Advertisement

The Effects of Similarity on Charitable Giving in Donor–Donor Dyads: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Yuan TianEmail author
  • Sara Konrath
Research Papers
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Giving circles and alumni campaigns are popular forms of nonprofit fund-raising practice that may lead to positive peer effects that promote charitable giving among similar individuals. However, do individuals always give more in the presence of similar others? Most research finds a positive social influence among similar individuals in donor–solicitor and donor–recipient dyads. However, in donor–donor dyads, the effects of social influence on charitable giving are mixed. Individuals’ giving can be positively or negatively affected by other donors’ giving. This systematic literature review (35 eligible studies) investigates how individuals’ charitable giving is affected by the giving of others. Its major contribution is to extend the previous literature by proposing a new mechanism of decision making in charitable giving through an important psychological construct (similarity). It also identifies five critical factors that could help to explain inconsistent findings of similarity effects on two measures of charitable giving (giving propensity and giving amount). It also contributes to identifying a literature gap, suggesting future research directions, and providing important implications to fund-raising practice.

Keywords

Social influence Conformity Charitable donations Peer influence Similarity 

Notes

Funding

Yuan Tian was supported by the doctoral dissertation grant from the Research Department of Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University for this study, and Sara Konrath was supported by grants from the John Templeton Foundation (#47993 and 57942) and from the Corporation for National and Community Service (Grant # 17REHIN002) while writing this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abrams, P. A. (1998). High competition with low similarity and low competition with high similarity: Exploitative and apparent competition in consumer–resource systems. The American Naturalist, 152(1), 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5), 1047–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle, (2004). Rhetoric. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailenson, J. N., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N. A. (2009). Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 935–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bekkers, R. (2010). George gives to geology Jane: The name letter effect and incidental similarity cues in fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(2), 172–180.Google Scholar
  8. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Burger, J. M., Messian, N., Patel, S., del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman, C. M., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2018). The champion effect in peer-to-peer giving: Successful campaigns highlight fundraisers more than causes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(3), 572–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 357–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croson, R., Handy, F., & Shang, J. (2010). Gendered giving: The influence of social norms on the donation behavior of men and women. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(2), 199–213.Google Scholar
  15. Croson, R., & Shang, J. (2005). Field experiments in charitable contribution: The impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Knowledge@ Wharton.Google Scholar
  16. Croson, R., & Shang, J. Y. (2008). The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Czap, H. J., & Czap, N. V. (2011). Donating–selling tradeoffs and the influence of leaders in the environmental goods game. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(6), 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dror, I. E., Peron, A. E., Hind, S. L., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2159–2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10), 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gee, L. K., & Schreck, M. J. (2018). Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory. Games and Economic Behavior, 107, 282–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giving USA. (2019). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2018.Google Scholar
  26. Goeschl, T., Kettner, S., Lohse, J., & Schwieren, C. (2018). From social information to social norms: Evidence from two experiments on donation behaviour. Games, 9(4), 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Applicant reactions to the employment interview: A look at demographic similarity and social identity theory. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Havens, J. J., O’Herlihy, M. A., & Schervish, P. G. (2006). Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what, and how. In W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 542–567). Yale Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heldt, T. (2005). Conditional cooperation in the field: cross-country skiers’ behavior in Sweden. Borlänge: Department of Economics and Society, Dalarna University.Google Scholar
  30. Huneke, M., & Pinel, E. C. (2016). Fostering selflessness through I-sharing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hysenbelli, D., Rubaltelli, E., & Rumiati, R. (2013). Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: Anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving. Judgment & Decision Making, 8(6), 678–690.Google Scholar
  32. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287(21), 2784–2786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaikati, A. M., Torelli, C. J., Winterich, K. P., & Rodas, M. A. (2017). Conforming conservatives: How salient social identities can increase donations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klinowski, D. (2015). Reluctant donors and their reactions to social information. Working paper.Google Scholar
  36. Konrath, S., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2006). Attenuating the link between threatened egotism and aggression. Psychological Science, 17(11), 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krupp, D. B., Debruine, L. M., & Barclay, P. (2008). A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin, T.-R., Dobbins, G. H., & Farh, J.-L. (1992). A field study of race and age similarity effects on interview ratings in conventional and situational interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindahl, W. E., & Conley, A. T. (2002). Literature review: Philanthropic fundraising. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindersson, L., Guntell, L., Carlsson, R., & Agerström, J. (2019). Reassessing the impact of descriptive norms on charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 24(1), e1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(1), 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meer, J. (2011). Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 926–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meier, S. (2007). Do women behave less or more prosocially than men? Evidence from two field experiments. Public Finance Review, 35(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitteness, C. R., DeJordy, R., Ahuja, M. K., & Sudek, R. (2016). Extending the role of similarity attraction in friendship and advice networks in angel groups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(5), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ, 309(6954), 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Park, S., & Shin, J. (2017). The influence of anonymous peers on prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 12(10), e0185521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Partika, A. (2017). Donate, everybody's doing it: Social influences on charitable giving. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 22(1), 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Penton-Voak, I., Perrett, D., & Peirce, J. (1999). Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgements of attractiveness. Current Psychology, 18(1), 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Qu, H., & Steinberg, R. (2017). Charitable giving in nonprofit service associations: Identities, incentives, and gender differences. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 984–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raihani, N. J., & McAuliffe, K. (2014). Dictator game giving: The importance of descriptive versus injunctive norms. PLoS One, 9(12), e113826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Samek, A., & Sheremeta, R. M. (2017). Selective recognition: How to recognize donors to increase charitable giving. Economic Inquiry, 55(3), 1489–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shang, J., Croson, R., & Reed, A. (2007). “I” give, but “we” give more: The impact of identity and the mere social information effect on donation behavior. NA-Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 93–126.Google Scholar
  61. Shang, J., Reed, A., & Croson, R. (2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, S., Windmeijer, F., & Wright, E. (2014). Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. The Economic Journal, 125(585), 1053–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sole, K., Marton, J., & Hornstein, H. A. (1975). Opinion similarity and helping: Three field experiments investigating the bases of promotive tension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tian, Y. (2018). Can too much similarity to the self backfire? The effects of different levels of similarity on charitable donations. ProQuest Dissertation.Google Scholar
  65. Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wei, Z., Zhao, Z., & Zheng, Y. (2017). The neural basis of social influence in a dictator decision. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yinon, Y., & Sharon, I. (1985). Similarity in religiousness of the solicitor, the potential helper, and the recipient as determinants of donating behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(8), 726–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of International and Public AffairsShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Lilly Family School of PhilanthropyIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations