Psychology behind choosing a charity: key factors and how to manage them

How personal values, trust, empathy, and identity shape charitable giving beyond borders and beliefs.

Background

Research on charitable giving is extensive; however, to this day, it remains fragmented and occasionally offers contradictory findings (Chapman et al., 2022). The majority of studies focused on the motivation behind charitable behaviour and characteristics that make people more prone to donate money (Chapman et al., 2022). Other research topics (such as specific donor characteristics and charitable environment conditions that prompt interest in specific forms of charity) have not received equal attention. Relevant factors that influence people’s choices of charity and the types of charities they want to support can be divided into two broad groups: individual factors and resources (Neumayr & Handy, 2017). The latter category includes variables such as income and education (Neumayr & Handy, 2017). Given the psychological focus of this article, these factors will not be addressed, but their impact, as well as interaction with individual factors, is acknowledged. Some of the relevant individual factors include emphatic concern, trust, and religiosity (Neumayr & Handy, 2017). There is also ample research on the role of personal values in determining the choice of charities, as donors often look for congruence between personal and organisational values (Bennett, 2003). Such findings link to the studies showing that the impact of donors’ personal preferences is so strong that, at times, donations to the underserved and those in need can be passed over in favour of supporting charities that support causes related to donors’ personal experiences and preferences (Bennett, 2003).

The goal of this article is to offer an overview of the most relevant literature providing insights into individual characteristics that predict one’s preferences for charities depending on the cause they support, their marketing strategies, and organisational characteristics. This article addresses several important factors: identity, personal values, empathy, and trust. Each of these variables is discussed in the light of individual differences that prompt different choices of charity categories. This discussion is supplemented by a brief overview of external factors that interact with relevant psychological factors. Information on these factors can be found under subheadings Moderating factors and Charity-related characteristics and their interaction with psychological factors.

The importance of identity

National identity

Donating to charities is an inherently social activity that connects donors with beneficiaries, which is why different dimensions of one’s identity and the perceived match (or mismatch) between the two groups play an important role in the choice of charities. This has been one of the most researched areas when it comes to people’s choices of charities; however, the focus has been mainly on determining broad parallels between identity facets and choice of charities. For example, one relevant aspect of one’s identity is national identity, in which two opposing forms include nationalism and internationalism (Hart & Robson, 2019). Nationalism is associated with a preference for domestic charities but no negative view of international charities, while internationalism favours international charities and espouses a negative view of domestic charities (Hart & Robson, 2019). The implication of this line of research is that, depending on their goals and target audience, charities benefit from positioning themselves as ethnocentric or cosmopolitan, which is further communicated through their marketing efforts (Hart & Robson, 2019). So far, there is no research on how maintaining a neutral stanza affects the appeal of a charitable organisation.

Political identity

Political identity has warranted the attention of researchers as another contributor to distinguishable patterns of charitable behaviour. It was found that political ideology has a substantial influence over how individuals distribute their donations, while there was no effect on the total value of donations (Farmer et al., 2020). Conservative donors tend to be more selective in their choice of charities, and they exhibit a strong preference for supporting a smaller number of charities through larger donations (Farmer et al., 2020). In contrast, liberal donors tend to support a higher number and a broader variety of charities with smaller donations (Farmer et al., 2020). This difference is explained by the underlying difference between the two ideologies: liberalism favouring equality and addressing social injustices and conservativism favouring the protection of social order (Farmer et al., 2020). The two also exhibit preferences in terms of charitable marketing messaging. Liberals tend to be attracted to charities that place focus on external causes, especially social causes, as the reasons why benefactors need support, while conservatives prefer internal attributions and individual failings (Lee et al., 2020). The information about one’s political identity can be further coupled with understanding basic values that underpin different ideologies, thus providing charities with a richer understanding of nuances and differences in donors’ preferences and beliefs.

Gender identity

Significant differences can also be observed in relation to gender identity, which interacts with other forms of identity. For example, moral identity is one of the central identity forms in research on charitable behaviour. However, its relationship with the choice of charities is not uniform across genders (Winterich et al., 2009). High moral identity, for example, in women is associated with a greater tendency to donate to charities focused on out-groups, while in men with high moral identity, the opposite effect was observed as they tend to favour in-group charities (Winterich et al., 2009). Studies also focus on gender identity as an independent variable that affects charitable behaviour. It was found that, in general, women tend to donate to a more significant number of charities and are not confined to a limited number of sectors they support, which is explained by their greater focus on higher prosocial values, emphatic concern, and the principle of care (De Wit & Bekkers, 2016). Implications of this research suggest that marketing strategies and message framing need to account for gender differences, and the same can be said for selecting the preferred audience for specific appeals.

Group identity

The in-group and out-group classification also generated substantial interest in relation to charitable behaviour. Group identity, in general, creates a greater commitment among individuals because group belonging promotes individual motivation not to fail the group (Charness & Holder, 2019). This is why appealing to donors and their sense of belonging to a wider group can be a successful strategy for facilitating the choice of a specific charity and increasing the value of individual donations (Charness & Holder, 2019). Deciding which aspect of the group identity should be primed through marketing messaging also depends on the individual. Research shows that people who have previously donated react more favourably to messaging focusing on their donor identity, while those without such previous experience respond more favourably to messaging concentrating on their identity as community members (Kessler & Milkman, 2018). This finding is especially relevant in the context of retargeting strategies, indicating that newsletters, follow-up emails/calls, and other forms of retargeting should favour reinforcing donor identity over community identity.

Identity congruence in donor-donor dyads

Additionally, identity congruence is not only relevant in the donor-beneficiary dyads but also in donor-donor dyads (Tian & Konrath, 2021). While there are some exceptions to the rule, in general, similarities in identity between potential and past donors increase the likelihood of donations (Tian & Konrath, 2021). The effect is especially prominent when the two groups of donors are present at the same time (Tian & Konrath, 2021). Stemming from this research, charities with a clearly defined donor profile can benefit from organising fundraising events where post-past and prospective donors fitting this profile would be present, thus looking to exploit the identity parallels to promote donor behaviour. While identity congruence has a generally strong influence over charitable behaviour, it is particularly relevant when it comes to individuals with a high collective self-esteem (Shang et al., 2008). Collective self-esteem and its relevance are especially prominent in populations where group cohesion is highly valued, such as the military (Rohall et al., 2014). In practice, this would translate into a recommendation for charities targeting military personnel that appeal to their collective self-esteem and highlighting contributions of their peers would be an efficient strategy for attracting new donors or increasing the average value of donations.

The impact of personal values

Basic values congruency

Research on the impact of personal values has been mostly based on Schwartz's theory of values, which resulted in the list of values that have been confirmed as relevant to the charity context. According to this theory, there are 10 basic values, which were further developed into 20 refined values (Schwartz, 1992). For the purpose of this paper, it is sufficient to look into 10 basic values: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power security, tradition, conformity, benevolence, and universalism (Schwartz, 1992). The values are organised in a sinusoidal pattern and values that are close to each other share similarities, while values with the greater proximity are viewed as opposing values (Kesberg & Keller, 2021). Research has shown that a perceived match between personal values and values promoted by a charitable organisation is one of the main predictors of donor activity (van Dijk et al., 2019). However, due to the fact that the model accounts for relationships among values, it is important that selected charities are a match for one’s personal values while also not featuring any of the opposing values (Kesberg & Keller, 2021). Apart from this general association, studies have managed to identify specific types of charities associated with dominant basic values.

Basic values and preferred charity types

A comprehensive study on personal values and their impact on charitable behaviour found that people with universalism as a basic value are more prone to donate to environmental or animal welfare charities (depending on the specific refined value they hold), while those who favour tradition most commonly support religious charities (Sneddon et al., 2020). Additionally, the value of universalism, when present in its refined value state called universalism-concern, is associated with donating to charities providing international aid. It is possible to also predict which charities a person would not choose by looking into their values (Sneddon et al., 2020). For example, people who value self-direction and stimulation do not donate to religious charities, and a similar pattern was observed among those favouring universalism (Sneddon et al., 2020). It was also found that the pronounced value of self-enhancement is associated with a low probability of donating to environmental charities or, in general, charities that aimed at supporting the interests of large groups of people, especially the ones that the donor does not belong to (Sneddon et al., 2020).

Basic values and marketing messaging

The relevance of Schwartz’s model was tested in the context of charity marketing messaging, showing that donors’ personal values determined how they respond to framing methods that charities employ (De Meulenaer et al., 2017). While research indicates that it is possible to change people’s values through targeted activities, activating existing values through various marketing activities is significantly easier to achieve (Russo et al., 2022). Hence, studying Schwartz’s model and descriptions of each value can be highly beneficial in informing marketing content strategies. By choosing the right messaging and strategically embedding core values in a manner that is congruent with personal values, charities can benefit from greater efficiency in activating these values among the target market segment, thus increasing the probability of donations.

The role of empathy

Empathy and dispositional personal distress

Research provides ample evidence that empathy or the presence of empathic concern does not equal charitable behaviour. The same can be said for the relationship between the levels of one’s empathic predisposition and the size or frequency of their donations (Wei et al., 2021). An interesting study found that highly emphatic individuals demonstrate a curious pattern in choosing charities as they prefer charities that cater to people who are perceived as demonstrating low vulnerability (Wei et al., 2021). People high in empathy tend to avoid charities supporting highly vulnerable receivers, which is understood as an indicator of the underlying mechanism of concern for self (Wei et al., 2021). Findings like these are congruent with studies indicating that people higher in empathy might also have a heightened disposition for personal distress, which refers to experiencing distress because of another person’s suffering (Krol & Bartz, 2022). There is a host of factors that impact the relationship between empathy and dispositional personal distress. However, the key message is that marketing strategies reliant on increasing a sense of empathy are not universally effective (Krol & Bartz, 2022). This might be especially true when a charity supports already highly vulnerable individuals.

Outgroup empathy

Empathy was also studied in relation to people’s willingness to donate to charities concerning immigrants. The research found that individuals with more pronounced outgroup empathy were more willing to donate to such charities, while the majority of those who scored lower on outgroup empathy opted out of supporting such charities (Grönlund et al., 2017). This also applies to international charities, such as the Red Cross, which are not concerned solely with immigrants (Grönlund et al., 2017). What is important, however, is that even individuals who score higher on outgroup empathy refrain from donating to such charities when they have an opportunity to discuss their beliefs with those holding opposing views (Grönlund et al., 2017). The opposite effect was observed when people were given an opportunity to discuss their views with like-minded people. These are important implications for charities focused on immigrants, as research suggests that it is insufficient that marketing messaging targets outgroup empathy and that, instead, such charities would benefit from investing efforts in building communities of like-minded people.

The role of trust

Facets of trust

Like empathy, trust is one of the drivers of prosocial behaviour, including charitable behaviour. Its general mechanisms of influence are not the topic of this article, but looking into patterns of different forms of trusts helps understand how individuals choose preferred charities and whether they will donate in the first place. In general, people who exhibit higher levels of trust have a stronger tendency to engage in charitable behaviour, and this relationship is more pronounced in non-Western countries and minority groups. (Chapman et al., 2021) Additionally, there are variations in terms of the importance of different forms of trust (Chapman et al., 2021). Organisational and sectorial trust exert a significantly stronger influence than generalised and institutional trust (Chapman et al., 2021). For example, individuals exhibiting higher levels of trust tend to be more open to donating to environmental charities, as they tend to be concerned with issues affecting the public good (Carattini & Roesti, 2020). In the context of intensified globalisation, it is of interest to understand how charities can also engage minority groups. Research offers some insights into the charitable behaviour of migrants, showing that social trust in the country they moved to moderates their willingness to engage in charitable activities (Helliwell et al., 2015).

Organisational versus personal variables

In addition to evaluating the presence of different facets of trust, the level of trust is another variable of interest. The level of trust is moderated by a variety of factors. At the organisational level, the key variable is organisational transparency, which strongly affects the level of trust (Wymer et al., 2020). At a personal level, the level of familiarity with the charitable organisation is what moderates the level of trust (Wymer et al., 2020). Personal factors seem to be more relevant than organisational ones, as studies show that even participation in voluntary regulatory programs does not significantly increase the levels of trust or donors’ willingness to choose such charities over those who are not under strict regulations (Tremblay-Boire & Prakash, 2016). Hence, mere exposure to a charity can contribute to higher levels of trust (Wymer et al., 2020), which is an important implication for marketing strategies concerned with boosting charity brand awareness.

Moderating factors

Ego depletion and the choice of charity

It is important to highlight that the influence of emphatic concern and other psychological factors displays some fluctuations and variations depending on one’s physiological state and the environment they are in. For example, people are susceptible to the effect of ego depletion, which refers to the state of reduced capacity for self-regulation. This capacity follows a circadian rhythm, and, on average, it is highest in the morning and lowest in the evenings (Jin et al., 2021). Researchers found that when their ego-depletion is low, people tend to react much better to charity marketing messages that feature the other-benefit messages (highlighting the effects of donating on charity benefactors), while high ego-depletion is associated with a better reaction to self-benefiting messaging (highlighting how donating affects donors positively) (Jin et al., 2021). These changes in one’s psychological markup are so prominent that charities should consider scheduling their marketing messages to reflect this pattern – other-benefiting messages in the morning and self-benefiting messages in the evening (Jin et al., 2021).

Presence of others and marketing messaging preferences

The effects of emphatic concern, among other psychological motivators, are also moderated by the presence of others. The presence of others at the moment of choosing a charity or deciding whether to donate also moderates receptiveness to different marketing messages (White & Peloza, 2009). When people are on their own, they tend to prefer charities with self-benefiting messages, but when they are surrounded by other people or their choice is visible to others, they prefer other-benefiting messages (White & Peloza, 2009). This line of research helps charities map out different strategies for activating public self-image concerns, which also means that the marketing messaging needs to be adapted based on the context of an appeal (White & Peloza, 2009).

Charity-related characteristics and their interaction with psychological factors

Locality

In addition to assessing how individual characteristics shape donors’ choices, a string of research focused on how charity characteristics affect the decision-making process. For example, one commonly held belief is that people tend to support and prefer local charities. However, no scientific evidence supports the assumption that there is an explicit preference for local charities. Instead, the focus on local charities can be explained by mere exposure to them or being attached to them via community ties, but when individuals are presented with multiple options, geographical location does not play a role (Brown et al., 2014). This information is especially relevant to charities located in smaller communities where the local population might not be sizable enough to support the organisation’s key goals and activities. However, there seems to be a limitation to the absence of the locality effect. Some studies found that donors prefer local and in-group charities when they perceive their financial resources as scarce, while no such effect exists when the perception of scarcity exists (Herzenstein & Posavac, 2019). Given the ongoing economic challenges, this finding is worth exploring by charitable organisations, especially when they support global causes.

Reviews

Another factor that positively impacts the decision-making process is the presence of social proof in the form of public ratings left by third parties (Brown et al., 2014). Experimental studies determined that, when given the option to choose between different charities, donors prefer charities that have been reviewed by other people (Brown et al., 2014). This variable acted as a stronger predictor of a charity choice than the previously addressed locality (Brown et al., 2014). This research offers a strong basis for the recommendation to charities to consider showcasing reviews on their websites imported from Google and other similar platforms where unprompted reviews can be shared.

Effectiveness

Communicating information about how effectively a charity manages its resources is one of the common strategies deployed, in addition to providing informative content, to generate trust with donors and the broader community. However, this does not seem to play a role in whether prospective donors would choose the charity in question. One experimental study evaluated the impact of the use of images of charity benefactors, the provision of information about financial management practices, and program outcomes (Bergh & Reinstein, 2020). The results showed that people were strongly influenced by imagery. At the same time, the other two factors did not exert any substantial influence over the decision to donate or how large the donation would be (Bergh & Reinstein, 2020). Not only do people tend to disregard information about effectiveness, but they also tend to actively select fewer effective charities because the cause or values are more closely aligned with personal preferences (Berman et al., 2018). Financial transparency in charitable organisations should not be questioned as a significant element of public image management. However, it is valuable to know that this is not the element that needs to be prominent in marketing efforts focused on attracting new donors and donations in general.

Conclusion

The knowledge presented in this article encompasses a host of factors that influence donors’ choice of charity and demonstrates how charities can respond to them. Variables, including identity, personal values, empathy, and trust, were assessed in previous sections, and it was shown that, on average, categorisation across these variables is predictive of donors’ charitable behaviour. A common thread across paragraphs discussing these variables is that a sense of perceived congruency drives charitable behaviour. Studies referenced in this article offer insight into more intricate details of this congruency, thus allowing charities to adapt their messaging. It was also presented that, in some cases, charities need to decide which value or ideology they want to embrace, as this will inevitably alienate some groups. At the same time, the overview of relevant literature demonstrated how focusing on individual factors can foster deeper relationships and result in higher levels of donor engagement.

An important takeaway from this analysis is that charitable organisations should follow the suit of for-profit organisations when it comes to defining their target market. It is evident that there is no charity that would manage to appeal to everyone, let alone secure everyone’s long-term support. For that reason, the information presented in this article (and other articles in this publication) can be used to build knowledge about the characteristics of preferred donors, which would further inform marketing efforts. By defining a target group instead of focusing on the general population, charitable organisations set themselves up for success, allowing for structured and directional deployment of their resources. A solid understanding of the target group, their preferences, motivation, and decision-making criteria can feed into successful strategies, including defining the target group, choosing the most effective messaging, deciding on specific marketing strategies, and even budgeting. The evidence-based approach taken in this publication ensures the validity and reliability of the provided guidelines and recommendations, providing reassurance about the reliability of the information.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.198

Bergh, R., & Reinstein, D. (2020). Empathic and numerate giving: The joint effects of victim images and charity evaluations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893968

Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., & Small, D. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747648

Breeze, B. (2013). How donors choose charities: The role of personal taste and experiences in giving decisions. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080513x667792

Brown, A., Meer, J., & Williams, J. F. (2014). Social Distance and Quality Ratings in Charity Choice. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20182

Carattini, S., & Roesti, M. (2020). Trust, happiness, and pro-social behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3699242

Chapman, C. M., Hornsey, M. J., & Gillespie, N. (2021). To what extent is trust a prerequisite for charitable giving? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(6), 1274–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211003250

Chapman, C. M., Louis, W. R., Masser, B. M., & Thomas, E. F. (2022). Charitable triad theory: How donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers influence charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 39(9), 1826–1848. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21701

Charness, G., & Holder, P. (2019). Charity in the laboratory: Matching, competition, and Group Identity. Management Science, 65(3), 1398–1407. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2923

De Meulenaer, S., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2017). Who do we help? how Schwartz values influence responses to different frames in charity appeals. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.33423/jmdc.v11i4.1506

De Wit, A., & Bekkers, R. (2016). Exploring gender differences in charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015601242

Farmer, A., Kidwell, B., & Hardesty, D. M. (2020). Helping a few a lot or many a little: Political ideology and charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 614–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1164

Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2017). Empathy in a citizen deliberation experiment. Scandinavian Political Studies, 40(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12103

Hart, D. J., & Robson, A. (2019). Does charity begin at home? National Identity and donating to domestic versus international charities. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 865–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00102-x

Helliwell, J. F., Wang, S., & Xu, J. (2015). How durable are social norms? Immigrant Trust and generosity in 132 countries. Social Indicators Research, 128(1), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1026-2

Herzenstein, M., & Posavac, S. S. (2019). When charity begins at home: How personal financial scarcity drives preference for donating locally at the expense of global concerns. Journal of Economic Psychology, 73, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.06.002

Jin, H. S., Kim, H. J., Suh, J., Sheehan, B., & Meeds, R. (2021). Ego depletion and charitable support: The moderating role of self-benefit and other-benefit charitable appeals. Journal of Advertising, 50(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1887012

Kesberg, R., & Keller, J. (2021). Donating to the ‘right’ cause: Compatibility of personal values and mission statements of philanthropic organizations fosters prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110313

Kessler, J. B., & Milkman, K. L. (2018). Identity in charitable giving. Management Science, 64(2), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2582

Krol, S. A., & Bartz, J. A. (2022). The self and empathy: Lacking a clear and stable sense of self undermines empathy and helping behavior. Emotion, 22(7), 1554–1571. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000943

Lee, Y., Seo, J. Y., & Yoon, S. (2020). Charity advertising: Congruence between political orientation and cause of need. International Journal of Advertising, 39(7), 943–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1710972

Neumayr, M., & Handy, F. (2017). Charitable giving: What influences donors’ choice among different causes? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9843-3

Rohall, D. E., Prokopenko, O., Ender, M. G., & Matthews, M. D. (2014). The Role of Collective and Personal Self-Esteem in a Military Context. Current Research in Social Psychology, 22(2), 10–21.

Russo, C., Danioni, F., Zagrean, I., & Barni, D. (2022). Changing personal values through value-manipulation tasks: A systematic literature review based on Schwartz’s theory of basic human values. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(7), 692–715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12070052

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6

Shang, J., Reed, A., & Croson, R. (2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351

Sneddon, J. N., Evers, U., & Lee, J. A. (2020). Personal values and choice of charitable cause: An exploration of donors’ giving behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020908339

Tian, Y., & Konrath, S. (2021). The effects of similarity on charitable giving in donor–donor Dyads: A systematic literature review. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00165-w

Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2016). Will you trust me?: How individual American donors respond to informational signals regarding local and global humanitarian charities. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9782-4

van Dijk, M., Van Herk, H., & Prins, R. (2019). Choosing your charity: The importance of value congruence in two-stage donation choices. Journal of Business Research, 105, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.008

Wei, C., Yu, Z., & Li, Y. (2021). Empathy impairs virtue: The influence of empathy and vulnerability on charitable giving. Internet Research, 31(5), 1803–1822. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-07-2020-0407

White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.4.109

Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (2009). Donation behavior toward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1086/596720

Wymer, W., Becker, A., & Boenigk, S. (2020). The antecedents of Charity Trust and its influence on charity supportive behavior. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1690