Abstract
Although trust is long known to be critical to predict behaviors in a charitable context, little research has examined trust damage and its effects on giving behavior. Trust damage is an intermediate state between trust and distrust, rather than a simple reversal or extension, and can change over time. Our research explores individual donor’s trust damage through a dynamic evolution. Across the longitudinal survey, we conclude that the trust damage of pre-giving, giving, and post-giving stage plays different roles in the decision-making process. Trust damage does not play a direct role in the giving intention, but it can indirectly affect giving intention through its impact on perceived benefit and perceived risk. Individual donor’s satisfaction has a strong effect on post-giving trust or continual trust damage, which in turn positively affects future giving intention and behavior. Several important insights for practitioners in the nonprofit sector are also discussed.
Résumé
Bien que la confiance soit depuis longtemps connue pour être essentielle pour prévoir les comportements dans un contexte caritatif, peu de recherches ont porté sur la détérioration de la confiance et ses effets sur le comportement de don. La détérioration de la confiance est un état intermédiaire entre la confiance et la méfiance, plutôt qu’un simple revirement ou développement, et peut évoluer avec le temps. Nos recherches explorent la détérioration de la confiance du donateur individuel à travers une évolution dynamique. Dans une enquête longitudinale, nous concluons que la détérioration de la confiance dans l’étape précédant le don, celle du don et celle après celui-ci, joue différents rôles dans le processus décisionnel. La détérioration de la confiance ne joue pas un rôle direct dans le comportement de don réel, mais elle peut influer indirectement sur un comportement de don à travers son impact sur le bénéfice et le risque perçus. La satisfaction du donateur individuel a un effet déterminant sur la confiance après le don ou la détérioration continue de la confiance, qui affecte à son tour positivement le comportement de don futur. Plusieurs idées importantes pour les professionnels dans le secteur à but non lucratif sont également examinées.
Zusammenfassung
Zwar gilt das Vertrauen seit langem als ein wichtiger Verhaltensprädiktor im gemeinnützigen Kontext; doch haben sich nur wenige Forschungsarbeiten mit dem Thema Vertrauensschädigung und deren Auswirkungen auf das Spendenverhalten beschäftigt. Die Vertrauensschädigung ist keine simple Umkehrung oder Ausweitung, sondern vielmehr eine Stufe zwischen Vertrauen und Misstrauen, und sie kann sich mit der Zeit ändern. Unsere Studie untersucht die Vertrauensschädigung individueller Spender durch eine dynamische Entwicklung. In der gesamten Längsschnittbefragung kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass die Vertrauensschädigung vor der Spendenleistung, zum Zeitpunkt der Spendenleistung und nach der Spendenleistung unterschiedliche Rollen im Entscheidungsprozess spielt. Die Vertrauensschädigung spielt keine direkte Rolle bei der tatsächlichen Spendenleistung; doch kann sie die Spendenleistung indirekt durch ihre Auswirkung auf die wahrgenommenen Vorteile und Risiken beeinflussen. Die Zufriedenheit individueller Spender hat großen Einfluss auf die Vertrauensschädigung nach der Spendenleistung bzw. die andauernde Vertrauensschädigung, was sich wiederum positiv auf das zukünftige Spendenverhalten auswirkt. Mehrere wichtige Erkenntnisse für Praktiker im gemeinnützigen Bereich werden ebenfalls diskutiert.
Resumen
Aunque desde hace tiempo se sabe que la confianza es crítica para predecir comportamientos en un contexto caritativo, pocas investigaciones han examinado el daño en la confianza y sus efectos en el comportamiento de donación. El daño en la confianza es un estado intermedio entre la confianza y la desconfianza, más que una simple inversión o ampliación, y puede cambiar a lo largo del tiempo. Nuestra investigación explora el daño en la confianza del donante individual a lo largo de una evolución dinámica. En la encuesta longitudinal, concluimos que el daño en la confianza de la etapa previa a la donación, de la etapa de donación y de la etapa posterior a la donación desempeñan papeles diferentes en el proceso de toma de decisiones. El daño en la confianza no desempeña un papel directo en el comportamiento de donación real, sino que puede afectar indirectamente al comportamiento mediante su impacto en el beneficio y el riesgo percibidos. La satisfacción del donante individual tiene un fuerte efecto sobre el daño en la confianza continua o posterior a la donación, que a su vez afecta de manera positiva al comportamiento de donación futuro. También se tratan varias percepciones importantes para los profesionales del sector de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro.
摘要
尽管大家都知道信任对于预测慈善背景下的行为非常关键,但对信任损害及其对捐赠行为影响的研究很少。信任损害是信任和不信任之间的中间状态,而不仅是简单的逆转或延伸,随时间的变化而变化。我们的研究通过动态演化探讨单个捐赠人的信任损害。通过纵向研究,我们得出的结论是,赠前、赠中和赠后阶段的信任损害在决策流程中扮演了不同的角色。信任损害不仅在实际捐赠行动中扮演了直接角色,而且还会通过对感知好处和损害的影响间接影响捐赠行为。单个捐赠人的满意度对赠后信任或持续信任损害的影响极大,而这反过来积极影响未来捐赠行为。本文的结论对非营利组织也提供了若干重要的建议。
ملخص
على الرغم من إنه من المعروف أن الثقة منذ فترة طويلة حاسمة للتنبؤ بالسلوك في السياق الخيري، قليل من البحث قام بدراسة إضعاف الثقة وآثاره على سلوك العطاء. إضعاف الثقة هو حالة وسطية بين الثقة وعدم الثقة، بدلا” من إنعكاس بسيط أو التمديد، ويمكن أن يتغير مع مرورالوقت. البحث الخاص بنا يستكشف إضعاف ثقة الجهات المانحة الفردية من خلال التطور الديناميكي. عبر إستطلاع الرأي الطولي، فإننا نستنتج أن إضعاف الثقة قبل العطاء ومرحلة ما بعد العطاء يلعب أدوارا” مختلفة في عملية صنع القرار. إضعاف الثقة لا يلعب دورا” مباشرا” في سلوك العطاء الفعلي، لكن يمكن أن يؤثر بشكل غيرمباشر على سلوك العطاء من خلال تأثيره على الفائدة المتوقعة والمخاطر المتوقعة. رضا المانح الفردي له تأثير قوي على الثقة بعد العطاء أو إضعاف الثقة المستمر، الذي بدوره ينعكس إيجابيا” على مستقبل سلوك العطاء. تمت أيضا” مناقشة العديد من الأفكار الهامة للعاملين في القطاع الغير ربحي.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amos, O. M, Jr. (1982). Empirical analysis of motives underlying individual contributions to charity. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10(4), 45–52.
Arumi, A. M., Wooden, R., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Duffett, A., & Ott, A. (2005). The charitable impulse. New York: Public Agenda.
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363–379.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.
Bem, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29.
Brewin, C. R. (2001). Cognitive and emotional reactions to traumatic events: Implications for short-term intervention. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 17(3), 163–168.
Cai, N., Song, C. C., & Wu, M. H. (2014). Stigma and its formation mechanism in the nonprofit organization. Review of Sociology, 2(2), 19–27. (in Chinese).
Čehajić, S., Brown, R., & González, R. (2009). What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 715–729.
Chinman, M. J., Wandersman, A., & Goodman, R. M. (2005). A benefit-and-cost approach to understanding social participation and volunteerism in multilevel organizations. In A. M. Omoto (Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 99–118). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cordery, C. J., & Baskerville, R. F. (2011). Charity transgressions, trust and accountability. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 197–213.
Desmet, P. T., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2011). In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 75–86.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.
Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 87–103.
Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 297–332.
Featherman, M., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893–908.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(l), 51–90.
Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.
Gillespie, N., Dietz, G., & Lockey, S. (2014). Organizational reintegration and trust repair after an integrity violation: A case study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 371–410.
Haselhuhn, M. P., Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., Van Zant, A. B., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104–109.
Hou, J. D., Eason, C. C., & Zhang, C. (2014). The mediating role of identification with a nonprofit organization in the relationship between competition and charitable behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 42(6), 1015–1027.
Hou, J. D., Xiao, R. B., Huang, Z. D., & Yu, T. Y. (2015). A social computing approach to the cause diffusion for individual donor’s trust damage. International Journal of Computing Science and Mathematics, 6(2), 152–165.
Hutchinson, M., & Jackson, D. (2015). The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying in the public sector: Insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care. Nursing Inquiry, 22(1), 13–26.
James, F. R. (2011). Nonprofit pluralism and the public trust: Constructing a transparent, accountable, and culturally competent board governance paradigm. Berkeley Business Law Journal, 9; Elon University Law Legal Studies Research Paper. Retrieved from SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=1795324.
KAB Office in China Youth Daily. (2015). Report about social entrepreneurship of China Youth. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. (in Chinese).
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.
Kuwabara, K., & Sheldon, O. (2012). Temporal dynamics of social exchange and the development of solidarity: “Testing the waters” versus “taking a leap of faith”. Social Forces, 91(1), 253–273.
Kuwabara, K., Vogt, S., Watabe, M., & Komiya, A. (2014). Trust, cohesion, and cooperation after early versus late trust violations in two-person exchange: The role of generalized trust in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(4), 344–360.
Lee, M. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(3), 130–141.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lin, J. B., Wang, B., Wang, N., & Lu, Y. B. (2014). Understanding the evolution of consumer trust in mobile commerce: A longitudinal study. Information Technology Management, 15(1), 37–49.
Lount, R. B, Jr. (2010). The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 420–433.
Lount, R. B, Jr, & Pettit, N. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 15–23.
Lount, R. B, Jr, Zhong, C. B., Sivanathan, N., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1601–1612.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R., & Burke, R. (1999). Expectation processes in satisfaction formation: A field study. Journal of Service Research, 1(3), 196–214.
Ostrom, A., & Iacobucci, D. (1995). Consumer trade-offs and the evaluation of services. Journal of Marketing, 59, 17–28.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charity giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Market Management, 15(4), 215–238.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.
Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004a). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(8), 613–635.
Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004b). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U.K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185–202.
Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. B. (2004). Does perception matter? An empirical analysis of donor behaviour. The Service Industries Journal, 24(6), 19–36.
Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Cook, K. S. (2013). Effect of relationship experience on trust recovery following a breach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(38), 15236–15241.
Taniguchi, H., & Marshall, G. A. (2014). The effects of social trust and institutional trust on formal volunteering and charitable giving in Japan. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 150–175.
Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2010). Does who decides really matter? Causes and consequences of personal financial management in the case of larger and structural charitable donations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 240–263.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the valuable comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and editors.
Funding
This study was funded by Natural Science Foundation of China (71202050, 71572185) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (CUGW150402).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hou, J., Zhang, C. & King, R.A. Understanding the Dynamics of the Individual Donor’s Trust Damage in the Philanthropic Sector. Voluntas 28, 648–671 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9681-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9681-8