence .456

Employerinfluence .456

Brandimageoftheorganization .405

Lackofpublicfunding .382

F6 Contributionvalue .596

Missionoftheorganization .590

Politicalmotivation .555

Taxbenefit .543

Religiousmotivation .465

F7 Physicalappearanceoftherequestor .750

Donorservice .559

Campaignsgeographicalamplitude .543

Beneficiariesseenasinnocent .518

Climateconditions .492

F8 Participatinginspecificgroups .648

Interestinfutureservice .543

Interestinsweepstakes .501

Source:Researchdata.Developedbytheauthors.

butionofthevariable“Lackofpublicfinancing”is0.382,close totheacceptableminimum,andwasthereforemaintained.

(7)

Table3

Factornames.

Factor1–trust Factor2–reward

Trustintheorganization Receivinggifts

Credibilityoftheorganization Identificationofthedonor

Trustintheorganization’sleadership Reciprocity

Catastrophe Receivingareward

Consciousnessofneed Publicacknowledgment

Imageoftheorganization Physicalappearanceoftherequestor

Factor3–leadershipinfluence Factor4–characteristicsof

theorganization

Leadershipeffect Typeoforganization

Seasonaleffects Transparencyin

accountability

Influentialdonors Useofmediaandtechnology

Conditionalcooperation Useoftheconceptof“love”

Requestor’sgender Beinginvitedtodonate

Celebrityinfluence Rulesandregulations

Efficiencyandeffectivenessoftheorganization

Influenceofthecompanion

Factor5–environmentalinfluences Factor6–personalbenefits

ChurchInfluence Contributionvalue

Acquaintancesinfluence Missionoftheorganization

Influenceofcommemorativedates Politicalmotivation

Economyinfluence Taxbenefit

Employerinfluence Religiousmotivation

Brandimageoftheorganization

Lackofpublicfunding

Factor7–characteristicsofbeneficiaries Factor8–futureinterests

Physicalappearanceoftherequestor Participatinginspecificgroups

Donorservice Interestinfutureservice

Campaignsgeographicalamplitude Interestinsweepstakes

Beneficiariesseenasinnocent

Climateconditions

inthisresearchisadequatetothenumberofitemsinvestigated. Bartlett’ssphericitytestpresentedap-valueof0.000.Thismeans thatdataarenotcorrelatedasanullhypothesisandthatthereare relationsbetweenthequestions,thusjustifyingtheapplication oftheexploratoryfactorialanalysis.

Subsequently,asawayofdemonstratingtheproportionof contributionofthevarianceofeachvariabletothegenerationof thefactors,weanalyzedthecommonalitiesbetweenthe indica-tors.Forresearchinadministration,loadingsofavaluegreater than0.30areconsideredacceptable,above0.50aremoderately importantandabove0.70areveryimportant.Thus,outofthe initial49 variables(Table 1), the followingvariablesdid not meetthecriterionofcommunityacceptanceandwereexcluded fromtheexploratoryfactoranalysis:socialpressure,reputation oftheorganizationanddonationrequestheldpersonally.Thus, theexploratoryfactoranalysiswasperformedwith46variables. Afterperformingthevaliditytestsoftheanalysis,wetriedto namethe8factors,aspresentedinTable3.

AsshowninTable3,wecanaffirmthatthegroupingofthe originalvariablesallowedinacoherentway,thegenerationof

Table4

Totalvarianceexplained.

Components Rotationsumsof

squaredloadings

Cronbach’s alpha

Total%ofvariance%accumulated

1–Trust 3.95 8.60 8.60 0.802

2–Reward 3.92 8.53 17.13 0.812

3–Leadershipinfluences 3.71 8.07 25.21 0.84

4–Characteristicsofthe

organization

3.15 6.85 32.07 0.801

5–Environmental

influences

2.78 6.05 38.12 0.795

6–Personalbenefit 2.57 5.59 43.71 0.75

7–Characteristicof

beneficiaries

2.53 5.51 49.23 0.712

8–Futureinterest 1.92 4.17 53.41 0.62

the 8 external motivatingfactorsthat favor individualmoney donation.

Withthe orthogonalvarimaxrotation,weestimatethat the factorshaveaproportionalvariationinordertorepresent the datainthebestpossibleway.Thus,Table4presentsthe8 fac-tors definedfromthe46variablestestedwiththeir respective variancesandreliabilityindicators(Cronbach’salpha).

ByobservingTable4,wecanseethatavalueisattributedto eachoneofthefactors,aswellastheirrespectivevariances.The 8factorstogethercanexplain53.41%ofthetotaldatavariability. Although the criterion of acceptability of the variance estab-lishedbyHair,Black,Babin,Anderson,andTatham(2009)is 60%,giventheexploratorynatureofthisstudyandconsidering thattherearestillthepersonalcharacteristicsoftheindividual thatcanmotivatethedonations,whichareindependentof exter-nal motivations,possiblythe remainderof the variancetends tobeexplainedbyinternaldonormotivators.Thisallowsusto acceptthevarianceof53.41%pointedoutinthisstudy.

Wecanalsonote,byobservingthepercentageofthevariance of each factor, that thereis nopredominantfactor toexplain the suggested model, that is, the explanatory percentages of each factorshowacertainbalanceonthe externalmotivators thatfavorindividualdonationofmoney.Thismeansthat exter-nal motivatorsvaryfromdonortodonor,whichshowsthatit isnecessarytogroupthedonorsintogroupsthatare homoge-neousbetweeneachotherandheterogeneousbetweengroups, somethingthatcanbedoneinfuturestudies.

Wecanfurtherobservethat,thefirstthreefactorspresented, respectively,8.6%,8.5%and8.0%ofthetotalvariabilityofthe model,suggestingthat thedegreeofimportanceof thesefirst threefactorsarevirtuallythesame, followedbyfactors4and 5,whichexplain6.85%and6.5%of thetotalvarianceof the model.Factors6and7thenexplained5.59%and5.51%ofthe totalvariance,andfinallyfactor8,whichexplained4.17%of thetotalmodelvariance.

(8)

McSweeney(2007),BekkersandWiepking(2007),Van Iwaar-denetal.(2009),andMichelandRieunier(2012).Thistrustcan begeneratedindonorsbythelevelofcredibilityofthe organi-zation,possiblybythewayitworks itsimagebeforesociety, includingbymeansof itsleadership.Trustinadonation rela-tionship can be so relevant that Bekkers (2003) conducted a research toinvestigate exclusively the trustinthe processof donationandphilanthropyoftheDutch.Inthisstudy,Bekkers (2003)concludedthat,inadditiontotrustintheorganization, individualsneedtohaveasocialtrust,as ifitwereabroader leveloftrust,thatinvolvedtheprocessofaccreditationof soci-etytowardtheirowncountry.Inthisregard,byevaluatingthe “Trust”factor,onecanconsiderthat,accordingtothe respon-dents,thisfactorisanimportantexternalmotivatorthatfavors thedonation ofmoney,consistentwiththeresultsof Bekkers (2003).

The second factor, “Rewards”, is responsible for explain-ing8.53%ofthevariance,demonstratingconsistencywiththe findingsofBendapudietal.(1996),GraceandGriffin(2009), DeHaven (2010) and Bekkers and Wiepking (2011b). These authorsalsoarguedthatindividualsmaybemotivatedtodonate moneywhenrealizingthattheywillsomehowberewardedfor theactofaccomplishedcharity.Thisrewardcanbeintheform ofaphysicalgift,suchaswhenthedonorreceivesagiftfor hav-ingdonated(Bekkers&Wiepking,2011b),orevenreceivinga ribbonidentifyingoneasadonor(Grace&Griffin,2009).The donormayalsofeelrewardedinreceivingintangiblegifts,such aspublicrecognition,ashighlightedbytheresearchersGrace andGriffin(2009)byclaimingthattheactofdonatingto chari-tablecausescanbedrivenbythevisibledisplayofthedonation madeorthepublicrecognitionofthedonation.Thus,consistent withpreviousresearch,wecansuggestthat,fortheresearched donors, individualscandonate moneyby beingmotivated by rewards.

The thirdfactor, “Leadershipinfluences” explained8.07% ofthetotalvarianceofthemodelandcorroboratethe investiga-tionsofBanksandTanner(1999),Landryetal.(2005),Bekkers andWiepking(2007),WiepkingandHeijnen(2011),Bekkers andWiepking(2011b),BekkersandWiepking(2011c),Michel andRieunier(2012),Scaife,McDonald,andWiepking(2012) andVanLeeuwenandWiepking(2013).Thisfactorgroups vari-ablesthatareinsomewaylinkedtotheactofgiving,following the example andby the desireto repeat abehavior of some specialperson.Thispersoncanbeanidol,afamouspersonor anadmirableleader.AccordingtoVanLeeuwenandWiepking (2013),peoplemaybemotivatedtodonatemoney byhaving rich,famousorrespectedindividualsastheirleadersanddonors, sinceordinarypeoplecanfeelaspecialaffectionforacelebrity andbecomemorewillingtogive.Thismotivationmayalsoarise withseasonaleffectsatcertaintimesoftheyear,suchasinthe thirdquarterforexample,inwhichmanypeoplebecomemore sensitiveto donationsof money because these areperiods in whichthereareseveraldonationcampaignsandconsequently manypeopledonating(Banks&Tanner,1999).Thus,according totheliteratureandasindicatedbytheresultofthisresearchwe estimatethatpeoplemaybemotivatedtodonatebyinfluences ofleadershipsconsideredsignificantbythem.

Factor 4, “Characteristics of the organization”, explained 6.85%ofthevarianceandpointedouttheimportancethatpeople attributetoorganizationsregarding,forexample,transparency inaccountability,thetypeoforganizationandwhethertherules andnormsoftheorganizationareclear.Thisfactorthefindings byOktenandWeisbrod(2000),BekkersandWiepking(2011a, 2011b,2011c),andVanLeeuwenandWiepking(2013).Itis esti-matedthat,accordingtothecharacteristicsoftheorganization, the donor canbecome moreor less sensitive tothe donation of money (Bekkers&Wiepking,2011a).Thus,we perceived through the donors researched, the importance of the factor “Characteristicsoftheorganization”asanexternalmotivation fortheindividualdonationofmoney.

Regardingfactor5,“environmentalinfluences”,itis respon-sible forexplaining6.05%ofthe variance.Thevariablesthat composedthisfactorwerealso partof theresearchbyAmos (1982),Schuytetal.(2004),GraceandGriffin(2006),Bekkers and Wiepking (2007), Breeze andMorgan (2009), Wiepking (2009),MichelandRieunier(2012)andMainardesetal.(2015). Thisgroupindicatesthatindividualscanbeinfluencedtodonate moneybyknownpeople,governments,churches,theeconomy, employersandevenbythebrandofthecharitableorganization. AccordingtoWiepking(2009),theinfluentialroleofthechurch overthebehavioroftheindividualdonorhasgrown consider-ably.Thisdemonstratestheinfluenceofthechurchintheprocess of individualdonationofmoney.ForMainardesetal.(2015), thefactforthecharitableorganizationnotreceivingpublic fund-ingmakesindividualsmoremotivatedtomaketheirdonations. Thus,thesestudiescanbesaidtosupporttheformationofthe group“Environmentalinfluences”,andsuggeststhat the vari-ables containedinthisfactorare groupedcoherently,leading ustothefindingthatfactor5 bringstogetherasetofexternal motivatorsthatfavorindividualmoneydonation.

Withthelowerpercentageswepresentthelastthreefactors:6 “Personalbenefits”,whichexplained5.59%ofthetotalvariance of the model; 7 “Characteristics of beneficiaries”, responsi-ble for the explanation of 5.51%of the variance; and, lastly, factor8“FutureInterests”thatexplainsonly4.17%ofthe vari-ance.TheseconstructswerealsoinvestigatedbyAmos(1982), Bowman(2006),SargeantandWoodliffe(2007),VanLeeuwen andWiepking(2013),BekkersandWiepking(2007),Wiepking andMaas(2009),CasaleandBaumann(2013)andMainardes etal.(2015).

(9)

Onfactor7, “Characteristics ofbeneficiaries”, wecansay thatthisfactorreflectstheimportance thatpeopleattributeto thecharacteristics of thoseindividuals whowill benefitfrom theirdonation.Contrarytowhatmanymayimagine,a benefi-ciarywithagoodimagetendstobeconsideredmoredeserving ofthegift(Sargeant&Woodliffe,2007),aswellasthosewho areseenasinnocent(childrenandtheelderly),forexample,tend toreceivemoredonations(VanLeeuwen&Wiepking,2013). Thus, consistent withthe existing literature, the respondents pointedouttheimportance ofthe variablesthatmake upthis factor.

Thelastfactoris8“FutureInterests”,whichreflectspeople’s interestindonatingmoneybecausetheyareinvolvedinspecific groups(associations andclubs)andwish inacertainway to remaininthesegroups;orevenduetotheconcerninneeding the services offered by certaincharitable organizations, such asthosefocusedonfightingcancerorthosewhocareforthe elderly.Theremayalsobeaninterestindonatingtoparticipate insweepstakes. ForWiepkingandMaas(2009),forexample, peoplemaybe motivatedto donatesimplybyacting accord-ingtothesocialnormsoftheirgroupand/ortobeacceptedby thesegroups. The authors also said that participationin spe-cificgroups,suchastheRotaryClub,increasesthelikelihood ofdonations.

ForAmos(1982),thedonorcanbemotivatedbydirect per-sonalinterests,asinthe caseofcontributionstocancer,heart orlung.Itisestimated,inthiscase,thattheindividualmaybe motivatedtodonateduetotheirfearofneedingtheseservices inthefuture.Inthisregard,accordingtotherespondentsofthis surveyandasrecommendedintheliterature,itcanbesaidthat factor8“Futureinterests”hasbeengroupedcoherentlyandalso explainssomeoftheexternalmotivationsthatfavorthedonation ofmoney.

Asawayof validatingthe obtained factors, thereliability ofeachfactorwasextracted.Thereliabilityofthefactorscan beclassifiedinto5levels:lowerthan0.6isconsideredlowand unacceptable,between0.6and0.7moderate,between0.7and 0.8good, between 0.8and 0.9 very good andabove 0.9 the reliabilityisexcellent. Thus,whenanalyzingthereliabilityof eachfactorthroughCronbach’salpha(Table4),wefoundthat thefirst4factorshavelevelsofreliabilityconsideredas“very good”,becausetheCronbach’salphaofthesefactorsaregreater than0.8.Factors5,6 and7canbeclassifiedas ofgood reli-ability,sincetheiralphasreachedaratingbetween0.7and0.8. Onlyfactor8 was ratedwith moderatereliabilitybecause its alphawas0.62,whichisconsideredacceptableinexploratory research.

Finally,the formationof the eightfactorsallowsagreater understandingofthe externalmotivatorsthat favorindividual donationofmoneywithinthescopeoftheresearch.Italsoallows newvariablestobeanalyzedandincludedintheproposedgroups asawaytoseektheimprovementandeffectivenessofthe mar-ketingmanagerand/orcharitableorganizationsthatdothejob ofidentifyingandattractingnewmoneydonors.

In summary, one can consider that the factorial structure obtained coherently expressesthe external motivating factors thatfavormoneyindividualdonation,becauseitconvergesthe

opinionoftherespondentswiththeresearchedliteratureonthe subject.

Conclusionsandrecommendations

In the present study,we seektoidentify external motivat-ingfactorsthatfavorindividualmoneydonation.Attheendof the analysis,we canconcludethat the factorsTrust,Reward, Leadership influences, Characteristics of the organization, Environmentalinfluences, PersonalBenefit,Characteristicsof beneficiariesandFutureinterestsystematizethevariousexternal motivatorspresentintheliteraturethatmotivatetheactof donat-ingmoney.Wealsonoticedthatthereisnopredominantfactor, whichleadstothe conclusionthat,inthe viewof thedonors fromthesample,all8factorsappeartobeexternalmotivators ofindividualdonationofmoney.

Theresultsofthisstudyindicatetheoreticalcontributionsand practicalimplications.Theoreticallyspeaking,themain contri-butionofthisresearchistosynthesizein8factorsthevariables previouslyanalyzed inisolation,something not yetidentified in the current literatureon the topic. Anothercontribution is toexplore,exclusively,onlytheexternalmotivatorsleadingto moneydonation,whichwasnotdonebyanyotherstudyused asareferenceforthedevelopmentofthisresearch.Theexisting literaturedoesnotseparatetheinternalandexternalmotivators fortheindividualdonationofmoney,althoughtheyaredistinct. Regardingpracticalimplications,weanalyzedinthisstudy, inasystematicway,theexternalmotivatorsthat favormoney donation,providing,throughthe8factors,informationthatmay be useful to improve the management process of marketing managersofcharitableorganizations(Table2).Inknowingthe reasons that lead tothe individual money donation, the mar-ketingmanagercandefinethefocusoftheircampaign,howto approachandthebesttimetodoit.Inaddition,onecanalso devisestrategiestoimplement,for example,asystemof peo-ple’strustindicatortowardtheircharity.Anotheralternativeis topartnerwithstrongandwell-establishedgroupsalready estab-lishedinthemarket,suchaschurches,Rotary,Masoniclodges, etc.,assuchorganizationsalsoappearedasinfluentialin indi-vidualbehaviorofmoneydonation.Managerswillalsobeable toplancampaignstoattractnewdonorsbasedonconcrete infor-mationonthecharacteristicsofbeneficiariesandtobetterplan howtoapproachpotentialdonors.

Fromtheidentifiedfactors,society,generallyspeaking,will be able topromotediscussions about the external motivators of money donatinginthe socialgroupsinwhichthey partic-ipate,such as churches,seniorcitizensgroups, youthgroups, familygroups,amongothers,asawaytohelpincreasemoney donations.Also,theresultsachievedherecancontributetothe developmentofgovernmentalorevensocialcampaigns, encour-agingmoneydonationtocharitableorganizations.Knowingthe externalmotivatorsthatmobilizepeopletotheactofdonating money canbeapowerfulelementinstrengthening charitable organizations.

(10)

of individual money donation, with thispresented as one of the study’s limitations.With regard tothe sample of regular donors,eventhoughitisheterogeneous,asdemonstratedinthe characterizationofthesample,itindicatedapredominanceof youngerrespondents,duetotheapplicationofthequestionnaire beingperformedinschoolsoftechnicaleducation,universities andelectronicmeans,whichisconfiguredasalimitationofthe study.Werecommendinsubsequentstudiestobroadenthe sam-pleandtoreachmoreregularadultandelderlydonorsinorder toverifywhethertheanswers divergefromthe onesobtained here. If thisoccurs, thiscould mean that externalmotivators vary accordingto the characteristics of the donor.This issue canbe resolved withsubsamples, separating themby groups of respondents whohavesimilarcharacteristics or behaviors. Forexample,separating byage, sincefindingsfromprevious surveysclarifythattherearedifferentbehaviorsbetweenyoung peopleandolderpeople(e.g., inApinunmahakul andDevlin, 2008),orfrequencyofdonation.Theperceptionsofwomencan alsobeevaluated,sincetheliteraturesaysthatwomendonate morethanmen(Bachkeetal.,2014).

Anotherlimitationisrelatedtothelowpercentageof vari-anceexplained.Weassumethatthepersonalcharacteristicsof eachindividualalsotendtointerferewiththebehaviorofmoney donorandthismayhaveaffectedtheexplainedvariance percent-age.Inthiscase,onecansolvetheissuebyperformingaresearch thatalsocontemplatesthepersonalcharacteristicsasmotivators fortheindividualdonationofmoney.

Finally, for the accomplishment of future research that continuethe studywebegunhere, werecommendapplyinga qualitativeresearchtoconductanin-depthinvestigationofthe 8 factorsgenerated in this study, as away of understanding how each of them can contribute to improve the marketing managementof charitableorganizations.Wealsorecommend applying the research to other audiences, from different regionsorevenconsideringnewvariablesnotyetobservedby researchersinthearea.

Conflictsofinterest

Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.

Acknowledgment

ThisresearchwassupportedbyBrazilianNationalCouncil forScientificandTechnologicalDevelopment(CNPq/Brazil) -project303669/2015-2.

References

AmosJunior,O.M.(1982).Empiricalanalysisofmotivesunderlyingindividual

contributionstocharity.AtlanticEconomicJournal,10(4),45–52.

Apinunmahakul,A.,&Devlin,R.A.(2008).Socialnetworksandprivate

phi-lanthropy.JournalofPublicEconomics,92(1),309–328.

Bachke,M.E.,Alfnes,F.,&Wik,M.(2014).Elicitingdonorpreferences.

VOL-UNTAS:InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,

25(2),465–486.

Banks,J.,&Tanner,S.(1999).Patternsinhouseholdgiving:Evidencefrom

UKdata.InternationalJournalofVoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,

10(2),167–178.

Bekkers,R.(2003).Trust,accreditation,andphilanthropyintheNetherlands.

NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,32(4),596–615.

Bekkers,R.,&Wiepking,P.(2007).Understandingphilanthropy:Areviewof50

yearsoftheoriesandresearch.In35thannualconferenceoftheAssociation forResearchonNonprofitandVoluntaryAction,Chicago.

Bekkers,R.,&Wiepking,P.(2011a).Accuracyofself-reportsondonationsto

charitableorganizations.Quality&Quantity,45(6),1369–1383.

Bekkers,R.,&Wiepking,P.(2011b).Aliteraturereviewofempiricalstudiesof

philanthropy:Eightmechanismsthatdrivecharitablegiving.Nonprofitand VoluntarySectorQuarterly,40(5),924–973.

Bekkers,R.,&Wiepking,P.(2011c).Testingmechanismsforphilanthropic

behaviour.InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySector Market-ing,16(4),291–297.

Bekkers,R.,&Wiepking,P.(2011d).Whogives?Aliteraturereviewof

predic-torsofcharitablegivingpartone:Religion,education,ageandsocialisation.

VoluntarySectorReview,2(3),337–365.

Bendapudi,N.,Singh,S.N.,&Bendapudi,V.(1996).Enhancinghelping

behav-ior:Anintegrativeframeworkforpromotionplanning.JournalofMarketing,

60(3),33–49.

Bennett,R.(2003).Factorsunderlyingtheinclinationtodonatetoparticular

typesofcharity.InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySector Marketing,8(1),12–29.

Bowman,W.(2006).Shoulddonorscareaboutoverheadcosts?Dotheycare?

NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,35(2),288–310.

Breeze,B.,&Morgan,G.G.(2009).Philanthropyinarecession:An

analy-sisofUKmediarepresentationsandimplicationsforcharitablegiving.In

NCVO/VSSNresearchingthevoluntarysectorconference,September.

Casale, D.,&Baumann, A.(2013).Who givesto internationalcauses?A

sociodemographicanalysisofusdonors.NonprofitandVoluntarySector Quarterly.

Charities Aid Foundation. World giving index 2012: A global view

of giving trends. Retrieved from http://www.cafonline.org/PDF/ WorldGivingIndex2012WEB.pdf

DeHaven,B.(2010).Principlesofpersuasionfornonprofitfundraisers

(Doc-toraldissertation).TheUniversityofAkron.

Grace,D.,&Griffin,D.(2006).Exploringconspicuousnessinthecontextof

donationbehaviour.InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySector Marketing,11(2),147–154.

Grace,D.,&Griffin,D.(2009).Conspicuousdonationbehaviour:Scale

devel-opmentandvalidation.JournalofConsumerBehaviour,8(1),14–25.

Guy, B. S., & Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes:

Understanding whypeoplehelp.Journal ofConsumerMarketing,6(1), 19–30.

Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.,&Tatham,R.L.(2009).

Análisemultivariadadedados.SãoPaulo:BookmanEditora.

Kelly,K.S.(1995).Utilizingpublicrelationstheorytoconceptualizeandtest

modelsoffund raising.Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly,

72(1),106–127.

Knowles,S.R.,Hyde,M.K.,&White,K.M.(2012).Predictors ofyoung

people’s charitableintentions to donatemoney:An extendedtheoryof plannedbehaviorperspective.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,42(9), 2096–2110.

Landry,C.,Lange,A.,List,J.A.,Price,M.K.,&Rupp,N.G.(2005).Towardan

understandingoftheeconomicsofcharity:Evidencefromafieldexperiment. NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.

Mainardes,E.W.,Laurett,R.,Degasperi,N.C.P.,&Lasso,S.V.(2015).Personal

characteristicsandexternalmotivatorsasantecedentstotheactofmoney and/orgoodsdonation.InInternationalcongressoftheInternational Asso-ciationonPublicandNonprofitMarketing,14,2015,Vitória(ES).Anais... Vitória:IAPNM.

Michel, G.,& Rieunier, S. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality

influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701–707.

Okten,C.,&Weisbrod,B.A.(2000).Determinantsofdonationsinprivate

(11)

Payne,A.A.(1998).Doesthegovernmentcrowd-outprivatedonations?New

evidencefromasampleofnon-profitfirms.JournalofPublicEconomics,

69(3),323–345.

Payton,R.L.(1988).Philanthropy:Voluntaryactionforthepublicgood.New

York:AmericanCouncilonEducation.

Sargeant,A.,&Woodliffe,L.(2007).Giftgiving:Aninterdisciplinaryreview.

InternationalJournalofNonprofitandVoluntarySectorMarketing,12(4), 275–307.

Scaife, W., McDonald, K., & Wiepking, P. (2012). Motives and

bar-riers to bequest giving. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(1), 56–66.

Schuyt,T.,Smit,J.,&Bekkers,R.(2004).Constructingaphilanthropy-scale:

Socialresponsibilityandphilanthropy.Order,501,5704.

Smith,J.R.,&McSweeney,A.(2007).Charitablegiving:Theeffectivenessofa

revisedtheoryofplannedbehaviourmodelinpredictingdonatingintentions andbehaviour.JournalofCommunity&AppliedSocialPsychology,17(5), 363–386.

VanIwaarden,J.,vanderWiele,T.,Williams,R.,&Moxham,C.(2009).

Char-ities:Howimportant isperformancetodonors?InternationalJournalof Quality&ReliabilityManagement,26(1),5–22.

VanLeeuwen,M.H.,&Wiepking,P.(2013).Nationalcampaignsforcharitable

causesaliteraturereview.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,42(2), 219–240.

Verhaert,G.A.,&VandenPoel,D.(2011).Empathyasaddedvalueinpredicting

donationbehavior.JournalofBusinessResearch,64(12),1288–1295.

Wiepking,P.(2009).ThestateofgivingresearchinEurope:Household

dona-tionstocharitableorganizationsintwelveEuropeancountries.Amsterdam UniversityPress.

Wiepking,P.,&Heijnen,M.(2011).Thegivingstandard:Conditional

coopera-tioninthecaseofcharitablegiving.InternationalJournalofNonprofitand VoluntarySectorMarketing,16(1),13–22.

Wiepking,P.,&Maas,I.(2009).Resourcesthatmakeyougenerous:Effects