Recognition and Charitable Behaviour AMA

7/27/2019 Recognition and Charitable Behaviour AMA

1/15

Karen Page Winterich, Vikas Mittal, & Karl Aquino

When Does Recogni t ion increaseChar i table Behavior? Toward a i\/loralIdenti ty-Based i\/iodeiEach year, people in the United States donate more than $200 billion to charitable causes. Despite the lack ofunderstanding of whether and how recognition increases charitable behavior, charities often offer it to motivatedonor action. This research focuses on how the effectiveness of recognition on charitable behavior is dependenton the joint infiuence of two distinct dimensions of moral identity: internalization and symbolization. Three studiesexam ining both monetary do nations and volunteering behavior show that recognition increases charitable behavioramong those characterized by high moral identity symbolization and low moral identity internalization. Notably,those who show high levels of moral identity internalization are uninfluenced by recognition, regardless of theirsymbolization. By understanding correlates of the two dimensions of moral identity among donors, nonprofits canstrategicaily recognize potential donors to maximize donation and volunteering behavior.

Keywords: charitable behavior, recog nition, morai identity, symb olization, social reinforcement

C urrently, 81 % of nonprofit organizations in theUnited States rely on unpaid individual volunteers(Corporation for National and Community Service2006), and more than 70% of annual charitable donationscome from individuals rather than corporations (GivingUSA 2011). Not surprisingly, marketing scholars haveextensively examined donations of both time and money(Amett, German, and Hunt 2003; Bendapudi, Singh, andBendapudi 1996; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007; Shang,Reed, and Croson 2008; White and Peloza 2009). We viewvoluntary donations of time or money that are intended tohelp others as falling under the broader domain of charita-ble behavior (for an overview, see Table 1).One way nonprofits encourage charitable behaviors isthrough recognition of donors (Grace and Griffin 2006; Kotierand Lee 20 05; Moore 2 008). Indeed, several charity consul-tancies help charities create and execute donor recognitionprogram s (Gaffny 1996; see also http://donorreco gnition.ca).Fisher and Ackerman (19 98, p. 264) define recognition as an"expression of appreciation given by a group to individualswho undertake desired behaviors." Similarly, Kwarteng,Smith, and Miller (1988, p. 60) define recognition as "for-Karen Page Winterich is Assistant Professor of M arketing, Smeal Collegeof Business, Pennsylvania State University (e-mail: kpw2psu.edu).Vikas Mittal is J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing, Jones GraduateSchool of Business, Rice University (e-mail: [email protected]). KarlAquino is Richard Poon Professor of Organizations and Society, Organi-zational Behavior and Human Resource Division, Sauder School of Busi-ness, University of British Columbia (e-mail: [email protected]).The authors are grateful to Rajan Sambandam and Christi Clark at TRCInc., Fort Washington, Penn., for facilitating data collection through theonline panel. They appreciate feedback on prior versions of this articlefrom Utpal Dholakia, Ajay Kaira, and Bill Ross. Cornelia Pechmannserved as area editor for this article.

mal and/or informal favorable attention given to an individ-ual to provide him/her a sense of appreciation." The socialcomponent (public vs. private continuum) of recognitionmay vary from recognition that is highly public (e.g., build-ings and programs named after a donor [Harbaugh 1998];donor names listed in newsletters [Kotier and Lee 2005];giving pink ribbons to breast cancer donors to wear [Moore2008]) to private (e.g., a letter of thanks sent to the donor,appreciation expressed in personal conversation [Merrill2005]). In this article, we define "recognition" as an explicitexpectation by the donor that their donation behaviorreceived or will receive attention by one or more persons.Is recognition a universally effective marketing strategyfor increasing charitable behavior? It is tempting to believethat recognition almost always enhances charitable behav-ior. However, recognition as a marketing strategy may alsobe ineffective under some conditions. For example, somedonors avoid recognition to prevent unwanted charity solic-itations, whereas others prefer anonymity due to religiousreasons (Associated Press 2009; Beatty 2008). As wereview subsequently, evidence from empirical research onthe effectiveness of recognition has produced mixed results

(Wymer and Samu 2002).These equivocal findings suggest a need for researchaimed at understanding when and why recognition is aneffective marketing strategy for charitable behavior. In thisarticle, we propose and test an identity-based model toexamine the contingent nature of the effectiveness of recog-nition as a marketing strategy for charitable behavior. Weexamine a consumer's "moral identity" (Aquino and Reed2002) as a construct that might influence whether and whyrecognition may or may not be effective. According toAquino and Reed (2002), moral identity has two dimen-sions: internalization, or the degree to which moral traits are 2013, Ame r ic a n Ma rke t ing As s oc ia t ionISSN: 0022-2429 (print) , 1547-7185 (e iectronic) 121 Journal of MarketingVoiume 77 (May 2013), 121-134


2/15

TABLE 1Overview of Charitable Behavior Definitions and OperationalizationsArticle Definition of Charitable Behavior and/orProsocial Behavior Operationallzation of Charitable BehaviorBendapudi, Singh,and Bendapudi(1996)

Helping behavior is behavior that enhances the welfareof a needy other, by providing aid or benefit, usually withlittle or no commensurate reward in return. (Defined fromthe perspective of charitable organizations.)Benevolence; no explicit definition provided.

and Vohs (2009) Exam ples of diverse acts of benevolence:Endorsing a campaign for traffic safetyWorking as a volunteer on a canned food drive forhomeless shelters'Signing a petition supporting an increase in tuition fees

Fennis, Janssen,

Fisher andAckerman(1998)Klein, Smith, and

John (2004)

Korsgaard et al.(2010)

Lee and Shrum(2012)Reed, Aquino, andLevy (2007)Zhou et al. (2012)

Volunteerism; no explicit definition provided

Prosocial behavior includes "actions intended to benefitone or more people other than oneselfbehaviors suchas helping, comforting, sharing, andcooperation" (Bat-son 1988, p. 282).Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as not beingdirectly or formally recompensed by the organization'sreward system though it does not need to be beyond thejob or not lead to system rewards (Organ 1997).Prosocial behavior (donation andhelping behavior); noexplicit definition providedCharitable behavior; no explicit definition providedCharitable behavior is a form of prosocial behavior; suchbehavior entails actions that intend to help and do helpothers (Taute and McOuitty 2004).

Conceptual framework and researchpropositions

Willingness to keep a food diary for twoweeks (yes/no)Willingness to volunteer as a future researchparticipant for studies conducted on behalf ofthe Tax and Customs Adm inistration (numberparticipants volunteered for from 0 to 10)Length of time willing to volunteer as aresearch participant throughout the year(0-240 minutes, in 30-minute intervals)Willingness to volunteer to participate infuture studies (yes/no)

Number of hours willing to donate to fundraisingdrive (number of hours per day for one week,up to 25 hours) or soccer festival (0-11 hours)Boycott decision

Willingness to volunteer for a follow-upexperimentAgreement to participate in a follow-upsurvey anddegree of actual participationDonation likelihoodActual monetary donations to Feeding AmericaLikelihood of helping in six scenariosPerceptions of giving time versus moneyPreferences for giving time versus m oneyMonetary andvolunteer intentionsMonetary donations to a real charity

central to the self, and symbolization, or the degree towhich moral traits are reflected in the respondent's actionsin the world. We report three studies examining the contin-gent nature of the effectiveness of recognition using thesetwo dimensions of moral identity. In addition. Study 3shows that social reinforcement mediates the proposedeffect of recognition.This research makes several theoretical and practicalcontributions. First, it extends existing identity-based mod-els of how consumers relate to companies (Bhattacharyaand Sen 2003), evaluate services (Homburg, Wieseke, andHoyer 2009), and make charitable contributions (Shang,Reed, and Croson 2008). We not only show that differentidentity dimensions can have an interactive effect but alsodemonstrate that their behavioral manifestation is differen-tially sensitive to contextual cues. For example, a contex-tual cue such as recognition may be associated with oneidentity dimension (e.g., symbolization) but not the other(e.g., intemalization).Second, and more specific to moral identity, priorresearch has established the effectiveness of moral identityintemalization as a predictor of charitable bebavior (Reed,

Aquino, and Levy 2007; Winterieh, Mittal, and Ross 2009)However, little prior research has systematically investi-gated the effectiveness of moral identity symbolization. AsReed and Aquino (2003, p. 1284) state, "future researchshould examine conditions under whether the private (inter-nalization) or public (symbolization) aspects of the self-importance of a person's moral identity will be strongerpredictors of particular outcomes." The current researchtheoretically delineates and empirically tests conditions inwhich symbolization has a unique and systematic effectbeyond that of intemalization, on the basis of the level ofrecognition.Third, we demonstrate that social reinforcement mediatesthe effect of recognition. Specifically, the self-verificationprocess, which relies on social reinforcement, explains whyrecognition may be effective under conditions of low inter-nalization and high sym boiization but not under high inter-nalization. Moreover, our social reinforcement mechanismaccounts for why both private and public recognition maybe effective.Fourth, from a managerial perspective, our researchclarifies why recognition can be more or less effective for


3/15

different donors. As we explain subsequently, recognitionof charitable behavior provides an opportunity to reinforcea person's moral identity socially. Because the need forsocial reinforcement of moral identity is particularly highfor people high in symbolization but low in intemalization,we find recognition to be most effective when people havehigh levels of symbolization but low levels of intemaliza-tion. In doing so, our research provides a more nuancedapproach to the use of recognition as a tool to motivate indi-vidual charitable behavior. It also provides a framework toexplore other potential mediating mechanisms in futurestudies.

Conceptual FrameworkAs Harbaugh (1998, p. 278) states, "Virtually every 'howto' book on fundraising agrees, that the actions of charitiesto solicit gifts and reward donors with public recognitionhave a large effect on giving and voluntary provision ofpublic goods." Yet Harbaugh also acknowledges that thereis little understanding, theoretically or empirically, of howrecognition works. He proposes two primary motives forcharitable behavior: (1) internal gratification, or the positivefeeling of a "warm glow" arising from giving (Andreoni1990), and (2) social prestige, or the possibility of somematerial or social return for charitable behavior when othersknow about the behavior. In addition, there may be psych o-logical benefits of charitable giving (Andreoni 1990; Ben-dapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi 1996; Peloza and Hassay2006).Recognition as a Predictor of Charitable BehaviorEmpirical research on the effectiveness of recognition as ameans for increasing charitable behavior is equivocal. Inone of the earliest studies on charitable giving, Dawson(1988) examines four reasons for giving to medicalresearch: (1) to improve a person's social worth, (2) toadvance a person's career, (3) to receive tax benefits, and(4) in exchange for benefits received in the past or antici-pated need in the future. To the author's surprise, only thelast two predicted charitable giving. In a recent study. Ko,Gibson, and Kim (2011) surveyed ticket buyers of anddonors to the performing arts from 14 university partners.They find that reported desire for recognition versusanonymity significantly predicted self-reported donationamount over the past four years. Examining recognitionthrough rewards such as volunteer T-shirts and plaques.Fisher and Ackerman (1998) find that promised recognitionincreased volunteering only when participants believed thatthe needs of the organization were high; thus, recognitiondid not increase volunteering when the group's need forvolunteers was not great.

Schlegelmilch and Tynan (1989) identify five personal-ity types of potential givers: (1) sympathetic benevolents,who are generous with friends; (2) indifferent individual-ists, who help others that they do not know well; (3) prag-matic philanthropists, who feel personal responsibilitytoward o thers' misfortunes; (4) hard-hearts, who do not feelguilty when acting selfishly; and (5) glory givers, who areconcerned with gaining recognition for their gifts. Interest-

ingly, the glory-giver segment explained the least amount ofvariance in giving. Similarly, Peterson (2004) surveyedalumni from a business college and found that recognitiondid not predict the actual number of hours volunteered.Prince and File (1994) segmented donors into differentgroups and obtained qualitative opinions from each seg-ment. Those segmented as altruists explicitly stated thatthey did not want recognition: "I find it especially upsettingwhen the charities misconstrue my motivations ... or wantto make a public event out of something I have done" (p.76). In contrast, donors deemed communitarians stated, "Ireally appreciate it when they [nonprofit organizations] giveme some recognition. It means something when my neigh-bors are aware of the ways I help" (p . 29). In summ ary, theempirical evidence regarding the association of recognitionand charitable behavior is equivocal at best and suggeststhat the effect of recognition is conditional. Moreover, itdoes not provide theoretical insight into conditions underwhich recognition is most effective at enhancing charitablebehavior.Recognition and Charitable Behav ior: TheModerating Role of M oral IdentityAquino and Reed (2002) propose a sociocognitive model ofmoral identity in which an associative network of relatedmoral traits, goals, and behaviors m ay represent a person'smoral identity. Within this associative network, the strengthof these moral associations reflects the degree to which aperson's moral identity has high self-importance. Thismodel posits two dimensions of moral identity: the private(intemalization) dimension and the public (symbolization)dimension. This two-dimensional conception of moral iden-tity is consistent with the self as having both an intemal(private) and extemal (public) aspect (Erikson 1964; Fenig-stein, Scheier, and Buss 1975).According to Aquino and Reed (2002), a person withhigher moral identity intemalization should have moraltraits, goals, and behaviors more accessible in theirthoughts. Note that people with relatively lower moral iden-tity intemalization are not void of moral thoughts; rather,thoughts regarding moral traits, goals, and behaviors are notas dominant in their minds. In other words, it is importantthat a person's view of him- or herself (i.e., privately) alignswith his or her actions such that people who view them-selves as high in moral identity intemalization are morelikely to engage in moral actions, including charitablebehavior, because doing so enhances the consistency oftheir self-concept as a moral person (Blasi 1984).

In contrast, the public dimension of moral identity,referred to as symbolization, accounts for people's desire toexpress their moral character to others through their actionsin the world. As such, people with high levels of moralidentity symbolization aim to engage in activities thatexpress their moral identity to others, whereas people lowin moral identity symbolization are less likely to seekopportunities to express their moral identity to othersthough their actions. Notably, a person's symbolization maynot reflect his or her intemalization such that although allpeople may h ave a base level of moral standards, some may

Toward a M oral Identity-B ased M odel /1 2 3


4/15


5/15

arguing a strong, positive relationship between recognitionand charitable behavior among those characterized by moralidentity symbolization, albeit only for those not motivatedby the self-consistency associated with high importance ofintemalization.Study 1 : Recognition, MoralIdentity, and Monetary Donations

In Study 1, we focus on monetary allocations to a charityoffering recognition and operationalize recognition as pri-vate acknowledgment through a thank-you card from theorganization. We measure moral identity intemalization andsymbolization.ParticipantsParticipants were 410 adults (62% female; Mgge = 47.84years, SD = 11.99, range = 20- 85 years) from an online panelin the United States who were entered in a $50 Amazon,com gift card lottery in exchange for participation. Partici-pants first responded to Aquino and Reed's (2002) moralidentity scale (see Appendix A). We then explained that ifthey won, they could choose to donate any portion in $10increments or the entire $50 gift card winning to a nonprofitorganization. Last, participants completed a manipulationcheck and background information. We randomly assignedparticipants to one of two nonprofits: Childhelp or theNational Cancer Coalition. The results were consistent forboth cha rities, so we collapsed data across them.Measures

Monetary donation behavior. As standard practice, theonline research firm we used incentivized participants witha chance to win a $50 Amazon.com gift card. We adaptedthis incentive by telling participants they could choose todonate some portion in $10 increments or the entire $50 giftcard w inning to a nonprofit organization (Freem an, Aqu ino,and McFerran 2009; see Appendix B). Thus, the dependentvariable is the amount, if any, of the $50 allocated as adonation, with options of $0, $10, $20, $30, $40, or $50.We assured participants that their donation allocation wouldnot infiuence their chance of winning the lottery and thatwe collected their allocation commitment at this time solelyfor ease of administration. Participants randomly selectedas lottery winners received their $50 winning according totheir allocation selected in the study, with the research paneladministrator facilitating the allocated amount to the charityand the remaining portion to the Amazon.com gift card. Theresearch participant received a thank-you card from the ran-domly assigned charity recognizing their donation, which isstandard practice for both charities selected.

Moral identity. Participants completed Aquino andReed's (2002) Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale,which appears in Appendix A. This measure (1) is intemallyconsistent, (2) shows significant test-retest reliability, (3)has a stable two-factor stmcture exhibiting discriminantvalidity in the two dimensions, and (4) has strong predictivevalidity in terms of various moral cognitions and behaviors(Aquino et al. 2009; Aquino and Reed 2002; Reed and

Aquino 2003; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 20 07; Reynolds andCeranic 2007; Skarlicki, Van Jaarsveld, and Walker 2008;Winterich, Mittal, and Ross 20 09).As Appendix A shows, participants responding to thescale encountered a list of nine moral characteristics. Thesecharacteristics do not constitute the moral identity scale ordirectly correspond to the ten scalable items. Instead,Aquino and Reed (2002) inductively derived these ninecharacteristics to capture lay constnials of a prototypicalmoral person (Aquino and Reed 2002 ). Although the instru-ment does not use the word "moral," this methodologymakes accessible, through spreading activation, other traitsaround which a person's moral identity is organized(Collins and Loftus 1975). Th us, participants should hav eaccessible an array of traits that represent their moral iden-tity when they respond to the ten self-importance of moralidentity items. As a result, we can assess the importance ofthis particular identity to the self.Participants responded to the ten items (1 = "stronglydisagree," and 7 = "strongly agree"), which constitute twosubscales. The five items on the intemalization subscaleassess the extent to which a person experiences his or hermoral identity intemally as part of the self-concept. Thefive items on the symbolization subscale assess the extentto which a person projects his or her moral identity to othersthrough actions in the world. In the specific scale items, thereference to "these characteristics" may include not only thenine moral characteristics listed in the scale directions butalso others that the participants' associative networks mayreference. Notably, it is the way these characteristics arereferenced in each scale item (i.e., as important to the selffor intemalization vs. expressed to others for symboliza-tion) that differentiates assessment of intemalization andsymbolization dim ensions.The eighth item of the moral identity scale intended forthe symbolization dimension may seem to assess bothdimensions. Therefore, we conducted analysis with thisitem excluded and with a four-item symbolization measure,but we found that the reliability of the symbolization indexdecreased and the correlation between the two dimensionsincreased, indicating that this item was appropriate to assessthe symbolization measure. These findings no twithstanding,study results remained the same when we used the four-item measure only. For consistency with prior studiesexamining symbolization (Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007;Reynolds and Ceranic 2007; Skarlicki, Van Jaarsveld, andWalker 2008), the results reported in the text are for theoriginal five-item measure of symbolization in this and allsubsequent studies.We averaged the five items m easuring intemalization (a =.85; M = 6.17, SD = .96) and symbolization (a = .77; M =4.71, SD = 1.13) to form two subscales, which were moder-ately correlated (r = .25, p < .01). Note that not only is theintemalization mean significantly higher than symboliza-tion, but also, at the absolute level, intemalization is veryhigh, with an average score exceeding 6 on a seven-pointscale. Thus, reference to low intemalization is not indica-tive of an absence of intemalization; rather, it is lower in arelative sense such that moral identity may still be impor-tant to a person's self-concept (e.g., those scoring 5 on a

Tow ard a Moral Identity-B ased Model /1 2 5


6/15

seven-point scale; less than 15% of respondents scored 5 orlower), but it is not as important as it is to those with higherintemalization (i.e., those scoring 7 on a seven-point scale,approximately 30% of respondents). In contrast, symboliza-tion scores tend to be lower on average than intemalizationscores, with more than 50% scoring below 5 and less than5% scoring 7. These means are consistent with thoseobtained in the scale development (Aquino and Reed 2002)and in subsequent research (Aquino et al. 2009; Aquino,McFerran, and Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino, and Levy 2007;Reynolds and Ceranic 2007; Skarlicki, Van Jaarsveld, andWalker 2008). Because we use 1 SD to calculate effects,we use the traditional low versus high terminology; how-ever, note that low (-1SD) intemalization is still above themidpoint of the scale (approximately 5 to 5.5 on a seven-point scale).

Recognition. Participants randomly assigned to therecognition condition (I = recognition, 0 = no recognition)were told that any donation they made of their gift cardwinnings would be made in their name and that they wouldreceive a thank-you card recognizing their donation. Apretest (n = 48) assessed perceived recognition by tbe char-ity with two items (see Appendix B; r = .8 1,p < .01). Thosein the recognized (vs. unrecognized) condition thought thatdonations would be recognized by the charity to a greaterextent (M = 5.67 (1.35) vs. 4.69 (1.27); t = 2.59,/? < .05).

Control variables. We controlled for gender, coded as 0(male) and 1 (female), because women may be m ore likelyto engage in donation b ehavior (W interieh, Mittal, and Ross2009 ). We also included charity typ e, Childhelp or NationalCancer C oalition, as a control.Results and Discussion

Monetary donation behavior. We ran a regression withmonetary donation allocation as the dependent variable andthe control variables of gender and charity type, effects ofintemalization, symbolization, and recognition as well astheir two- and three-way interactions as predictors of chari-table behavior. Note that the change in the dependentvariable is equivalent ($10) at each level, and the variable isratio-scaled; thus, linear regression is appropriate. We alsoreplicate the results using an ordered logit. We centeredboth intemalization and symbolization before analysis inthis and all subsequent studies. The results show a maineffect of recogn ition (b = 4.04 , t = 2.46 ,/? < .05) and a maineffect of intemalization (b = 3.92, t = 3.08, p < .05). Notwo-way interactions were significant. The three-way inter-action was significant (b = -3.5 6, t = -2.01,p < .05). Gen-der and charity type were nonsignificant (ps > .50).

We explored the pattem of the three-way interaction byexamining the effect of recognition at high and low levels(1 SD) of both intemalization and symbolization. Simpleslope analysis revealed that for those with higher symbol-ization, recognition has a significant effect if intemalizationis low (b = 9 .93, t = 239, p < .05). In contrast, recognitionis not significant when symbolization and intemalizationare high (b = -.77, t = -.25, n.s.). Moreover, recognitionwas not significant when symbolization was low for thoselow in intemalization (b = 1.73, t = .60, n.s.) and for those

high in intemalization (b = 5.26, t = 1.50, n.s.). Figure 1illustrates tbe results of the simple slope analysis that support H).Discussion. In support of our theorizing, recognitionincreases charitable bebavior when intemalization is lowand symbolization is high; recognition does not affect monetary donations when intemalization is high and symbolization is high or when symbolization is low, regardless o

intema lization. To increase g eneral i zability, we nex t ex amine the effect of recognition when it occurs through volunFIGURE 1Monetary Donation as a Function of Moral IdentityIntemalization and Symbolization andRecognition of Donation (Study 1)

A: High Symbolization$50 n

$40-reuO)O

!> ^ $30 -

u (Dco $10-

$0

High internalizationLow internalization

No Recognition RecognitionB: Low S ymbolization

$50-1

$40-(0oCAOC =

> Z $30 5

$10-

$0


No Recognition Recognition


7/15

teer names listed on a website. In addition, we examinedonations of time (i.e., volunteer beh avior).Although it may be intuitively appealing to assume thatthe pattem found in Study 1 will apply to donations of time,empirical research suggests that this may not be the casebecause the factors that infiuence giving may differ bydonation modality (L ee, Piliavin, and Call 1999). For exam-ple. Reed, Aquino , and Levy (2007) find that moral identitydifferentially influenced donations of time (vs. money)because donors may perceive donating time as more effort-ful and moral than donating money. However, donations oftime are critical to many charities (Eisner et al 2009): morethan 60 million volunteers donated more than 8 billionhours of service in the United States in 2010 (valued at$173 billion), and 81 % of nonprofit organizations in theUnited States rely on volunteers (Corporation for Nationaland Community Service 2006, 2012). Thus, we aimed toreplicate these results with donations of time.

Study 2: Recognition, MoralIdentity, and Volunteer BehaviorExisting literature has examined donation of time in a vari-ety of ways (for a review, see Table 1). These include subtlebut clever measures such as volunteering to participate infuture research studies (Fennis, Janssen, and Vohs 2009;Korsgaard et al. 2010), willingness to complete a two-weekfood diary (Fennis, Janssen, and Vohs 2009), and participa-tion in a follow-up survey (Korsgaard et al. 2010). To deter-mine w hether our theorizing holds for donations of time, wefollow this existing research and operationalize charitablebehavior with voluntary participation in a follow-up survey.Participants and ProcedureParticipants included 197 adults (64% female; Mgge = 48.32yea rs,S D= ll .l l , ra n g e= 18-73 years) from the same onlineresearch service provider in the United States. Participantsfirst responded to Aquino and Reed's (2002) moral identityscale used in Study 1 (intemalization [a = .8 1; M = 6.21 ,SD = .89] and symboUzation [a = .75; M = 4.62, SD = 1.06];r = .23, p < .01). Then, they completed background infor-mation and responded to filler questions for approximatelyten minu tes. As in Study 1, we included gender as a con trol.At the end of this main survey, we asked participants tovolunteer five minutes of their time to complete a surveyfor a nonprofit educational organization. The volunteerrequest clearly indicated that (1) respondents were under noobligation to participate and (2) there was no financialincentive for their participation. The surveywhich weused for our university-related research, thereby benefitinga nonprofit educational organizationelicited evaluationsof various nonprofit organizations. Participants indicating"yes" were redirected to the new survey; otherwise, the sur-vey ended (0 = did not volunteer, 1 = volunteered). Wemanipulated recognition (1 = recognition, 0 = no recogni-tion) by informing participants that, in exchange for com-pleting the second survey, their name would be listed on awebsite. Although only those in the recognition conditionknew this before making their volunteer decision, all par-

ticipants could choose to have their name added to the rec-ognized list of volunteers at the end of the survey. After theycompleted the survey, we provided participants with a linkto an actual university web page listing volunteer names.This manipulation is consistent with Fisher and Acker-man's (1998, p. 264) definition of recognition as "anexpression of appreciation given by a group to individualswho undertake desired behaviors." Nonprofits frequentlyuse inclusion in such a list as a form of recognition. For

example, the American Marketing Association and theAssociation for Consumer Research regularly list volunteerreviewers and other conference volunteers in conferenceprograms and/or at conference luncheons.A pretest (n = 43) assessed perceived recognition by thepublic with two items (see Appendix B; r = .53,p < .01). Toa greater extent, those in the recognized (vs. unrecognized)condition thought volunteering would be publicly visible(M ^ 4.20 (1.03) vs. 3.38 (1.18); t = 2.44,p< .05). Indeed,perceived public visibility was not particularly high. Thismay be due to the low visibility of the specific website tothe public at large; in any case, it provides a more conserva-tive test of our theory.

Resuits and DiscussionVolunteering behavior. A logistic regression for volun-teering behavior revealed a two-way interaction of intemal-ization and symbolization (b = .69, Wald X^(l) = 4.38, p o2 >0, i5 2 0%

1 0 % -u

0%


2 1%

6%No Recognition Recognition

B: Low S ymbolization

g!

6 0 % n

5 0 %

g g" 40%.2 3 3 0% -> o s 20% -15o 1 0 % -

0 %

High internalizationLow intematization

2 0%14 %

2 1 %1 3%


Discussion. Jointly, Studies 1 and 2 suppor t H| for twodifferent kinds of charitable behavior: donating money(Study 1) and donating time (Study 2). By demonstratingthat our theorizing is identical for donations of both timeand money. Studies 1 and 2 suggest that managers can usesimilar strategies for both types of charitable behavior fromtheir donors. In addition, giving someone a plaque at anawards dinner or listing his or her name in a program offerspublic recognition, but sending a thank-you note to his orher home does not. The important element of recognitionfor this research is that the donor perceives recognition of

his or her charitable behavior regardless of whether threcognition is public or private. However, recognition onlyinfiuences charitable behavior among potential donors whare high in symbolization and low in intemalization. Thesresults systematically explain why recognition does noalways increase charitable behavior; that is, intemalizatiomotivates charitable behavior regardless of recognition. Yewhy is recognition effective for those with low intemalization but high symbolization, particularly when this effecoccurs regardless of whether the recognition is private opublic? Drawing o n self-verification theor y, we argue tharecognition provides social reinforcement for those who arhigh in symbolization.

Charitable Behavior: The MediatingRoie of Sociai ReinforcementWe base our argument for the mediating role of social reinfor cement o n self-verification (Reed et al. 2 012 ; Swann1983). As we described previously, people strive for otherto view them as they view themselves. As such, the extento which the behavior provides the opportunity to verify person's identity through the responses and views of otherinfiuences the motivation to engage in a behavior (Swann1983). Thus, consumers may engage in a reinforcemenmonitoring process to determine the extent to which otherhave verified their identity thro ugh their behavio rs (Reed eal . 2012) .

Recognition of charitable behavior provides social reinforcement and, thus, self-verification of a donor's moraidentity. As we argued previo usly, social reinfor cement ar ising from recognition of charitable behavior will be morimportant to those with high symbolization but low internalization. Such social reinforcement verifies the selfimportance of a key identity through feedback in responsto a person's action. That is, it supports a person's underlying identity through the refiected appraisals of others. Iother words, recognition of charitable behavior sociallreinforces moral identity, affirming a donor's morality thim- or herself. Thus, we propose that social reinforcemenunderlies the effect of recognition on charitable behaviofor those with high symbolization who are not motivated bself-consistency due to lower intemalization.

Consistent with our theorizing for Hj, social reinforcement arising from recognition should not infiuence charitable behavior for consumers high in intemalization: theshould engage in charitable behavior regardless of whethethe behavior is recognized or unrecognized. Consumerhigh in moral identity intemalization can experience selfconsistency of their mo ral identity simply by acting mo rall(e.g., engaging in charitable behavior ) r egardless of whethethe behavior receives recognition. In contrast, for those whare low in intemalization and lack self-consistency but arhigh in symbolization and seek self-verificatio n, we predicthat social reinforcement will underlie the effect of recognition on charitable behavior. We make this predictiobecause self-verification can only occur when the mora(e.g., charitable) behavior is socially reinforced, whicoccurs when it is recognized. In line with these argumentswe test the following hypothesis:

128 / Journal of M arketing, May 2013


9/15

H 2: Social reinforcement mediates the moderating effect ofthe two dimensions of moral identity on the effect ofrecognition on charitable behavior. More specifically,social reinforcement mediates the effect of recognition oncharitable behavior among consumers who are high inmoral identity symbolization, but only among those whodo not already have high moral identity intemalization.

Study 3: The Mediating Role ofSocial Reinforcement on CharitableBehaviorParticipants and P rocedureParticipants were 267 adults (78% female; M^ge = 49.94years, SD = 12.17, range = 22-78 years) from an onlinepanel in the United States. Participants received panel pointsfor participation, which is standard practice for the panel. Inaddition, participants were entered in a $50 Amazon.comgift card lottery. Participants then responded to the donationallocation measure with the recognition manipulation,which w ere both identical to Study 1 except that FeedingAmerica would receive all donation allocations. After thedonation allocation, participants completed a series of mea-sures regarding the donation as well as personality measures,which included the moral identity scale and demographicinformation. We calculated an index for each moral identitydimension (intemalization [a = .89; M = 5.96, SD = .87]and symbolization [a = .80; M = 3.95, SD = 1.20]; r = .16,p < .01). We controlled for gender as in the previous studies.As Appendix B shows, we measured social reinforce-ment with eight items (a = .76; M = 2.63, SD = 1.22)adapted from Lieberman et al. (2001). Participants thoughtabout friends and/or coworkers to whom they feel close orfiiends and/or coworkers who have the greatest effect ontheir behavior and ideas. We reminded participants thatthere were no right or wrong answers. We did not expectresponses to these items to correspond specifically to par-ticipants' donation allocation, but we anticipated that theextent to which people perceived their friends and/orcoworkers to reinforce charitable behavior socially repre-sents the extent to which they themselves are motivated bysocial reinforcement. Social reinforcement was not corre-lated with moral identity intemalization (r = -.06, p = .29)but was positively correlated with moral identity symbol-ization (r= .40,/? < .01).Results

Monetary donation behavior. A regression analysisrevealed a main effect of intemalization (b = 2.44, t = 2 .33,p < .05). No two-way interactions were significant, but thethree-way interaction of intemalization, sym bolization, andrecognition was significant (b = - 2 . 1 1 , t = -2.07,/? = .04).Gender was not significant (p = .14). Simple slope analysisrevealed that when sym bolization w as high, recognition hada significant effect for those low in intemalization (b =5.92 , t = 2 .75,/7 < .01). In contrast, recognition w as not sig-nificant when symbolization and intemalization were high(b - -1 .75 , t = -.96, n.s.). Recognition was not significantwhen symbolization was low for those low in intemaliza-

tion (b = .28 , t = .15, n.s.) and for those high in intemaliza-tion (b = 1.04, t = .45, n.s.). Figure 3 illustrates the resultsof the simple slope analysis, which support H i and the pat-tem found in Studies 1 and 2.Mediating role of social reinforcement. We conductedmediated moderation analysis following Preacher, Rucker,and H ayes (2 007) to determine the extent to which socialreinforcement of charitable behavior mediated the effect ofrecognition, moderated by symbolization and intemaliza-

tion, on charitable behavior. We used bootstrapped estima-tion of conditional indirect effects because it directly esti-mates the size of the indirect effects, provides confidenceintervals (CIs) for the estimated effects, demonstrateshigher power and greater control over Type I error rates,and relies on fewer assumptions about the sampling d istrib-ution, especially for smaller samples such as ours (Preacher,Rucker, and H ayes 2007).Conducting 5,000 iterations, the 95 % CI for the highestorder, three-way interaction excluded zero (-.0587 to-.0042). Thus, we examined the pattem of mediation athigh and low (1 SD) levels of both intemalization andsymbolization. For high intemalization, the 95% CI for theindirect effect of recognition on charitable behaviorincluded zero for both low (-1 SD) and high (+1 SD) sym-bolization (-.0776 to .0159; -.10 74 to .0099). For low inter-nalization, the 95% CI also included zero for low symbol-ization (-.031 4 to .0360). H owever, for low intemalizationand high levels of symbolization, the 95% CI did notinclude zero (.0067 to .1384), indicating that social rein-forcement of charitable behavior mediates the effect ofrecognition on charitable behavior for those with high sym-bolization and low intemalization, in support of H 2.

DiscussionThis study replicates the results of the previous two studiesand shows the mediating role of social reinforcement. Toour knowledge, these results are the first to demonstrateempirically how social reinforcement may explain theeffect of recognition in conjunction with a person's moralidentity.

General DiscussionThese three studies show that recognition enhances charita-ble behavior, but only among those with low intemalizationand high symbolization. We find this result whether wemeasure charitable behavior as donations of money (Studies1 and 3) or as volunteering time for research (Study 2 ). Thefinding is also robust to recognition that is private (i.e.,thank-you card: Studies 1 and 3) o r public (i.e., name listedonline: Study 2). Moreover, respondents were adults fromnationally representative panels, not undergraduates. Thus,collectively, our studies provide robust evidence for ourtheorizing.Theoretical Contributions to the Identity andCharitable Behavior LiteratureAquino and Reed's (2002) two-dimensional model of moralidentity has typically been applied as a simple additive-

Toward a Moral Identity-Based Model / 1 2 9


10/15

FIGURE 3Donation Allocation and Social Reinforcement as a Function of Moral Identity Internalization andSymbolization and Recognition of Donation (Study 3)A: High Symbolization

$50- ,

- ^ $ 4 0(0

I < $30 -c $20 -U CD

0)co $10-

$0


cQ)0)Oc'5O C"woo

7 - ,

6 -

5 -

4 -

3 -

2 -



No Recognition RecognitionB: Low Symbolization

$50- ,

g $40nuo o

c => < $300 ) ^CO $20U (5

$ 1 0 -

$0

High internatizationLow internalization

0)uo'5uo

6

5 -

4 -

3 -

2 -

High internalization Low internalization

No Recognition Recognition No Recognition Recognition

effect model (for an exception, see Skarlicki, Van Jaarsveld,and Walker [20 08], although they do not explicitly examinerecognition). We examine the interactive effect of the twodimensionsinternalization and symbolizationshowingthat recognition increases charitable behavior for con-sumers with high symbolization. Nonetheless, consistentwith the robust support for the effect of internalization,recognition does not increase charitable behavior wheninternalization has already motivated giving. It is critical tounderstand that for consumers to hold a relatively high levelof either internalization or symbolization, they need to have

a base level of moral trait associations that they deemimportant. However, beyond this base level of moral traassociations, consumers may have (1) relatively stronger oweaker levels of general self-awareness based on introspection of their inner thoughts and feelings and (2) relativelstronger or weaker levels of general sensitivity to the self aa social object (Erikson 1964; Fenigstein, Scheier, and Bus1975) for which they may seek self-verification (Swan1983). Thus, a consumer's relatively low moral identitinternalization does not preclude him or her from havinrelatively high moral identity symbolization. After meetin

130 / Journal of Marketing, May 2013


11/15

a base threshold of moral trait associations of importance tothemselves, consumers may have stronger or weaker levelsof internalization and symbolization that are not necessarilyhighly correlated. This nuance is an important contributionto the field's understanding of Aquino and Reed's (2002)conceptualization of the two dimensions of moral identity.Our demonstration that social reinforcement mediatesthis phenomenon is an additional contribution of ourresearch in that it provides theoretical insight into the con-ditions in which recognition is most effective at enhancingcharitable behavior. However, we acknowledge that theremay be other, unexamined potential mediators. For exam-ple, in this research, we demonstrate that the role of socialreinforcement varies according to the extent to which it ver-ifies the identity to the self, and we propose that a desire forconsistency with the self underlies the effect of moral iden-tity internalization. Further research should examine theseadditional motives as potential mediators.Manageriai Implications: Recognition as aMarketing Strategy for C haritabie BehaviorWith regard to managerial implications, first, managers canuse the brief instrument shown in Appendix A to determinethe level of both moral identity internalization and symbol-ization for their current and potential donors to betterunderstand how they will respond to various charitabledonation solicitations. We acknowledge that measuring adonor's individual differences may not always be practicalfor organizations. Yet the measure is short and may be par-ticularly beneficial if one moral identity dimension tends tocharacterize the donor base more strongly than the otherdimension. For example, in the present research, a largesubset of participants (approximately 50% in our samples)would donate regardless of recognition, and a smaller subsetwould not don ate even when offered recognition. If m anagerscan ascertain the average levels of moral identity of theirdonors, they can determine whether offering recognition willlikely be effective (i.e., a reasonable proportion of their donorbase is characterized by low internalization and high sym bol-ization) or less effective (i.e., a large propo rtion of their dono rbase is characterized by high internalization or both lowinternalization and low symbolization). If one of the lattercases is present, managers may be better off employing strate-gies other than recognition (e.g., donation matching, empha-sis of personal benefits) to increase charitable behavior.

Prior research on moral identity shows that it can betemporarily activated and will have effects consistent withthose of chronically important moral identity (Aquino et al.2009; Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino,and Levy 2007). Importantly, product advertisements canactivate moral identity (Choi and Winterich 2013). Thus,managers could temporarily activate moral identity in adonation appeal or an advertisement for a cause-relatedmarketing cam paign. In taking this approach, recall that thepresent findings demonstrate that recognition is less effec-tive at increasing charitable behavior for those character-ized by high internalization. Thus, managers who temporar-ily activate moral identity internalization in their donationappeals should not need to incorporate recognition intotheir marketing strategy because the motivation for charita-

ble behavior would arise from internalization regardless ofthe presence or absence of recogn ition. In such cases, man-agers could save the costs associated with engaging indonor recognition.When using recognition to increase charitable behavior,managers should examine various forms of recognition withthe aim of maximizing effectiveness while minimizing cost.For exam ple, recognition by listing donor names on a w eb-site is similar in effectiveness to sending thank-you cards.To the extent that online recognition may be less costly,

managers should consider using online tools and socialmedia, such as Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedin, to developeffective but efficient recog nition stra tegies. The effective-ness of such low-cost forms of donor recognition should beof particular interest to managers who need to engage inrecognition to manage their volunteer pool strategically yethave limited funds to do so (Eisner et al. 2009). M oreover,these recognition strategies may be more appealing toyounger donors than the more formal, standard recognitionmethods. This area is ripe for further research.In addition, we suggest that managers of nonprofitsshould develop more targeted recognition strategies ratherthan employing them universally for all donors. For exam-

ple, charities may want to give donors a choice to "opt in"to receive recognition by checking a box on the donationrequest, because not all donors may seek such recognition.This can save money from any costs associated with recog-nition. In other cases, if organizations know or believe thatthe majority of their donor base is high in symbolizationand low in internalization, they may implement an "opt out"strategy so that those who strongly do not desire recogni-tion can choose not to receive it, whereas all others will.Understanding the relative effectiveness of such optingin/out strategies is a key area for further research.Finally, managers may enhance charitable behavior by

training employees to reinforce donors' identities socially.For example, training cashiers to offer social reinforcementmay make donation appeals at store checkout more effec-tive. More generally, the notion that recognition is an effec-tive means of facilitating the reinforcement of social iden-tity may apply in many contexts beyond charities. Forexam ple, in many cases, people consume brands as a way tomanage and bolster their own identity. Strategically recog-nizing customers on the basis of the self-importance of theiridentity can foster stronger brand connections. However,future studies should address the extent to which other con-sumer identities may be amenable to recognition.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further ResearchWe recognize that our studies are subject to several limita-tions. First, we measured moral identity, although previousresearch has shown isomorphic results using both measuredand temporarily activated moral identity internalization(Aquino, McFerran, and Laven 2011; Reed, Aquino, andLevy 2 007; W interich, Mittal, and Ro ss 20 09). Still, futurestudies should replicate our results using activated moralidentity.Second, there is a need to explicate the construct ofrecognition more comprehensively and examine how differ-ent types of recognition may affect not only charitable

Toward a Mora l I denti ty -Based Mode l / 1 31


12/15

behavior but also other consumption behaviors. Althoughour studies indicated similar results for different types ofrecognitionnamely, private and public recognitionthesimilarities in the current results for both types of recogni-tion should not mask the subtle differences between theserecognition modalities, which deserve careful considerationin further research. Moreover, organizations should not usedifferent types of recognition strategies indiscriminately. Inaddition to their cost, they may be differentially related toother aspects of a donation context (the extent to which anorganization aims to motivate others to donate) or donorcharacteristics (e.g., altruism, self-monitoring).Third, our recognition manipulation of a thank-you cardsent to the donor from the charitable organization in Studies1 and 3 is a subtle form of recog nition. It is likely that offer-ing stronger, more direct forms of recognition may increaseits effectiveness for those high in symbolization and low inintemalization. The subtle recognition we used in our stud-ies suggests a more conservative test of our hypothesis.Moreover, our theorizing may also explain results fromReed, Aquino, and Levy (2007), who find that intemaliza-tion consistently predicted giving both time and money, but

symbolization predicted donations of time but not money.Our theorizing suggests that this effect could have occurredif participants perceived donating time (e.g., volunteering ata local community service organization) to result in greaterrecognition than donations of money through writing acheck or electronic transfer.Fourth, to the extent that recognition can have a nonlin-ear impact, additional studies may reveal that high levels ofpublic recognition are a detriment to charitable behavioramong some consum ers, likely those who prefer anonym ity(Associated Press 200 9; Beatty 200 8). Similarly, low levelsof recognition may negatively influence charitable behaviorif donors expect some minimal level of recognition as aform of gratitude (Prince and File 1994).We theorize and empirically demonstrate that socialreinforcement underlies the effect of recognition moderatedby symbolization and intemalization on charitable behavior.This social reinforcement likely provides psychologicalbenefits through self-verification. However, it is importantto note that there is an ongoing debate regarding whetherexperiencing a "wam i glow" from giving is egotistic versusaltruistic to the extent that it offers psychological benefits(Andreoni 1990; Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi 1996).We do not address this debate. Notably, people may useself-interest motives as justification for engaging in charita-ble behavior (Miller 1999); however, the stronger under-lying motive may be the psychological benefits of socialreinforcement. We hope that further research will explorethese issues.

Appendix ASelf-importance of Moral IdentityScale (Aquino and Reed 2002)Instructions: Listed alphabetically below are some charac-teristics that might describe a person:

Caring, Compassionate, Fair, Friendly, Generous, HelpfulHardworking, Honest, KindThe person with these characteristics could be you or icould be someone else. For a moment, visualize in youmind the kind of person who has these characteristicsImagine how that person would think, feel, and act. Whenyou have a clear image of what this person would be likeplease indicate your agreement with each statement below.

1. It would make me feel good to be a person w ho has thescharacteristics. (I)

2. Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am. (I)3.1 often wear clothes that identify me as having these characteristics. (S)4.1 would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics. (I/R)5. The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g., hobbiesclearly identify me as having these charac teristics. (S)6. The kinds of book s and magazines that I read identify m e ahaving these characteristics. (S)7. Having these characteristics is not really important to me

(I/R)8. The fact that I h ave these characteristics is com municatedto others by my membership in certain organizations. (S)9.1 am actively involved in activities that communicate tothers that 1 have these characteristics. (S)10.1 strongly desire to have these characteristics. (I)

(Notes: I = intemalization item; S = symbolization item; R =reverse-coded)

Appendix BDescription of Measures Used inAll Studies

1. Mon etary Donation Allocation (Studies 1 andfrom Freeman, A quino, and McFerran 2009)Donation choices were as follows:

1. $50 d onation/no gift card2. $40 donation/$10 gift card3. $30 donation/$20 gift card4. $20 donation/$30 gift card5. $10 donation/$40 gift card6. No donation/$50 gift card

Mo netary donat ions range from 1 to 6, wi th higher nu mberindicat ing larger monetary donat ions .2. Reco gnition (Pretest for Studies 1 and 3)

To what extent did you think donations would be acknowledged by the charity?To what extent did you think donations would be recognizeby the charity?

(Seven-point scale : 1 = "defini te ly not ack nowled ged/recogniz ed," and 7 = "definite ly ackno wledge d/recogn ized")

132 / Jou rnal of M arketing, May 2013


13/15

3. Recognition (Study 2 Pretest)To what extent did you think donations would be recognizedby others?

To what extent did you think donations would be publiclyvisible to others?(Seven-po int scale : 1 = "definite ly not recognized /vis ible ,"and 7 = "defini te ly recognized/vis ible")4. Sociai Reinforceme nt (Study 3; Adapted fromLieberman et ai. 2001)

My friends and/or coworkers and I talk about our charitablebehaviors quite often.

My friends and/or coworkers encourage me to donate.My friends and/or coworkers often point out opportunities tomake donations.My friends and/or coworkers have shown me ways I coulduse to donate more.My friends and/or coworkers have told me that I shoulddonate more.My friends and/or coworkers and I rarely talk about charita-ble behaviors, (reversed)My friends and/or coworkers encourage me to be charitable.I feel my friends and/or coworkers expect me to donate. .

(Seven-point scale: 1 = "strongly disagree," and 7 ="strongly agree")

REFERENCESAndreoni, James (1990), "Impure Altruism and Donations to Pub-lic Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving," Economic Jour-nal, 100 (401), 464-17.Aquino , Karl, Dan F reeman, Americus Reed H, Vivien K.G. Lim ,and Will Felps (2009), "Testing a Social Cognitive Model ofMoral Behavior: The Interaction of Situational Factors andMoral Identity Centrality," Jourrml of Personality and SocialPsychology, 97 (1), 123-41., Brent McFerran, and Marjode Laven (2011), "Moral Iden-tity and the Experience of Moral Elevation in Response to Actsof Uncommon Goodness," Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 100 (4), 703-718 .and Americus Reed II (2002), "The Self-Importance ofMoral Identity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83 (6) , 1423 ^0 .Amett, Dennis, Steve German, and Shelby Hunt (2003), "TheIdentity Salience Model of Relationship Marketing Success:The Case of Nonprofit Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 89-10 5.Associated Press (2009), "Who's Behind $68 Million in CollegeGifts?" (April 23), (accessed February 6, 2013), [available at

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30372661/].Beatty, Sally (2008), "Why Donating Millions Is Hard to KeepSecret," Th e Wall Street Journal, (January 9), (accessed Febru-ary 6, 2013), [available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 119983974264576399 .html].Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra Singh, and Venkat Bendapudi (199 6),"Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrative Framework forPromotion Planning," Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 33-49 .Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sankar Sen (2003), "Consumer-CompanyIdentification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers'Relationships with Companies," Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 76-88 .Blasi, Augusto (1984), "Moral Identity: Its Role in Moral Func-tioning," in Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Develop-ment, W. Kurtines and J. Gewirtz, eds. New York: John Wiley& Sons, 128-39.Choi, Woo Jin and Karen Page Winterieh (2013), "Can BrandsMove In from the Outside? How Moral Identity Enhances Out-Group Brand Attitudes," Journal of Marketing, 11 (March),78-95.Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth E. Loftus (1975), "A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing," PsychologicalReview, %2{f,), 401-42i.Corporation for National and Community Service (2006), "VolunteerGrowth in America," (accessed August 10, 2011), [available athttp://generosityresearch .nd.edu/assets/13044/volunteer_growth.pdf].

(2012), "Volunteering in America: Trends and Highlights,"(accessed September 7, 2012), [available at http://www.volunteeringinamedca.gov/national].Dawson, Scott (1988), "Four Motivations for Chadtable Giving:Implications for Marketing Strategy to Attract Monetary Dona-tions for Medical Research," Journal of Health Care Market-ing, (2), 31-31.Eisner, David, Robert T. Grimm Jr., Shannon Maynard, and Susan-nah Washbum (2009), "The New Volunteer Workforce," Stan-ford Social Innovation Review, 1 (Winter), 32-37.Edkson, Edk H. (1964), Insight and Responsibility. New York:Norton.Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975),"Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment andTheory," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-27.Fennis, Bob M., Loes Janssen, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2009),"Acts of Benevolence: A Limited-Resource Account of Com-pliance with Chadtable Requests," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 35 (6), 906-924.Fisher, Robert J. and David Ackerman (1998), "The Effects of

Recognition and Group Need on Volunteerism: A Social NormPerspective," Journal of Consum er Research, 25 (3), 262- 75.Freeman, Dan, Karl Aquino, and Brent McFerran (2009), "Over-coming Beneficiary Race as an Impediment to CharitableDonations: Social Dominance Odentation, the Expedence ofMoral Evaluation, and Donation Behavior," Personality andSociai Psychology Bulletin, 35 (1), 75-84 .Gaffny, Thomas (1996), "Advanced Techniques of Donor Recog-nition," International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sec-tor Marketing, 1 ( 1 ) , 4 1 ^ 9 .Giving USA (2011), Giving USA 2011. Glenview, IL: Giving USAFoundation.Grace, Debra and Deborah Gdffin (2006), "Explodng Conspicu-ousness in the Context of Donation Behavior," InternationalJournal of N onprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11 (2),147-54.Harbaugh, William T. (1998), "The Prestige Motive for MakingChadtable Transfers," American Economic Review, 88 (2),277-82.Homburg, Chdstian, Jan Wieseke, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2009),"Social Identity and the Service-Profit Chain," Journal of Mar-keting, 73 (March), 38-54.Kandel, Denise B. (1980), "Drug and Ddnking Behavior AmongYouth," Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 235-85.Klein, Jill G., N. Craig Smith, and Andrew John (2004), "Why WeBoycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation,"Journal of Ma rketing, 68 (July), 92-109 .

T o wa rd a Mo ra l I d e n t i ty -B a se d Mo d e l /1 3 3


14/15

K o , Yong Jae, Heather Gibso n, and May K im (2011), "Under-standing Donors; A Case of University Performing Arts Pro-grams in the USA," International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing, 16 (2), 166-82.K o rsgaard, M. Audrey, Bruce M . Meglino, Sco tt W. Lester, andSophia S. Jeong (2010), "Paying You Back or Paying Me For-ward; Understanding Rewarded and Unrewarded Organiza-tional Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology,95 (2), 277-9 0.K o tier, Philip and Nancy Lee (2005), Corporate Social Responsi-bility: Doing the Most Good for Your Compan y and Your

Cause. New York; John Wiley & Sons.K warteng, Joseph A., K eith L. Smith, and Larry E. Miller (1988),"Ohio 4-H Agents' and Volunteer Leaders' Perceptions of theVolunteer Leadership Development Program," Journal of theAmerican Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 29(2), 55-62 .

Lee, Jaehoo n and L J. Shrum (2012), "Conspicuous Co nsumptionVersus Charitable Behavio r in Respo nse to Social Exclusion; ADifferential Needs Explanation," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 39 (3), 530-4 4.Lee, Lichang, Jane Aliyn Piliavin, and Vaughn R.A. Call (1999),"Giving Time, Money, and Blood; Similarities and Differ-ences," Social Psychology Quarterly, 62 (3), 276-9 0.Lieberman, Melissa, Lise Gauvin, William Bukowski, and DonnaWhite (2001), "Interpersonal Influence and Disordered EatingBehaviors in Adolescent Girls: The Role of Peer Modeling,Social Reinforcement, and Body-Related Teasing," EatingBehaviors, 2 0),2\5-36.Merrill, Mary V. (2005), "Reco gnizing Vo lunteers," World Volun-teer Web, (September 27), (accessed September 5, 2012),[available at http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/resources/how-to-guides/manage-vo lunteers/doc/reco gnizing-vo lunteers.html].Miller, Dale T. (1999), "The Norm of Self-Interest," AmericanPsychologist, 54 (12), 1053-60.Mo o re, Sarah E.H. (2008), Ribbon Cu lture: Charity, Compassion,and Pub lic Awareness. New Yo rk; Palgrave Macmillan.Peloza, John and Derek N. Hassay (2006), "Intra-organizationalVolunteerism; Goo d So ldiers, Good Deeds and Goo d Po litics,"Journal of Business Ethics, 64 (4), 357-79.Peterson, D ane K . (2004), "Recruitment Strategies for Encourag-ing Participation in Co rporate Vo lunteer Pro grams," Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 49 (4), 371-86.Preacher, K risto pher J., Derek D . Rucker, and Andrew F. Hayes(2007), "Addressing Mo derated Mediatio n Hypo theses;Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions." Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 42 (\), 1 8 5 - 2 2 7 .Prince, Russ Alan and K aren M aru File (1994), The Seven Facesof Philanthropy: A New Approach to Cultivating MajorDonors. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.Reed, Americus and K arl Aquino (2003), "Moral Identity and theExpanding Circle of Moral Regard Towards Out-Groups,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (6),1270-86.

, , and Eric Levy (2007), "Mo ral Identity and Judments of Charitable Behaviors," Journal of Marketing, 7(January), 178-93 .-, Mark Forehand, Stefano Puntoni, and Luk Warlop (2012"Identity-Based Consumer Behavior," International Journal Research in Marketing: Special Issues on Consum er Identitie29 (4), 310-21.Reynolds, Scott J. and Tara L. Ceranic (2007), "The Effects Moral Judgment and Moral Identity on Moral Behavior; AEmpirical Examination of the Moral individual," Journal Applied Psychology, 92 (6), 1610-24.Schlegelmilch, Bodo and Caroline Tynan (1989), "The Scope fMarket Segmentation Within the Charity Market; An EmpiricAnalysis," Managerial and Decision Economics, 10 (2127-34.Schlenker, Barry R. and Michael F. Weigold (1992), "Interpesonal Processes Involving Impression Regulation and Managment," Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (1), 133-68.Shang, Jen, Americus Reed II, and Rachel Croson (2008), "Identity Congruency Effects on Donations," Journal of MarketinResearch, 45 (June), 351-61.Skarlicki, Daniel, Danielle van Jaarsveld, and David Walk(2008), "Getting Even for Custo mer Mistreatment; The Ro le Moral Identity in the Relationship Between Customer Intepersonal Injustice and Emplo yee Sabo tage," Journal of AppliePsychology, 93 (6), 1335-47.Sw ann, William B ., Jr. (198 3), "Self-Verificatio n; Bringing So ciReality into Harmony with the Self," in Psychological Pespectives on the Self, Vol. 2, J. Suis and A.G. Greenwald, eHillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 33-66.Taute, Harry and Shaun McQuitty (2004), "Feeling Good! DoinGood! An Exploratory Look at the Impulsive Purchase of thSocial Good," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,

(2), 16-27.White, K atherine and John Peloza (2009 ), "Self-Benefit VersOther-Benefit Marketing Appeals; Their Effectiveness in Geerating Charitable Support," Journal of Marketing, 73 (July109-124.Winterich, K aren Page, Vikas Mittal, and William T. Ro ss (2009), "Donation Behavior Toward In-Groups and OuGroups; The Role of Gender and Moral Identity," Journal Consumer Research, 36 (2), 199-214., Yinlong Zhang, and Vikas Mittal (2012), "How PoliticIdentity and Charity Positioning Increase Donations; Insighfrom Moral Foundations Theory," International Journal Research in Marketing, 29 (December; Special Issue on Cosumer Identities), 346-54.Wymer, Walter and Sridhar Samu (2002), "Volunteer Service Symbo lic Co nsumption; Gender and Occupational Differencin Vo lunteering," Journal of Marketing Management, 18 (9971-89.Zhou, Xinyue, Tim Wildschut, Constantine Sedikides, Kan Shand Cong Feng (20 12), "Nostalgia; The Gift That K eeps Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 39-50 .

134 / Journa l of Market ing , May 2013


15/15

Copyright of Journal of Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	atri-roy
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Recognition and Charitable Behaviour AMA

Documents