Research ArticleSOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Dynamics in charity donation decisions: Insights from a large longitudinal data set

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  20 Sep 2017:
Vol. 3, no. 9, e1700077
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700077
  • Table 1 Descriptives of full sample and the three decision types.
    Full
    sample
    KeepersSwitchersDonators
    Age (SD)42.75 (15.60)42.82 (15.57)43.05 (16.23)41.56 (15.50)
    Gender
      Male36%37%36%28%
      Female64%63%64%72%
    Political orientation
      Conservative32%32%30%28%
      Liberal38%38%45%43%
      Missing5%4%5%8%
      Did not vote/Not allowed to
    vote/Don’t want to say
    25%26%20%22%
    Income*
      Less than standard18%19%16%15%
      Standard6%6%4%3%
      1 to 2× standard24%25%21%21%
      More than 2× standard20%19%26%23%
      Don’t know10%10%11%13%
      Don’t want to say19%19%19%18%
      Missing3%3%4%7%
    n20,45718,257
    (89.3%)
    891
    (4.4%)
    1309
    (6.4%)

    *Because of rounding, the percentages within the Keepers were summed up to 101%.

    • Table 2 Predictors of donation decisions within Switchers.
      Variable nameAdditional information variableParameter estimatesInterpretation of effect
      Age0.005**The older, the more likely to donate
      GenderReference group, male−0.03No effect of gender
      Political orientationReference group, liberal
      Conservative−0.16**Conservative voters less likely to
      donate than liberal voters
      Won’t tell−0.13Donation likelihood of won’t-tellers
      not significantly different from liberal voters
      Donationt−1Donated at t − 1 (0 = no; 1 = yes)0.96***When donated last time, one is
      more likely to donate now
      Donation first observationDonated at first observation
      (0 = no; 1 = yes)
      0.79***When donated first time in observation period,
      one is more likely to donate now
      CompNegDiffTests effects of negative difference in number
      of questions when not donated last time
      (0 = equal number of questions;
      1 = substantially less questions
      at t than at t − 1)
      0.40***When number of questions is substantially
      lower now than last time, one is
      more likely to donate than if the
      number of questions is equal
      CompPosDiffTests effects of positive difference in number
      of questions when not donated last time
      (0 = equal number of questions;
      1 = substantially more questions
      at t than at t − 1)
      0.12**When number of questions substantially
      larger now than last time one is
      more likely to donate than if number
      of questions is equal
      Donationt−1* CompNegDiffTests difference of effect CompNegDiff
      when donated last time
      −0.48***If donated last time, positive impact of
      CompNegDiff gets “neutralized”
      (0.40 + −0.48 = −0.08)
      Donationt−1* CompPosDiffTests difference of effect CompPosDiff
      when donated last time
      −0.30***If donated last time, positive impact of
      CompPosDiff becomes negative
      (0.12 + −0.30 = −0.18)
      ConstantConstant−1.24***
      σ2Variance component of the randomized intercept0.59

      *P < 0.05

      **P < 0.01

      ***P < 0.001

      †This parameter estimate of −0.08 was not significant (P = 0.210).

      ‡This parameter estimate of −0.18 was significant (P = 0.002).

      Supplementary Materials

      • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/3/9/e1700077/DC1

        table S1. Results of multinomial logit model (base category, Keepers) to predict decision type.

        table S2. Results of multinomial logit model (base category, Switchers) to predict decision type.

        table S3. Distribution of SVO types in our sample and previous studies.

      • Supplementary Materials

        This PDF file includes:

        • table S1. Results of multinomial logit model (base category, Keepers) to predict decision type.
        • table S2. Results of multinomial logit model (base category, Switchers) to predict decision type.
        • table S3. Distribution of SVO types in our sample and previous studies.

        Download PDF

        Files in this Data Supplement:

      Stay Connected to Science Advances

      Navigate This Article