Perceived corporate social responsibility and donor behavior in college athletics: the mediating effects of trust and commitment.
Ko, Yong Jae ; Rhee, Yong Chae ; Kim, Yu Kyoum 等
Introduction
"It is for a great cause and is a reminder to our fans and
alums that we need to help those less fortunate and give back to our
communities ..."
--Jim Johnson, MIAA commissioner
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an important
marketing and communication activity for organizations around the world.
CSR is believed to create a significant and positive impact on the image
and long-term success of sport organizations (Becker-Olsen et al.,
2006). Davis and Blomstrom (1975) define CSR as "the managerial
obligation to take action to protect and improve both the welfare of
society as a whole and the interest of organizations" (p. 6). CSR
is a significant theme underpinning moral, financial, and ethical
judgments of corporate activity (Lockett et al., 2006; Windsor, 2006).
CSR begins where the law ends, and a firm is not being socially
responsible if it merely complies with the requirements of the law
(Davis, 1973). CSR implies bringing corporate behavior up to a level
where it is congruent with the prevailing social norms and values of
corporate performance (Sethi, 1975).
In response to the expectation for social responsibility, many
sport organizations, including college athletic programs, have
implemented CSR activities over the past decade (Babiak & Wolfe,
2009). Additionally, most professional sport teams have even fostered
CSR participation through their charitable foundations (Babiak &
Wolfe, 2009). Various levels of CSR activities have been implemented
within the sport industry. For example, at the league level, CSR
activities include a wide range of activities such as the National
Basketball Association's "NBA Cares" initiative and Major
League Baseball's "Reviving Baseball in the Inner City"
(RBI) program to support social causes. Additionally, teams/franchises
have their own CSR programs focused on the connection between the team
and the local community (e.g., Rays Baseball Foundation). Many athletes
also take part in CSR programs, or encourage others to participate, by
donating through their own foundations (Kott, 2005; e.g., Annika
Foundation, Peyton Manning's PeyBack Foundation). According to
Porter and Kramer (2006), CSR activities should be viewed as building
shared value rather than as a PR campaign. Four prevailing
justifications for CSR include moral obligation, sustainability, license
to operate, and reputation. To link corporate social responsibility and
competitive advantage, an organization should identify the particular
set of societal problems that it is best equipped to help resolve and
from which it can gain the greatest competitive benefit.
The enhancement of positive image and reputation through
well-planned CSR activities is equally important for organizations such
as college athletic departments. Many college athletic programs
currently utilize various types of CSR activities to (re)build positive
images of the organizations among key stakeholders, particularly donors.
In fact, college athletics have multiple levels of CSR activities that
involve numerous initiatives. The National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) has the Achieving Coaching Excellence Program. This
initiative promotes racial and ethnic diversity in the coaching ranks of
the NCAA (NCAA, 2011). The Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics
Association launched multiple food drives as part of their philanthropic
efforts (Moses, 2010). Additionally, student athletes participate in CSR
initiatives available in their local communities. For example, they
volunteer for summer reading programs and food drives, and work with law
enforcements to educate youth delinquency.
Researchers across multiple academic disciplines have attempted to
measure the effects of implementing CSR activities. Marketing
researchers have provided empirical support for the benefits CSR
creates, such as enhanced organizational perceptions (Brown & Dacin,
1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), brand image, and purchase behavior
(Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006).
The impact of CSR initiatives on image enhancement has received the most
attention from academicians (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). For example,
Babiak and Wolfe (2006) found that by implementing CSR activities (i.e.,
fundraising events for local charity), the NFL and Super Bowl XL
organizing committee helped reduce people's criticisms of the
NFL's unethical activity and improve its reputation and image.
Although CSR activities among sport organizations arguably have a
greater potential impact than other business segments-due in part to
various advantages such as an increased media exposure of events,
leagues, teams, and celebrity athletes (Headlee, 2006)-surprisingly
there have been few attempts to systematically examine a theoretical
framework that helps explain how CSR works in the minds of consumers.
More specifically, efforts to better understand CSR and its application
in college sports are lacking (Polite, Waller, Trendafilova, &
Spearman, 2012).
Athletics departments produce revenue, yet also depend on
supplemental income through private donation (philanthropy) to be
financially viable (c.f., charitable hybrids; Brady, Noble, Utter, &
Smith, 2002).
Alumni and other booster-supported gifts represent one of the main
ways that many college athletic programs secure multi-million dollar
budgets, offset budget shortfalls, and run their day-to-day operations
(Tucker, 2004). In 2009, cash contributions from alumni and others was
the second largest income source after ticket sales for NCAA Division I
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). Ticket income represented approximately
28% (with median values of $9,027,000) of overall athletic revenue
($31,746,000), while cash contributions represented 21% (with median
values of $6,696,000; Fulks, 2009). The largest income source for
Division II with Football programs was cash contributions (36% of the
total revenue of $540,600; Fulks, 2009).
In light of the growing importance of private donors to the
sustainability of athletic programs, it is important to develop a
clearer understanding of donors' decision making process. A
successful donor program requires not only institutional leadership,
athletic success (Stinson, & Howard, 2007, 2008), and a culture of
philanthropy (Cermak, File, & Prince, 1994), but also a deeper
understanding of the donors' perceived image, trust, and commitment
toward the organization induced by CSR activities and their decisions to
give. To fully realize the business opportunities from these activities,
university fundraisers need to have a clear understanding of the effect
that CSR initiatives can have on both psychological and behavioral
outcomes. In the sport marketing and management literature to date,
scholarly work has been limited to donor motives (Ko, Rhee, Walder,
& Lee, 2013; Mahony, Gladden, & Funk, 2005; Verner, Hecht, &
Fransler, 1998) and their demographic characteristics.
Given this commentary, the purpose of the current study was to
advance our understanding of the role that donors' CSR perceptions
play in consumer decision making by (a) identifying key consequences of
CSR perceptions and (b) examining theoretical relationships between the
selected research variables in a fundraising context. To achieve this
purpose, a model was developed and tested examining whether donor
perceptions of a university's CSR positively influenced their trust
in the organization, commitment to the organization, and behavioral
(i.e., donation) intentions.
Theoretical Background
Trust is defined as "the perception of confidence in the
exchange partner's reliability and integrity" (Morgan &
Hunt, 1994, p.23). More specifically, Hosmer (1995) noted that
"trust is the expectation by one person, group, or firm of
ethically justifiable behavior-that is, morally correct decisions and
actions based upon ethical principles of analysis-on the part of the
other person, group, or firm in a joint endeavor or economic
exchange" (p. 399). Trust has been recognized as an important area
of inquiry in a variety of academic disciplines (Dwyer, Schurr, &
Oh, 1987; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Recently, scholars in the business
literature have explored CSR as a way to build trust among various
stakeholders (Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, & Tencati, 2009).
Khandelwal and Mohendra (2010) understood CSR as "what
business puts back-and can show it puts back-in return for the benefits
it receives from the society" (p. 21). The fundamental idea of CSR
is that business entities have an obligation to contribute to the
welfare of society (Davis & William, 1984) and to work for social
betterment (Frederick, 1986). As a result of the advancement of CSR
knowledge, several theories have been used to elucidate the concept. The
importance of CSR is often explained by Milton Freeman's
stakeholder and stewardship theory. In the context of stakeholder
theory, managers must satisfy a variety of constituents (e.g., workers,
customers, suppliers, and local community organizations) who ultimately
have the ability to influence the firm (Donaldson & Davis, 1991). On
the other hand, stewardship theory includes an emphasis on altruistic
intents and is grounded in the idea that managers face certain moral
imperatives to 'do the right thing,' regardless of impact on
firms' financial performances (Donaldson & Davis, 1991). By
addressing the institutional theory and classical economic theory to
CSR, Jones (1995) concluded that companies involved in repeated
transactions with stakeholders on the basis of trust and cooperation are
motivated to be honest, trustworthy, and ethical because the returns of
such behaviors are high.
Some have applied social exchange theory to explain CSR activities.
For example, Aguilera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi (2007) maintained
that if an organization seems fair, then employees (internal customers)
will believe the organization will treat them fairly. They further
stated that the perception of fair treatment increases employees'
trust toward the organization and sense of support. This perceived
organizational support (POS) is defined as employees' "...
global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values
their contributions and cares about their well-being" (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501), which can be perceived
as high-quality social exchange relationships with the organization. As
previously mentioned, the fundamental idea behind CSR engagement is that
organizations have an obligation to contribute to the welfare of society
(Davis & William, 1984) and work for social betterment (Frederick,
1986). In short, CSR is perceived as a return for society.
Social identity theory is often used to explain the effects (e.g.,
employee commitment) of implementing CSR activities. Turker (2006)
stated that "if employees perceive their organization as being a
socially responsible member of society, the sense of belongingness to
this favorable reputable organization can enhance their
self-concepts" (p.191). Several researchers have suggested that
leaders of corporations perceive that they receive benefits from CSR
because it increases corporate attractiveness to current and potential
employees (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Greening & Turban, 2000).
These findings have led researchers to suggest that CSR practices send a
positive message to potential workers and that they are likely to
develop identification with a responsible organization, especially if
their values are consistent with promoted practices (Strand, Levine,
& Montgomery, 1981). Wood et al. (1996) reported that people had a
tendency to identify with the valuable group and would not identify with
the group that had been dishonored. Thus, associating with a positively
valued group is important in order for a group member to maintain their
positive identity.
Garriga and Mele (2004) summarized different motives of CSR
implementation by using four theoretical domains: (a) instrumental
theories (achieving economic objectives through social activities), (b)
political theories (responsible use of business power in the political
arena), (c) integrative theories (integration of social demands), and
(d) ethical theories (right thing to achieve a something good in the
society). Specifically, Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, and Avramidis
(2008) examined how consumers' perceptions of an
organization's motives for engaging in CSR actions influences
trust. The authors utilized Ellen et al.'s (2006) four types of
motives and found that egoistic-driven attributions (exploiting the
cause rather than helping it) and stakeholder-driven attributions (the
support of social causes solely because of pressure from stakeholders)
negatively influence consumer trust, while value-driven attributions
(benevolence-motivated donation) positively influence consumer trust
toward organizations.
Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) also noted that if customers believe
that a company focuses on CSR activities without making efforts to
produce a quality product, these CSR activities lead to negative
consequences (e.g., large-scale consumer boycotts, damage in brand
images, or decrease in sales). In terms of fit, Becker-Olsen et al.
(2006) found that good fit (i.e., high levels of perceived relatedness)
between CSR activity and organization led to positive results, including
improvement in consumer attitudes and behavioral intention. Although CSR
received tremendous attention from scholars in a variety of fields such
as business marketing and (sport) management, the question of whether or
not CSR driven attitudes and perceptions can affect the behavior of
donors of university athletic programs has not been examined to date.
A Research Model and Hypotheses Development
By applying the aforementioned social exchange and identity
theories, a research model was developed to examine the theoretical
relationships between perceived CSR, trust, commitment, and future
behavioral intention. We propose that donor perceptions of CSR programs
directly influence their belief, trust, commitment, and future giving
toward an athletic department (see Figure 1). Concurrently, we
postulated that trust and commitment will mediate the relationship
between perceived CSR and donor intentions.
CSR and Trust
Pivato, Misani, and Tencati (2008) asserted that CSR was positively
related to consumers' trust, especially when consumers are faced
with information asymmetries (i.e., when they are in a vulnerable
position such as risk of opportunism by the seller). In such cases, the
act of purchasing is strongly dependent on the belief that the seller
will maintain its promises and instill trust in the mind of the
consumer. In the context of CSR, the more consumers perceive an
organization as socially responsible, the more they will trust products
sold by that organization. Therefore, CSR inspires consumers' trust
and could effectively solidify consumers' belief in the quality of
the product.
Castaldo et al. (2009) found that consumer perceptions of an
organizations' sincere reputation for CSR had a positive effect on
trust toward fair trade products. Recently, Choi and La (2013) found a
positive relationship between perceived CSR and trust toward the
organization. The authors indicated that recognized CSR positively
influenced customers' trust toward organizations, particularly
after service failure and the recovery process. Based on the preceding,
the following hypothesis was developed:
H1: Donors' CSR perceptions are positively related to their
trust.
CSR and Commitment
In the organizational theory literature, the concept of commitment
refers to (a) acceptance of the goals and values of an organization, (b)
the willingness to exert effort towards organizational goal
accomplishments, and (c) strong desire to maintain organizational
membership (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Reichers,
1985). When individuals develop organizational commitment, they
experience a sense of identification and involvement with an
organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996).
Scholars have determined that CSR initiatives increase
employees' commitment with the organization (Brammer, Millington,
& Rayton, 2007; Collier & Esteban, 2007), which also increases
labor retention and staff performance (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch,
& Topolnytsky, 2002). Specifically, CSR-targeted philanthropy,
community relations, and an ethical stance toward consumers (Carroll,
1979) is positively related with organizational commitment. Recently,
Turker (2009) identified that organizations' CSR toward social,
employees, and customers significantly influenced employees'
organizational commitment. The implication here is that when an
organization is engaged in CSR activities, employees develop a greater
degree of commitment with the company and, in turn, support the
organization through a higher level of retention and increased job
performance.
In a similar vein, Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig (2004)
examined the relationship between CSR and customer donations to
corporate-supported nonprofit organizations and found the mediating role
of customer-corporate (C-C) identification in the link. That is, when
consumers perceive an organization as socially responsible, the
organization is a more attractive target for C-C identification, and the
customers are more likely to support corporations with which they
identify (Lichtenstein et al., 2004). Additionally, Martin, Ruiz, and
Rubio (2009) found the link is stronger when consumers have a high level
of identity salience, which is defined as "the extent to which
specific identity information dominates a person's working
memory" (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003, p.82).
Although there has not been empirical research on how CSR helps
develop 'commitment' among donors of college athletics, based
on the findings of prior studies, it is anticipated that:
H2. Donors' CSR perceptions are positively related to their
organizational commitment.
CSR and Donation Intention
Prior research has indicated that CSR activities positively affect
a consumer's attitude toward an organization and product (Brown
& Dacin, 1997; Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000), brand image (Luo
& Bhattacharya, 2006), company and products evaluation (Brown &
Dacin, 1997), and behavior intention (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Frame,
2005; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Brown and Dacin (1997) found that
when customers were aware of an organization's CSR activities,
those activities influenced their overall evaluation of the company and
its products. Positive reputation toward an organization ultimately
increases willingness of donation (Dean, 2003; Mews & Boenigk,
2013).
Using an experimental setting with MBA students, Sen and
Bhattacharya (2001) further examined the relationship between CSR and
customers' purchase intention. The authors reported that CSR could
both positively and negatively impact customers' behavioral
intention. Customers' belief about an organization's CSR
activities positively influenced purchase intention. Lichtenstein et al.
(2004) also found that CSR activities positively influenced donation
behavior through C-C identification. In sum, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Donors' CSR perceptions are positively related to donation
intention.
Trust and Commitment
In the relationship marketing literature, scholars have often used
social exchange theory to explain trust and commitment (Dwyer et al.,
1987; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). To gain the loyalty of customers, an
organization must first gain their trust (Reichheld & Schefter,
2000). It is hard to expect commitment without trust because
relationships founded on the basis of trust are highly valued, and both
parties desire to commit themselves to such relationships (Hrebiniak,
1974). Scholars in previous studies (Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan &
Hunt, 1994) noted that trust is a major determinant of relationship
commitment. Trust enhances commitment by: (a) reducing the perception of
risk associated with opportunistic behaviors by the partner, (b)
increasing the confidence that short-term inequities will be resolved
over a long period, and (c) reducing the transaction costs in an
exchange relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Shamdasani & Sheth,
1995).
Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002) examined the relationship
between trust and loyalty and found that trust significantly and
positively influenced customer loyalty. In their study, loyalty was
operationalized as an intention to perform a diverse set of behaviors
that indicate motivation to maintain a relationship with a firm.
Sargeant and Lee (2004b) examined a similar relationship between trust
and commitment in the donor behavior context. Although the various
actions can be indicative of trust, the authors focused on four specific
behaviors (i.e., relationship investment, mutual influence, forbearance
from opportunism, and com munication acceptance). They reported that all
four trust behaviors significantly influenced donors' commitment.
In addition, among the four trust behaviors, forbearance from
opportunism and communication acceptance made the strongest contribution
to commitment. As such, we hypothesized:
H4. Donors' trust is positively related to their
organizational commitment.
Trust and Donation Intention
The concept of trust lies at the heart of charity (Herzlinger,
1996). A number of authors have highlighted the critical role that trust
played in defining both the credibility and legitimacy of a particular
charity. Such credibility is thought to create a higher moral tone in
the minds of key stakeholder groups such as supporters, media, and
general public (Sumption, 1995). Trust ultimately facilitates support
and stimulation of donation. As Melendez (2001, p. 121) noted, "...
donors do not contribute to organizations they do not trust and about
which they do not feel confident."
Sargeant and Lee (2004b) examined the relationship between the four
trust behaviors and donor behavior. Donation behavior was significantly
and directly influenced by all four trust behaviors. Among the four
trust behaviors, forbearance from opportunism was the most significant
contributor to donor behavior. Scholars also found that charities
perceived as wasteful had more difficulty raising funds (Saxon-Harrold
et al., 1987; Schlegelmilch et al., 1997), whereas others have focused
on the negative impact of charity fund mismanagement (c.f., Greenlee
& Gordon, 1997; Ormstedt, 1994). Tempel (1999) noted that
"...broken promises, misapplied donor funds, underestimated
administrative and fund-raising costs, and other organizational problems
have become (real) problems for fundraisers as they struggle to foster
trust in their organization" (p. 53). Sargeant and Lee (2002)
tested this assertion by exploring the role of service quality in
predicting donor trust. The authors demonstrated that high quality
services need to be provided to donors because key dimensions of service
quality (e.g., reflecting donor needs in communications, responsiveness,
and empathy) can be managed and developed by fundraisers in a bid to
foster trust and ultimately, giving. From these findings, the authors
hypothesize the following:
H5. Donors' trust is positively related to their donation
intention.
Commitment and Donation Intention
The role of commitment in predicting donation behavior has been
well-documented in the marketing literature. For example, Bani and
Strepparava (2011) identified the role of commitment in blood donor
behavior. They indicated that the level of commitment toward the donor
organization positively influenced the total and annual blood donation
participations and recruitment of new blood donors. Sargeant and Lee
(2004a) examined the relationship among trust, commitment, and donation
behavior using donors of a charity. The authors identified that the
mediating effect of commitment toward a charity organization explained
far more donation behavior than the direct effect of trust. Although
trust had a significant effect on donation, building trust alone is not
the optimal approach, because in the absence of commitment, the impact
of enhanced trust on giving would be greatly reduced. Accordingly, this
study proposes:
H6. Donors' organizational commitment is positively related to
their giving intention.
H7. Donors' organizational commitment plays a mediating role
in the relationship between trust and giving intention.
Method
Participants
The target population of this study was donors to an athletic
program in a NCAA Division I-A university. This athletic program is
engaged in numerous CSR activities (e.g., educational and community
initiatives, and community-based environmental programs). An example is
"The Green Game," through which the program encourages fans to
behave in an environmentally friendly manner (e.g., recycling). An email
invitation to complete an online questionnaire was sent to approximately
7,500 donors. A total of 816 responded for an 11% response rate. One
hundred seventy-two surveys were deemed unusable due to invalid
responses (e.g., blank, double answers, etc.) and were therefore
eliminated, leaving 644 usable surveys. The average age of the
participants was 56 years old (M = 56.19, SD = 12.15) ranging from 19 to
89 years old. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were male and 22%
were female. Most of the participants were White (75%), followed by
Hispanic (22%), Asian (.5%), and African-American (.3%). The average
income of the participants was $142,784. The average annual donation was
$6,212 and average lifetime donation was $82,010.
Measures
Twelve measures for key constructs (i.e., CSR perception, Trust,
Commitment, and Donation Intentions) were adopted from existing scales.
Each construct was measured by three items. The source, validity, and
reliability of the scale items are summarized in Table 1 and 2. Items
measuring demographic characteristics of participants were also included
in the questionnaire. To avoid response bias from order effect, the
items were randomly placed in the questionnaire.
Measures for trust were adopted from Crosby et al.'s (1990;
two items) and Palmatier et al.'s (2007; one item) scales. Donor
commitment was measured by Psychological Commitment to Team scale
developed by Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard (2000). CSR measures were
adopted from Walsh and Beaty's (2007; one item) and Brammer et
al.'s (2007; two items) studies. Behavioral (donation) intention
was measured by multiple semantic-type scales used in prior studies
(Bagozzi et al., 2004; Petrova & Cialdini, 2005; Yi, 1990). They
include, "My future intention to purchase this product is:
Impossible-Possible; Very unlikely-- Very likely;
Improbable--Probable." The response format for all other items was
a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree.
Data Analysis and Procedure
Test of Assumptions
Prior to the main analyses, we examined all the variables using
various SPSS programs and Mplus programs for accuracy of data entry,
outliers, and fit between the characteristics of the data and the
critical assumptions of various SEM techniques used in this study. We
assessed linearity of the observed variables by examining randomly
selected pairs of scatterplots using SPSS Graphs because it was not
practical to examine all pairwise scatterplots to evaluate linearity.
When linearity assumptions are violated, data transformation can be used
as a remedy. To evaluate normality, we performed the Shapiro-Wilk
(Shapiro & Wilk, 1965) and modified Kolmogorov-Smirov tests
(D'Agostino et al., 1990) using the Explore analysis available in
SPSS 18.0 (SPSS, 2009). We obtained Mardia's (1985) multivariate
skewness and kurtosis coefficients to evaluate multivariate normality;
these were available through PRELIS 2.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2006).
When the normality assumption is violated enough to cause problems with
the SEM analysis, hypothesized models can be estimated with maximum
likelihood estimation but tested with Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square
statistic (SB [chi square], 1994). Accordingly, model fit indices depend
on chisquare statistic should be adjusted based on SB [chi square].
Measurement Model & Simultaneous Equations Model
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate
psychometric properties of the scales. Goodness of fit indices used to
evaluate overall fit of the model in the current study were the CFI in
conjunction with standard root mean squared residual (SRMR) following Hu
and Bentler (1999). A cutoff-value close to .95 or higher for CFI in
combination with a cutoff value close to (less than) .09 for SRMR was
recommended (Hu & Bentler). Additionally, we used the
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), which is thought to
reduce problems with incremental fit indices (e.g., CFI) and absolute
fit indices (e.g., GFI) according to Brown and Cudeck (1992). RMSEA
values of less than .06 indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler); values of
.08 or less would represent reasonable fit, and values higher than .10
indicate poor fit (Brown & Cudeck). Furthermore, we used the
weighted mean square residual (WRMR), which is more appropriate with
categorical data or non-normal continuous data (Muthen & Muthen,
2010). WRMR values under 1.0 indicate good fit and smaller values
demonstrate better fit (Yu & Muthen, 2002).
We employed a structural equation modeling (SEM) method (Raykov,
1997; 2001) to obtain the scale reliability because Raykov's method
is recommended to provide a less biased estimate than Cronbach's
coefficient alpha (a; Cronbach, 1951) in all types of measurement models
except for essentially T-equivalent models (Graham, 2006). We tested
discriminant validity for each of the factors through the procedure that
involves [chi square] difference test between a model in which two
individual factors are constrained to be 1.0 (i.e., the two factors are
perfectly correlated) and a model where the correlation between two
factors are freely estimated. If the unrestricted model without the
unity constraints fits the model fit significantly better, it might be
inferred that the two factors are distinct in the population. We also
used AVE values to evaluate discriminant validity of the constructs.
Results from the each analysis above were considered collectively in
reaching a final decision regarding which items and factors to retain
and which to eliminate. To examine the relationship among the constructs
of interest, we conducted a simultaneous equations model, which
incorporated the four research constructs (CSR, Trust, Commitment, and
Donation) using Mplus 6.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010).
Results
Test of Assumptions
None of the research variables had greater than 15% missing data,
nor did any case have greater than 10% missing data. In addition, we
assessed the missing data pattern by testing (t-test) each variable if
cases with missing and non-missing values on the variable showed mean
differences from the other variables. This test indicated that no
significant mean differences (p > .05) existed for any group
comparison. Thus, a non-random pattern of missing data was statistically
unlikely to be present (Hair et al., 2009) and listwise deletion was
deemed a suitable treatment for questionnaires with missing data; as a
result there were 636 usable questionnaires. We examined randomly
selected pairs of scatterplots using SPSS Graphs and found no evidence
of apparent nonlinear relationships between any pair of variables.
The data did not meet the normality assumption. All the variables
significantly deviated from normality in both the Shapiro-Wilk test and
the modified Kolmogorov-Smirov test. In addition, the standardized
Mardia's coefficient of skewness and kurtosis were 45.26 and 25.48.
To alleviate the normality issues, we used the Satorra-Bentler (1994)
scaling method to obtain a model [chi square]. We also adjusted the
Satorra-Bentler scaled [chi square] (S-B [chi square]) following Satorra
and Bentler (2001) to perform the [chi square] difference tests. After
performing these tests, the data adequately met the critical assumptions
except the normality assumption, and were deemed suitable for further
testing with the adjustments to the analysis as noted.
Measurement Model
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate
psychometric properties of the scales. The correlations among observed
variables are presented in the Table 1. Based on the criteria discussed
above section, the measurement model fit the data well (S-B [chi
square]/df= 239.98/48 = 5.00, CFI = .96, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .08, WRMR =
1.0). All reliability coefficients were greater than .70, ranging from
.87 to .97 (see Table 2). All factor loadings were significant in the
predicted direction (p < .001; loadings ranging from .80 to .99). All
the average variance extracted (AVE) values were greater than .50
ranging from .69 to .92. Thus, our measures showed good evidence of
convergent validity and reliability (Hair et al., 2009).
We used three different methods to assess evidence of discriminant
validity of the factors (see Table 1). First, factor correlations were
examined to determine if any correlations were .85 or larger (Kline,
2005). None of the correlations present above .85 (see Table 1). Second,
we examined evidence of discriminant validity by conducting multiple
[chi square] difference tests of unity between all pairs of latent
factors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The unconstrained model
(correlation estimated freely) fits the data significantly better than
constrained model (correlation between a pair of factors constrained as
1) in all comparisons (the smallest adjusted AS-B [chi square] was
141.81, p < .001). Third, AVE values for all constructs are greater
than the corresponding squared inter-factor correlations (Fornell &
Larker, 1981). Taken together, the results provided evidence of
discriminant validity.
Simultaneous Equations Model
We tested the hypothesized model using simultaneous equations model
with Mplus 6.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010). Based on the criteria
discussed in the previous section, the model fit the data well (S-B [chi
square]/df= 239.98/48 = 5.00, CFI = .96, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .08, WRMR =
1.0). The path coefficients estimates are reported in Table 3.
The direct path from CSR to Trust was significant (standardized y =
.80, S.E. = .02), supporting hypothesis 1. The direct path from Trust to
Commitment was also significant (standardized [beta] = .56, S.E. = .08),
supporting hypothesis 4. The indirect path from CSR through Trust to
Commitment was significant (standardized y = .45, S.E. = .07) as well.
This result indicates that the strength of the indirect path from CSR
through Trust to Commitment was significantly greater than the direct
path from CSR to Commitment. These results indicate that Trust
significantly mediates the relationship between CSR and Commitment
(Iacobucci et al., 2007). In addition, regarding hypothesis 4, the
direct path from CSR to Commitment was still significant (standardized y
= .21, S.E. = .08) when statistically controlling for Trust; this
indicates partial mediation.
The direct path from Trust to Commitment was significant
(standardized [beta] = .56, S.E. = .08), supporting hypothesis 5. The
direct path from Commitment to Donation was also significant
(standardized [beta] = .80, S.E. = .05), supporting hypothesis 6. The
indirect path from Trust through Commitment to Donation was significant
(standardized [gamma] = .45, S.E. = .07) as well. This result indicates
that the strength of the indirect path from Trust through Commitment to
Donation was significantly greater than the direct path from Trust to
Donation. These results indicate that Commitment is a significant
mediator in the relationship between Trust and Donation (Iacobucci et
al, 2007). In addition, regarding hypothesis 5, the direct path from
Trust to Donation was not significant (standardized [beta] = -.05, S.E.
= .06) when statistically controlling for Commitment; this indicates
full mediation.
Discussion
A sport organization's success comes from a strong fan base,
and a strong fan base can be developed through successful relationship
building with target consumers (Buhler & Nuffer, 2010). Trust and
commitment are known key factors in building a healthy and successful
relationship (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Therefore, it is essential that
sport organizations develop consumer trust and commitment. CSR programs
have become a popular tool used for these purposes even in collegiate
sport (Polite, Waller, Trendafilova, & Spearman, 2011; Trendafilova,
Pfahl, & Casper, 2013). However, consumers' CSR perception and
its relationship with their attitudinal and behavioral responses have
not been systematically assessed. In the current study, the authors
examined the role of donors' CSR perceptions in predicting donation
intention in the context of college sport.
Authors posited that a donor's perception of CSR initiative of
an organization would influence the donor's trust on the
organization (H1). The results provided empirical evidence of the
significant positive effect of CSR perception on Trust, which was
consistent with the findings of prior studies in profit (Pivato et al.,
2008) and nonprofit contexts (Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Sargeant &
Lee, 2004b). This result further supports McKnight et al.'s (1998)
finding that customers would quickly trust in an organization without
other tangible evidence if the image of the organization was good. CSR
may create a favorable context that positively enhances consumers'
attitude toward an organization (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Giirhan-Canli
& Batra, 2004; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). As such, we conclude
that consumers' perceived CSR in an athletic program positively
influenced their trust toward the organization.
The authors hypothesized that a donor's perceived CSR would
positively influence the donor's organizational commitment (H2).
The empirical results of the current study support that perception of
CSR had a significant direct effect on commitment. That is, when
athletic programs are believed to engage in CSR activity, it is likely
that donor commitment to the organization will increase. When an
athletic program undertakes a CSR initiative, the initiative signals to
donors that the program has traits that overlap with their self-concept
(e.g., civic minded, and compassionate). As a result, donors develop
higher degrees of commitment and show behavioral intention to support
the organization (Lichtenstein et al., 2004).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The authors predicted that a donor's trust would positively
influence the donor's organizational commitment (H4). The results
also indicate that there is a significant direct effect of trust on
commitment. This is consistent with previous research indicating that
trust is an essential ingredient for enhancing commitment (Achrol,
1991). Interestingly, the results do not provide evidence to support
trust predicting donation intention (H5). Lastly, the authors
hypothesized that commitment would have a positive influence on giving
intention (H6). The results lead us to conclude there is a direct effect
of commitment on donor intention. The result is consistent with the
previous findings of Waters (2011) and Sargeant and Lee (2004a). Their
studies were done in a similar context (i.e., nonprofit donation),
indicating there is a strong relationship between commitment and
donation behavior. It is suggested that a donor's commitment to the
organization is one of the most critical factors in the donor's
intention to give (Merchant et al., 2011; Sargeant et al., 2006).
However, the results of the current study indicate that perceived
CSR did not directly influence donor behavior. A significant mediating
effect of trust was found in the relationship between CSR perception and
commitment. This indirect effect was stronger when compared to the
direct effect. This concurs with the findings of previous studies (e.g.,
Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Dwyer et al., 1987). Within the business
context where a relationship already exists, higher levels of commitment
will be generated by virtue of the presence of trust; higher levels of
both sales and loyalty will accrue as a consequence (Anderson &
Weitz, 1989; Dwyer et al., 1987). The results of the current study
indicate that the mediating effect of trust may produce similar
consequences in donor behavior in the college sport context. Thus, it is
of great importance to build strong trust among existing and potential
donors as it leads to a positive and long-term relationship.
Lastly, we hypothesized the mediating effect of commitment on the
relationship between trust and giving intention (H7). Commitment was
found to be a significant mediator in the relationship. This result is
consistent with previous research findings that the linkage between
trust and behavioral intentions is often fully or partially mediated by
commitment (c.f., Bansal et al., 2004; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999;
Sargeant & Lee, 2004a). More specifically, the more trust donors
have, the stronger psychological bond they will have with the athletic
program, which in turn increases their donation intention.
In sum, CSR initiatives were found to positively influence
consumers' donation intentions only indirectly with the mediating
effect of organizational commitment. This is inconsistent with the
findings of previous research on CSR and corporate financial performance
(e.g., Brown & Dacin, 1997; Schuler & Cording, 2006; Waddock
& Graves, 1997). Researchers found that CSR activities have a
positive influence on the financial performance of the company. However,
these researchers did not factor in the mediation effect of commitment
in their studies. The results of the current study provide evidence why
CSR initiatives do not always lead to financial success. When
organizations have an underlying business-oriented motive behind their
CSR activity, donors may not support the cause as observed in the case
of Greenwashing of ExxonMobil and BP. In such cases, the practice of CSR
is often viewed with skepticism (Lee et al., 2008; Vlachos et al.,
2009). To ensure successful results of CSR initiatives, organizations
must understand the role of CSR in building commitment, which ultimately
enhances giving intention. CSR initiative alone will not bring financial
success to the organization.
The findings reported above provide additional insights into the
strategic understanding of the donors' decision-making process.
Fundraisers may be able to significantly enhance their understanding of
CSR communication and its role in building trust and commitment among
their key donor groups. Developing a clearer understanding of
donors' decision-making processes is critical because donors may
already have a certain level of organizational commitment. The goodwill
generated by well-designed CSR initiatives may lower donors'
defense mechanisms and skepticisms against organizations'
pre-existing marketing communications.
Limitations and Future Research
Before drawing conclusions, several limitations need to be
addressed. Identification of these potential issues should assist future
research endeavors in this area of scholarship. First, the proposed
model was developed to test the impact of donors' CSR perceptions
on trust and commitment toward an organization, and donation intention
in the context of college athletics. Additional work is necessary to
examine whether the proposed theoretical model is applicable to various
other segments of nonprofit sectors (e.g., YMCA and numerous sport
foundations). Second, the psycho metric properties of the model were
tested using a delimited sample (i.e., donors of one athletic program).
Thus, the findings cannot be generalized beyond this particular sample.
It should also be noted that the context for the data collection was
limited to a (arguably) very successful institution in terms of its
athletic performance. As such, athletic success might be an extraneous
factor that could bias the donors' responses. Lastly, the
respondents' donation motives may need to be considered to fully
understand the research findings. Replicating this study with a broader
and wider sampling frame in various sport contexts could help improve
the generalizability of the results.
Overall, we believe that the current study will contribute to the
body of knowledge of CSR and donor behavior. The results illustrate the
significant role of donor trust and commitment in predicting donor
behavior and the important role of CSR in building donor trust. As of
yet, the mediating role of trust and commitment has not been
investigated in the context of donor behavior in the sport industry.
Limited scholarly attention was given to this important issue, and as
such, further empirical study is warranted for the theoretical
understanding of CSR and donor behavior.
References
Achrol, R. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: New
forms for turbulent environments. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 77-93.
Aguilera, R. D. E., Williams, R. C., & Ganapathi, J. (2007).
Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level
theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
32, 836-863.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of
construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social
performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking
populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 243-253.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in
conventional industrial dyads. Marketing Science, 8, 310-323.
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2006). More than just a game?
Corporation social responsibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15, 214-222.
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate
social responsibility in professional sport: Internal and external
factors. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 717-742.
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, Y. (1992). State versus
action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to
coupon usage. Journal Consumer Research, 18, 505-518.
Baker, R., & Siryk, B. (1999). SACQ: Student adaptation to
college questionnaire manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Bani, M., & Streparava, M. G. (2011). Motivation in Italian
whole blood donors and the role of commitment. Psychology, Health &
Medicine, 16, 641-649.
Bansal, H., Irving, G., & Taylor, S. (2004). A three-component
model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 234-250.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, A. B., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The
impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer company
identification: A framework for understanding consumers'
relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.
Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E.
(2002). How to give and receive: An exploratory study of charitable
hybrids. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 919-944.
Brammer, B., Millington, A. & Rayton, B. (2007). The
contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational
commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18,
1701-1719.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternatives ways of
assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21 , 230-258.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the
product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal
of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of
corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009).
The missing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer
trust: The case of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 84,
1-15.
Cermak, D. S. P., File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1994). A
benefit segmentation of the major donor market. Journal of Business
Research, 29, 121-130.
Collier, J. & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social
responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics: A European
review, 16, 19-33.
Crosby, L., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship
quality in service selling: An interpersonal influence perspective.
Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68-81.
D'Agostino, R. B., Belanger, A., & D'Agostino, R. B.
(1990). A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of
normality. American Statistician, 44, 316-321.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for an against business assumption of
social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322.
Davis, K., & Blomstrong, R. L. (3rd Edition). (1975). Business
and Society: Environment and Responsibility. New York: McGraw Hill.
Davis, K., & Willaim, C. F. (1984). Business and society. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship Theory or
Agency Theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian
Journal of Management, 16, 49-64.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994).
Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing
buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 500-507.
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. (2000). Charitable
programs and the retailer: Do they mix?' Journal of Retailing, 76,
393-406.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research 18, 39-50.
Frame, B. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: A challenge for
the donor community. Development in Practice, 15, 422-432.
Frederick, W. C. (1986). Why ethical analysis is indispensable and
unavoidable in corporate affairs. California Management Review, 28,
126-141.
Fulks, D. L. (2010). Revenues and Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA
Division I intercollegiate athletics programs report. National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
Fulks, D. L. (2010). Revenues and Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA
Division II intercollegiate athletics programs report. National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of
satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.
Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility
theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51-71.
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent
estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930-944.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social
performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality
workforce. Business and Society, 39, 254-280.
Greenlee, J., & Gordon, T. (1997). The impact of professional
solicitors on fund-raising in charitable organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 277-299.
Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Batra, R. (2004). When corporate image
affects product evaluations: The moderating role of perceived risk.
Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 197-205.
Headlee, C. (2006). Environmental impact of Super Bowls on host
cities. Day to Day. National Public Radio. Retrieved Jan 31, 2006,
http:llwww.npr.org/templateslstoryl story.php?storyId=5180609
Herzlinger, R. E. (1996). Can public trust in non-profits and
governments be restored? Harvard Business Review, 74, 97-107.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on
employee attitudes and perceptions of influence. Academy of Management
Journal, 17, 649-662.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on
mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than
regression. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 139-153.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis
of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
Khandelwal, K. A., & Mohendra N. (2010). Espoused
organizational values, vision, and corporate social responsibility: Does
it matter to organizational members? VICALPA, 35(3), 19-35.
Kim, T., Chang, K., & Ko, Y. J. (2010). Determinants of
organisational identification and supportive intentions. Journal of
Marketing Management, 26, 413-427.
Ko, Y. J., Rhee, Y. C., Walker, M., & Lee, J. (2013). What
motivates donors to athletic programs: A new model of donor behavior.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, first published on march 4,
2013. doi:10.117710899764012472065.
Kott, A. (2005). The philanthropic power of sport. Foundation News
and Commentary JanlFeb, 20-25.
Lee, H., Park, T. K., Moon, H. K., Yang, Y. H., & Kim, C.
(2008). Corporate philanthropy, attitude towards corporations, and
purchase intentions: A South Korea study. Journal of Business Research,
62, 939-946.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004).
The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to
corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16-32.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social
responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and
sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115-136.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social
responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of
Marketing, 70, 1-18.
Mahony, D. F., Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2003). Examining
athletic donors at NCAA division I institutions. International Sports
Journal, 7, 9-27.
Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the
psychological commitment to team (pct) scale to segment sport consumers
based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 15-25.
Mardia, K. V. (1985). Mardia's test of multinormality. In S.
Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences
(pp. 217-221). New York, NY: Wiley.
Martin, L., Ruiz, S., Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity
salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 65-78.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998).
Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 473-490.
Melendez, S. E. (2001). The nonprofit sector and accountability.
New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 31, 121-132.
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Rose, G. (2011). How personal
nostalgia influences giving to charity. Journal of Business Research,
64, 610-616.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L. & Topolnytsky, L.
(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61 , 20-52.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-58.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationship
between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust
within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29,
314-328.
Moses, E. (2010, February 9). MIAA launches Harvesters virtual food
drive. Retrieved from http://www.themiaa.com/general/releases/02092010.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide
(6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen and Muthen.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011). Diversity
programs. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_
GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/
NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Diversity+Programs/
Ormstedt, D. (1994). Government regulation of fundraising: A struggle
for efficacy. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 3, 129-141.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2007). A
comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of
interorganizational relationship performance. Journal of Marketing,
71(4), 172-194.
Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of
consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal
of Consumer Research, 32, 442-452.
Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of
corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of organic
food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 3-12.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society:
The link between competitive advantage and corporate social
responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V.
(1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for
congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173-184.
Raykov, T. (2001). Bias of Cronbach's coefficient alpha for
fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 25, 69-76.
Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: Your secret
weapon on the web. Harvard Business Review, 78(4), 105-113.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1992). In search of the
nonprofit sector I: The question of definitions. Voluntas, 3(2), 125-51.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual
determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research,
59, 155-165.
Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2002). Improving public trust in the
voluntary sector: An empirical analysis. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 68-83.
Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004a). Donor trust and relationship
commitment in the U.K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 185-202.
Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004b). Trust and relationship
commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor
behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 613-635.
Saxon-Harrold, S., Carter, J., & Humble, S. (1987). The
charitable behavior of the British people: A survey of patterns and
attitudes to charitable giving. Tonbridge, London: Charities Aid
Foundation.
Schlegelmilch, B., Diamantopoulis, A., & Love, A. (1997).
Characteristics affecting charitable donations: Empirical evidence from
Britain. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 3,
14-28.
Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. (2006). A corporate social
performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for
consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31, 540-558.
Sen, S., & Bhattachary, C. (2001). Does doing good always lead
to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225-243.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An
analytic framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58-64.
Shamdasani, P. N., & Sheth, J. N. (1995). An experimental
approach to investigating satisfaction and continuity in marketing
alliances. European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 6-23.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance
test for normality. Biometrika, 52, 591-611.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002).Consumer trust,
value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66,
15-37.
Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2007). Athletic success and
private giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA institutions.
Journal of Sport Management, 21, 235-264.
Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2008). Winning does matter:
Patterns in private giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA
Division IAA and I-AAA Institutions. Sport Management Review, 11, 1-20.
Strand, R., Levine, R., & Montgomery, D. (1981). Organizational
entry preferences based upon social and personnel policies: An
information integration perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 27, 50-68.
Strickland, R. A., & Vaughan, S. K. (2008). The hierarchy of
ethical values in nonprofit organizations. Public Integrity, 10,
233-251.
Sumption, H. (1995). Yesterday's trail-blazing. Hertford, UK:
Brainstorm.
Tempel, E. (1999). Trust and fundraising as a profession. New
Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 26, 51-58.
Tucker, I. B. (2004). A reexamination of the effect of big-time
football and basketball success on graduation rates and alumni giving
rates. Economics and Education Review, 23, 655-661.
Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences
organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 189-204.
Verner, M. E., Hecht, J. B., & Fansler, A. G. (1998).
Validating an instrument to assess the motivation of athletics donors.
Journal of Sport Management, 12, 123-137.
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis,
P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty,
and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy Marketing
Science, 37, 170-180.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social
performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal,
18, 303-319.
Walker, M. & Kent, A. (2009). Do fans care? Assessing the
influence of corporate social responsibility on consumer attitudes in
the sport industry. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 743-769.
Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate
reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 127-143.
Waters, R. D. (2011). Increasing fundraising efficiency through
evaluation: Applying communication theory to the nonprofit
organization-donor relationship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40, 458-475.
Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key
approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 93-114.
Wood, W., Pool, G. J., Leck, K., & Purvis, D. (1996).
Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative
impact of majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 11811193.
Young, D. R., Bania, N., & Bailey, D. (1996). Structure and
accountability: A study of national nonprofit associations. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 6, 347-365.
Yu, C., & Muthen, B. O. (2002, April). Evaluation of model fit
indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous
outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Table 1 Correlation Matrix (items)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CSR1 1.00
CSR2 .83 1.00
CSR3 .67 .73 1.00
Trust1 .66 .67 .69 1.00
Trust2 .66 .71 .68 .88 1.00
Trust3 .63 .68 .70 .87 .91 1.00
Commitment1 .48 .50 .50 .52 .55 .56 1.00
Commitment2 .46 .50 .51 .54 .58 .59 .78 1.00
Commitment3 .43 .47 .48 .54 .60 .60 .60 .65
Donation1 .31 .35 .35 .39 .44 .44 .49 .54
Donation2 .32 .35 .35 .38 .43 .44 .51 .55
Donation3 .31 .35 .34 .38 .42 .43 .49 .53
Mean 5.18 5.31 5.51 5.66 5.59 5.56 5.77 5.91
SD 1.21 1.25 1.21 1.16 1.23 1.26 1.32 1.14
Variables 9 10 11 12
CSR1
CSR2
CSR3
Trust1
Trust2
Trust3
Commitment1
Commitment2
Commitment3 1.00
Donation1 .69 1.00
Donation2 .70 .88 1.00
Donation3 .69 .91 .95 1.00
Mean 5.96 6.22 6.22 6.26
SD 1.19 1.17 1.09 1.15
Correlations among Constructs
1 2 3 4
CSR 1.00
Trust .80 1.00
Commitment .65 .72 1.00
Donation .39 .44 .70 1.00
Table 2 Factor Loadings (X), reliability coefficients (p), and
Average Variance Extracted Values (AVE).
Factors and items [lambda] S.E.
Perceived CSR (Brammer et al., 2007; Walsh
& Beaty, 2007)
(Organization Name) is concerned with social .87 .02
responsibility
(Organization Name) socially responsible .93 .01
(Organization Name) a responsible member of .80 .02
our community
Trust (Crosby et al., 1990; Palmatier et al., 2007)
(Organization Name) is trustworthy .92 .01
I trust (Organization Name) .96 .01
I have trust (Organization Name) .95 .01
Commitment (Mahony et al., 2000)
Being a donor of (Organization Name) is .82 .02
important to me
I am a committed donor of(Organization Name) .86 .02
It would be unlikely for me to change my allegiance .80 .02
from the (Organization Name)
Donation Intention (Bagozzi et al., 2004; Petrova
& Cialdini, 2005)
My future donation to (Organization Name) is:
Impossible (1)--Possible (7) .92 .01
Very Likely (1)--Very Unlikely (7) .96 .01
Improbable (1)--Probable (7) .99 .01
Factors and items [rho] AVE
Perceived CSR (Brammer et al., 2007; Walsh .90 .75
& Beaty, 2007)
(Organization Name) is concerned with social
responsibility
(Organization Name) socially responsible
(Organization Name) a responsible member of
our community
Trust (Crosby et al., 1990; Palmatier et al., 2007) .96 .89
(Organization Name) is trustworthy
I trust (Organization Name)
I have trust (Organization Name)
Commitment (Mahony et al., 2000) .87 .69
Being a donor of (Organization Name) is
important to me
I am a committed donor of(Organization Name)
It would be unlikely for me to change my allegiance
from the (Organization Name)
Donation Intention (Bagozzi et al., 2004; Petrova .97 .92
& Cialdini, 2005)
My future donation to (Organization Name) is:
Impossible (1)--Possible (7)
Very Likely (1)--Very Unlikely (7)
Improbable (1)--Probable (7)
Table 3 Path Coefficients
Estimates Coefficients SE t
CSR Trust .80 * .02 34.21
Trust Commitment .56 * .08 6.80
CSR Commitment .21 * .08 2.70
Commitment Donation .05 15.01
Trust Donation -.05 .06 -.84
CSR Donation -.09 .06 -1.62
* p < .05.
