An analysis of donor involvement, gender, and giving in college athletics.
Shapiro, Stephen L. ; Ridinger, Lynn L.
Introduction
Charitable contributions continue to represent a significant
portion of revenue for college athletic departments. According to Fulks
(2008), athletic donations account for 31% of generated revenue at
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions. These findings were
similar for Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) institutions, where
29% of generated revenue came from individual donations. In 2006, the
median annual contribution was $5,826,000 and $635,000 for FBS and FCS
institutions, respectively. Donations, along with ticket sales, have
become a primary source of generated revenue (not including revenue
allocated to the athletic department by the university) (Fulks, 2008).
Furthermore, the current economic climate has created a challenging
environment for all nonprofit organizations. In the United States,
charitable contributions decreased by 5.7% in 2008 (Giving USA, 2009).
In tough economic times, the need for fundraising dollars continues to
increase in college athletics. Thus, understanding donor behavior has
become vitally important. There has been a steady increase in research
on college athletic donor behavior over the past few decades. The
majority of investigations have focused on the influence of winning on
charitable contributions (Coughlin & Erekson, 1985; Daughtrey &
Stotlar, 2000; Humphreys & Mondello, 2007; Sigelman & Carter,
1979; Sigelman & Bookheimer, 1983), donor motivations (Billing,
Holt, & Smith, 1985; Gladden, Mahony, & Apostolopoulou, 2005;
Mahony, Gladden, & Funk, 2003; Staurowsky, Parkhouse, & Sachs,
1996), and the relationship between athletic and academic giving
(Stinson & Howard, 2004, 2007). However, research on the concept of
involvement and athletic donor behavior is limited (Tsiotsou, 2004).
Additionally, although athletic departments have been generally
successful generating revenue through fundraising, it appears that the
ability to cultivate female donors is lacking (Tsiotsou, 2006). Women
represent a viable portion of the donor population that has the
potential to generate significant revenue through voluntary support.
Over the past few decades, there has been enormous growth in the
economic potential of women as evidenced by the fact that an increasing
number of women are participating in the American workforce, starting
businesses, and earning advanced degrees (Shaw, 1992). Women control a
large percentage of the nation's wealth and constitute an untapped
market for fundraisers (Verner, 1996). Women live an average of seven
years longer than men so they are often in charge of estates after their
spouse dies, a fact that may be of particular importance to nonprofit
organizations (Braus, 1994). Despite all of the reasons to indicate a
great increase in female donor potential, scant attention has been given
to women's philanthropy in the sport management literature
(Tsioutsou, 2006).
Empirical research in the nonprofit sector has found gender
differences in donor behavior. In comparison to men, women are more
likely to volunteer at charitable organizations before giving and they
desire closer relationships with the charities they support (Kaplan
& Hayes, 1993; Shaw, 1992; Sommerfeld, 2000). Men tend to give to
charities to enhance their own standing or to gain access to social or
tangible rewards such as invitations to special events, while women give
more to "people" charities to promote social change or help
others less fortunate (Kottasz, 2004; Newman, 2000). Women are more
likely than men to ask questions and acquire information before they are
comfortable about making substantial gifts (Newman, 2000). Although
Mesch, Rooney, Steinberg, and Denton (2006) found that single women are
more likely to be donors than single men, and Andreoni and Vesterlund
(2001) discovered that women appeared more altruistic than men when the
price of giving is high, most of the evidence suggests that women give
less than men when making charitable contributions (Hall, 2004).
"Some researchers have argued that small gifts by women who can
easily afford to give more are rooted in insensitive fundraising
practices that ignore women's contributions, reflect male rather
than female priorities, and exclude women from top leadership
positions" (Hall, 2004, p. 73). A better understanding of gender
differences in regard to giving behavior can be used by fundraisers to
develop strategies to better meet the needs of female donors.
Changes in the economic profile of women over the past few decades
along with growth in female participation and interest in college sport
(Zgnoc, 2010) make women donors an attractive market segment for
intercollegiate athletic fundraisers. On college campuses, women account
for more than half of undergraduates today (Strout, 2007). These
undergraduates will become alumni, who represent the largest donor base
for academic institutions. However, the vast majority of athletic donors
appear to be male. Recent studies (Mahony et al., 2003; Tsiotsou, 2006)
have shown that female donors account for 25% or less of individual
athletic donors at various institutions. Many researchers agree that
priority seating for athletic events is the key motive for making
contributions to intercollegiate athletics (Gladden et al., 2005; Mahony
et al., 2003; Stinson & Howard, 2004); however, these studies did
not examine gender differences in motives. The few studies that have
focused on gender and athletic fundraising have found that women are
less motivated by the social and tangible benefits associated with
athletic gifts (Staurowsky, 1996; Tsiotsou, 2006) and are more motivated
by philanthropic concerns (Staurowsky, 1996; Verner, 1996). These
findings, coupled with research on gender differences from the nonprofit
sector, suggest that athletic fundraisers may need to modify their
approaches to cultivate greater involvement of female donors.
The concepts of involvement and donor gender are two areas that are
underdeveloped in the college athletic fundraising literature.
Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to examine involvement
and its relationship to donor gender. The involvement construct was
examined to identify any gender differences that exist. Additionally,
gender differences in donations (annual contributions and donor length)
and pertinent demographics (age and income) were assessed. Five research
questions were developed to guide the current study:
Research Question #1: Does involvement differ between male and
female college athletic donors?
Research Question #2: Do male and female donors differ in annual
contribution amount?
Research Question #3: Do male and female donors differ in donor
longevity?
Research Question #4: Do male and female donors differ in age?
Research Question #5: Do male and female donors differ in annual
income?
Review of Literature
The Involvement Construct
The concept of involvement was first introduced in psychology as
part of social-judgment theory (Sherif & Cantril, 1947; Sherif &
Hovland, 1961). Involvement has generally been defined in
social-psychological terms as an unobservable state of motivation,
arousal, or interest between an individual and an activity or product
(Rothchild, 1984). Involvement, however, extends beyond individual
motives and mere participation; it looks at the relevance or meaning of
an activity or product within the context of an individual's
overall outlook on life (Wiley, Shaw & Havitz, 2000). It is seen as
an attitude that is relatively enduring in nature and is important to
the individual on an ongoing basis. Interest in involvement gained
momentum in the consumer behavior field in the 1980s as researchers
utilized the concept to understand purchase behavior related to consumer
products (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Rothchild, 1984; Zaichkowsky,
1985).
The majority of involvement research in consumer behavior has
focused on the level of involvement (low involvement vs. high
involvement) of consumers and its effect on decision making, information
gathering, and information sources. According to Zaichkowsky (1985),
involvement focuses on personal relevance. There are three major factors
that affect a person's involvement level: 1) characteristics of the
person, 2) characteristics of the product, and 3) characteristics of the
situation. These characteristics ultimately influence consumer behavior
and purchase intentions, and serve as the basis for Zaichkowsky's
(1985) original 20-item Personal Involvement Inventory (PII). Due to the
number and redundancy of items, Zaichkowsky (1994) simplified and
refined the PII by reducing the scale to 10 total items with two
dimensions (cognitive and affective). Cognitive involvement stresses a
person's information processing, whereas affective involvement is
focused on a person's feelings. The PII is a semantic-differential
scale using adjectives to describe involvement concepts. The items
captured in the affective dimension were: Interesting, Exciting,
Appealing, Fascinating, and Involving. The items captured in the
cognitive dimension were: Needed, Important, Relevant, Means A Lot, and
Valuable.
The PII has been used as a measure of consumer involvement for
products, advertisements, and purchases, but there has been limited
investigation in relation to services. Stafford and Day (1995) extended
Zaichkowsky's (1994) work through an investigation of involvement
within the context of service research. The authors suggested that both
cognitive and affective components of consumer involvement exist in
services, and the 10-item PII was an appropriate measure of involvement
within a service context. Celuch and Taylor (1999) also investigated the
efficacy of Zaichkowsky's (1994) PII inventory within the context
of service research. The authors reexamined the PII scale across
multiple service organizations in an effort to provide support across a
variety of industries. The results of this study provided strong support
for a further reduced 8-item version of the PII. Celuch and Taylor
dropped the Interesting and Involving items from the Zaichkowsky 10-item
PII. Based on the sample scores, the modified 8-item PII captured both
cognitive and affective factors identified in previous research
(Zaichkowsky, 1994). Reliability (coefficient alpha) scores were
satisfactory, ranging from .82 to .86 for affective involvement and .80
to .93 for cognitive involvement, respectively.
Donor Involvement and College Athletic Fundraising
Tsiotsou (1998) developed the Giving to Athletics Model (GAM) in an
effort to explain why individuals make contributions to athletic
programs. Of the seven proposed independent variables in the GAM, only
involvement and emotional motivation were significant in directly
explaining donations to athletics. The author concluded that involvement
should be used in future attempts to understand donor behavior. Tsiotsou
(2004) extended this research by attempting to classify the giving level
of donors based upon income and level of involvement (high or low). The
10-item version of Zaichkowsky's (1994) PII scale was used in this
study to measure involvement with athletics. The findings showed that
involvement was a discriminating factor in determining donation amount.
High-income, high-involvement donors were more likely to make large
contributions to athletics.
Most recently, Tsiotsou (2006) focused on college athletic donor
gender and involvement. The construct of involvement (along with income,
donor motives, annual contributions, spectator attendance, and sport
experience) was examined to identify differences between male and female
donors. The Zaichkowsky (1994) 10-item PII scale was also used in this
investigation to measure involvement. The results showed no significant
difference in level of involvement between male and female donors. It
should be noted, however, that involvement was treated as a
unidimensional scale in Tsiotsou's (2004, 2006) investigations.
There was no attempt to examine the cognitive and affective involvement
facets of the PII separately. Also, there was no assessment of the
scale's properties to ensure the appropriateness of the PII for
college athletic donors.
Based on the aforementioned studies on donor involvement in college
athletics, it appears that involvement may have an impact on donation
amount, but there is no evidence of any gender differences. However,
measurement and scale selection issues existed in the assessment of the
PII in these examinations. First, the involvement construct has been
identified as multidimensional, yet Tsiotsou's (2004, 2006) results
were based on a unidimensional interpretation of the PII. The cognitive
and affective factors offer unique facets of involvement, which may
provide different results when measured separately. Second, reliability
and validity were not examined prior to analysis of the PII to provide
evidence that it is an appropriate measure of athletic donor
involvement. Lastly, the previous studies on donor involvement used the
Zaichkowsky (1994) 10-item PII as opposed to the condensed 8-item
version of the PII, modified by Celuch and Taylor (1999). Since the
8-item version of the PII represents a more parsimonious measure of
service involvement, it may be the most appropriate assessment of donor
involvement.
Gender and Giving
Tsiotsou (2006) is one of a very limited number of studies to focus
on gender differences in those who donate to intercollegiate athletic
programs. Her findings revealed that income, donation amount, specific
donor motives, sport experience, and attendance were variables that
contributed significantly to the discrimination between female and male
athletic donors, but involvement was not a significant factor. In an
earlier study on women and athletic fundraising, Staurowsky (1996) found
that female athletic donors appear to be younger than male donors,
contribute less money, and are more inclined to give to women's
athletic programs. Furthermore, women donors were not as motivated as
men by the material gain associated with the act of giving or by the
social interaction and approval related to being part of an athletic
support group.
Verner (1996) reviewed the literature pertaining to women's
philanthropy and provided ideas for intercollegiate athletic programs to
cultivate female donors. Keying in on studies by Shaw and Taylor (1995)
and Stone and Sublett (1992), both based on qualitative data collected
from interviews and focus groups with women philanthropists, Verner
outlined several reasons why women make charitable contributions.
Recurring themes associated with women's giving that emerged
included personal commitment, volunteer involvement, and strong feelings
about a cause or charitable organization. Family tradition also was an
influencing factor as most of the participants in these studies had
family role models, particularly mothers, who donated to charities. In
addition, women expressed a sense of responsibility or desire to
"give back" to meaningful causes as well as a need to bring
about change and make a difference. Verner's findings were based
primarily on information from private donor and philanthropic activity
within the nonprofit and political sectors due to the dearth of
literature on women as financial donors to intercollegiate athletics.
Hall's (2004) investigation of gender differences in giving
also focused on philanthropy in the nonprofit sector. Hall considered
three observations about sex differences in giving: 1) women's
gifts tend to be smaller than men's gifts, 2) it takes longer to
cultivate significant gifts from women, and 3) unlike men, women do not
give competitively or to receive perks; however, she noted that there
are few large scale empirical studies to support these claims. Women
seem to undervalue their giving ability and make fewer headline-grabbing
gifts in comparison to their male counterparts (Hall, 2004). Women are
more likely than men to volunteer before giving and seek closer contact
with the charities they support (Kaplan & Hayes, 1993; Shaw, 1992;
Sommerfeld, 2000). Also, it may take longer to cultivate significant
gifts from women. Women tend to ask more questions than men and take
more time in deciding to make a sizable gift. Some fundraisers attribute
this hesitation in giving to women's lack of financial skills or
fear they will outlive their money (Hall, 2004). Women, more so than
men, want to know how their charitable dollars are being used, and view
charity as a means to secure additional friendships and involvement in
the community (Marx, 2000). Those in the fundraising profession have
asserted that women tend to give to promote social change or help others
less fortunate whereas men give for the recognition and status (Newman,
2000). It has been suggested that unlike men, women are not motivated by
competition with their peers to make the largest gift, nor are they
interested in having buildings named after them (Taylor & Shaw,
1997). Hall (2004), however, noted that examples of competitive female
donors and women who seek out perks for giving are on the rise. Thus,
there is still much to be learned about gender-based differences in
charitable giving.
The donor characteristics and gender differences identified by the
previous literature present opportunities for further investigation.
First, some of the female donor characteristics presented in the
literature suggest motivations based on personal preferences. According
to Zaichkowsky (1985), personal preferences are defined as
"inherent interests, values, or needs that motivate one toward the
object" (p. 342). Personal preferences are a primary component of
involvement in terms of purchase intentions. Therefore, level of
involvement may be a key indicator in understanding donor behavior for
males and females. Second, results from previous investigations have
shown that females contribute less money compared to their male
counterparts. The difference in the gift amounts could be a result of a
female donor population who are younger and earn less income than male
donors (Staurowsky, 1996); however, additional investigation is
warranted to provide a more current understanding of donor dynamics and
trends related to gender. Thus, this current study was developed to
investigate differences between male and female college athletic donors
in terms of involvement, annual contribution amount, donor longevity,
age, and annual income.
Methods
Sample
The population for the current study consisted of current college
athletic donors. An online survey was sent to 7,467 current donors from
three NCAA Division I FBS institutions located in the mountain and
southwest regions of the United States. All three universities compete
in the same athletic conference. Two of the institutions are public and
one is private, and university enrollment ranges from 9,000 to 28,000
students. Three institutions were chosen in order to collect a large
enough sample of current female donors for data analysis. A total of
1,664 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 22.2%. The
majority of respondents (N = 1,664) were male (77.3%), which was
consistent with the donor gender breakdown at each of the three
institutions being examined and previous gender examinations in college
athletics (Tsiotsou, 2006). Table 1 provides a sample breakdown by
institution.
Instrumentation
The questionnaire used for the current study consisted of three
sections with a total of 19 items. The first section focused on donor
information items such as donation amount, donor level, and total years
as a donor. The second section was comprised of an adapted version of
the Celuch and Taylor (1999) reduced, 8-item PII originally developed by
Zaichkowsky (1985, 1994). Examples of the semantic scale item anchors
include "important--unimportant" and "exciting
unexciting." Scale items were measured from 1 = low involvement to
5 = high involvement. The adapted PII had two subdimensions of
involvement: cognitive involvement, which is made up of five items
(Needed, Important, Relevant, Means A Lot, and Valuable) and affective
involvement, which is made up of three items (Exciting, Appealing,
Fascinating). The 8-item modified PII has shown good reliability in
previous examinations in service related industries with alpha values
ranging from .80 to .92 (Celuch & Taylor, 1999). The final section
of the survey focused on demographic items in order to profile the
typical donor at the institutions being examined.
Procedure
Questionnaires were administered through an online format. Each
institution's athletic department sent an email blast out to all
current donors. Each potential participant received an introductory
email explaining the purpose of the study along with a link to the
web-based survey. A follow up email was sent to all potential
participants two weeks later in an effort to increase response rate. In
addition, each of the three athletic departments gave respondents the
option of entering a drawing to win passes to an upcoming athletic
department event. This information was kept separate from survey
responses to maximize anonymity and confidentiality.
Data Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was initially conducted on the
PII to examine the factor structure of the involvement construct based
on the pooled sample of current donors. Previous theory on involvement
and scale development of the PII (Celuch & Taylor, 1999; Zaichkowsky
1985, 1994) drove specification of the factor model. Therefore, CFA was
the most appropriate factor analytic technique (Brown, 2006).
Multiple measures of fit were used to examine the factor structure
of the PII. Overall goodness of fit was assessed using a robust
chi-squared test; however, according to Hu and Bentler (1999), this test
can be sensitive to sample size and should not be used exclusively in
determining model fit. Therefore, standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the
comparative fit index (CFI) were examined to provide additional sources
of fit that are widely accepted in applied research and have shown
satisfactory performance in model simulation analyses. According to Hu
and Bentler, SRMR values close to .08 or below, RMSEA values close to
.06 or below, and CFI values close to .95 or greater provide evidence of
an adequate model fit. Additionally, average variance extracted (AVE)
was assessed for validity-related evidence and alpha coefficients were
examined within each factor of the PII in order to assess
reliability-related evidence. Means and standard deviations were
subsequently calculated for each subdimension of involvement.
Multiple statistical procedures were conducted to answer the five
proposed research questions. In order to examine potential gender
differences in cognitive and affective donor involvement (RQ1), a
one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted.
Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance/covariance matrices,
and independence were considered when conducting the MANOVA test. In
addition, MANOVA assumes that there is a linear relationship (linearity)
between the dependent variables in the model (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). The data presented no apparent violations of MANOVA assumptions.
A descriptive discriminate analysis (DDA) was used as a post-hoc
procedure to identify the dependent variable that maximally discriminates among the groups associated with the independent variable
(Duarte Silva & Stam, 1995). In the current study, DDA was used to
examine which of the involvement constructs was the most important
discriminator of gender. An analysis of the structure matrix in DDA
provided specific information regarding which dependent variable
correlated highest with the linear combination of dependent variables
and, therefore, is a more important discriminator among male and female
donors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Independent t-test procedures were conducted to examine potential
gender differences in annual contribution, donor longevity, and donor
age (RQs 2-4). Assumptions of normality, independence, and homogeneity
of variance were considered prior to the independent samples t-tests.
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances was significant for each
set of t-tests; therefore, a Welch's t-test was conducted for each
of these research questions.
Finally, a chi-square analysis was conducted to identify potential
differences in income level between male and female donors (RQ5).
Assumptions of independence, exhaustiveness and mutual exclusivity, and
minimum cell size were considered prior to chi-square analysis. No
assumption violations were found. A significance level of .05 was set
for the MANOVA and chi-square procedures. However, due to the use of
three independent samples t-tests, a Bonferroni adjustment was used to
control for Type I error. The adjusted alpha value was set at .017 for
these statistical procedures.
Results
Demographic Profile
The average age for male donors (n = 1,286) was 53.5. The majority
of male donors were Caucasian (88.6%), married (85.8%), and had an
annual household income above $100,000 (62.3%). In addition, 37% of male
donor respondents had a graduate degree. The average annual donation for
males was $1,360.57 and the average length of annual giving was 11.4
years. The average age for female donors (n = 360) was 53.9. The
majority of female donors were also Caucasian (83.9%) and married
(65.8%). Furthermore, 44.2% of female respondents had an annual
household income above $100,000 and 30.6% had a graduate degree.
Finally, the average annual donation for females was somewhat lower than
males at $728.76 and the average length of annual giving was 9.5 years.
Demographic information was also broken down by institution. Table 1
provides a breakdown of donor characteristics segmented by institution.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFA was conducted on the modified, two-factor, 8-item PII model.
The results indicated that the data fit the model well. Absolute fit,
parsimony correction, and comparative indices all represented a
reasonably good fit: [X.sup.2] (19) = 49.41; p = <.001; RMSEA = .037;
SRMR = .025; CFI = 1.0. The final model consisted of two subdimensions
of involvement. All t-values were greater than 2.0, which is considered
satisfactory (Thompson, 2004). A summary of the anchors, factor
loadings, t-values, and standard errors in the final PII structure are
presented in Table 2.
Validity and Reliability
Convergent validity was assessed on the PII with reference to AVE.
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), AVE scores above .50 indicate
an adequate ratio of total variance that is due to the latent variable.
AVE values were .818 and .844 for affective and cognitive factors,
respectively. This information provided evidence of the scale's
convergent validity. In addition, internal consistency of the cognitive
and affective involvement factors was examined with Cronbach's
alpha estimates. Internal consistency was above the standard .70 cutoff
(Cronbach, 1951) with coefficient alphas of .87 and .92 for affective
and cognitive factors, respectively.
Research Question 1
The first research question addressed potential gender differences
regarding both subdimensions of involvement. Means and standard
deviations were calculated for the affective and cognitive involvement
factors. In terms of the overall sample of current donors, cognitive
involvement (M = 4.54, SD = .587) had greater scores than affective
involvement (M = 4.16, SD = .586). However, a one-way MANOVA was
conducted to examine whether these involvement subdimensions
significantly differed between male and female donors. Wilk's
Lambda approximation to F was reported. MANOVA results indicated a
significant gender difference for at least one of the involvement
factors F(2,1643) = 3.52, p = .030. A post-hoc DDA was examined to
identify which involvement factor significantly differed between male
and female donors. A structure (loading) matrix of correlations between
predictors and discriminant functions suggested that affective
involvement is the best predictor for distinguishing between male and
female donors (.85). Based on an assessment of the structure matrix and
the standardized discriminant function coefficients, the cognitive
involvement variable did not effectively distinguish between male and
female donors. A follow up one-way ANOVA was found to be significant
F(1,1644) = 5.05, p = .024. Affective involvement means indicated that
female donors had a stronger sense of affective involvement (M = 4.24,
SD = .715) compared to male donors (M = 4.14, SD = .707).
Research Questions 2-4
The second, third, and fourth research questions addressed
potential gender differences regarding annual contributions, donor
longevity, and donor age. Table 3 summarizes the mean gender differences
for these variables. Three independent samples f-tests were conducted to
examine these research questions. Results of the first f-test (RQ2)
indicated a significant difference in annual contributions between male
and female donors t(1,210.39) = 5.18, p < .001. Male donors
contributed approximately 1.9 times more than females on an annual
basis. Results of the second f-test (RQ3) indicated a significant
difference in donor longevity between male and female donors t(591.49) =
3.46, p = .001. Male donors have been contributors for approximately two
more years compared to their female counterparts. Results of the third
f-test (RQ4), which examined gender differences in age were not found to
be significant.
Research Question 5
The fifth research question addressed potential gender differences
in annual income. Table 4 summarizes the mean gender differences for
each category of annual income. Results of a chi-square analysis
indicated a significant difference between the annual income of male and
female donors [X.sup.2] (4) = 55.07, p < .001. The lower income level
categories included a larger percentage of female donors compared to
male donors. However, in the largest income category ($100,000 and
above), which included the vast majority of donors, the percentage of
male donors was considerably higher.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine differences between male
and female college athletic donors in terms of involvement and several
demographic characteristics. Prior to testing for gender differences in
involvement, the Celuch and Taylor (1999) modified 8-item PII was
assessed to examine the involvement construct among college athletic
donors. Due to the fact that the PII has not been appropriately assessed
using a sample of college athletic donors, it was important to examine
the factor structure as well as reliability and validity-related
evidence of this instrument. The 8-item, PII model showed adequate
reliability and validity based on the sample scores. Cognitive and
affective subdimensions of involvement were clearly identified. This
study investigated whether donor involvement and selected demographic
variables differed between male and female contributors. The results
suggested that significant differences existed for gender. Specifically,
affective involvement was stronger for female donors as opposed to male
donors. Additionally, in comparison to their male counterparts, female
donors made smaller annual contributions, had less donor longevity, and
had lower annual income levels. There were no significant differences in
the age of donors based on gender.
Theoretical Implications
The reduced, 8-item, PII instrument (Celuch & Taylor, 1999)
appears to be applicable in terms of donor involvement based on the
current sample scores. These findings demonstrate strong support for use
of a parsimonious measure of the construct of involvement. In addition,
the results provide support for the use of the PII as a measure of donor
involvement within college athletics. The reduced scale appears to
capture both cognitive and affective dimensions of involvement within a
nonprofit setting. However, while the items performed well within the
context of athletic donors in this study, only three schools with
similar characteristics were examined. Additional research across a
variety of different institutions is suggested to further enhance the
generalizability of the PII for college athletic donors.
The current results also provided evidence of gender differences in
terms of donor involvement. This discovery was contrary to the findings
of Tsiotsou (2006). However, the current study examined both cognitive
and affective dimensions of donor involvement as opposed to one
unidimensional measure. Only affective involvement had a significant
difference between male and female donors. From a theoretical
standpoint, this information extends the knowledge base regarding the
PII and the construct of involvement. First, the results provide clear
evidence of two distinct involvement dimensions, which is consistent
with previous involvement research (Celuch & Taylor, 1999;
Zaichkowsky, 1994). Second, the significant gender difference within the
affective dimension represents a distinction between male and female
donors at an emotional level. Affective involvement is focused on
emotional and self-image issues that influence attitude formation (Park
& Young, 1983). Females appear to have stronger affective
involvement which may influence donor attitudes and behavior in a unique
fashion. Females may have a stronger sense of involvement through
personal relevance based on emotional or aesthetic appeals. Park and
Young described these appeals as value-expressive motives. Therefore,
female donors may feel more involved through a message that is
value-expressive as opposed to utilitarian in nature. These findings are
supported by previous research on gender and fundraising, where females
tend to contribute based on emotional motivations and/or cues (Kottasz,
2004; Newman, 2000). Third, this study has extended the research on
gender and giving in college athletics by providing additional
information on several demographic variables. Similar to the results
reported in both Staurowksy (1996) and Tsiotsou (2006), this study found
that female donors, on average, contribute less than male donors. The
annual income level of female donors was less than male donors,
supporting the findings from Tsiotsou. Interestingly, the age of donors
did not differ significantly based on gender. This result differs from
Staurowsky's finding that women donors were younger than male
donors. Finally, this current study adds a new element to the literature
by finding gender differences in donor longevity, a variable not
reported in previous studies
Practical Implications
According to Zaichkowsky (1985), involvement is focused on a
consumer's personal relevance to a product. It appears that females
have stronger relevance to the cause in terms of emotions and
self-image. These findings present an opportunity for athletic
departments to develop unique donor marketing strategies focused
specifically on the interests of potential female contributors. Prior to
making financial contributions, women oftentimes want to be involved
with the organizations that they support (Hall, 2004). It may be prudent
for athletic departments to develop opportunities for involvement for
women prior to soliciting donations. Meet and greet interactions with
coaches and players provide a way for female fans to get to know the
school's athletic teams and feel more emotionally attached to them.
Also, luncheons or special events for potential and current donors would
contribute to affective involvement by enabling female donors to develop
relationships with other supporters of the athletic program.
Another tactic to build the base of female donors is to target
women in middle income brackets. In this study, the percentage of women
donors in the middle income brackets (i.e., $30,000-49,999,
$50,000-69,999, and $70,000-99,999) was higher than the percentage of
men. The majority of male donors (65.4%) earned more than $100,000
annually; however, less than half of female donors (47.6%) were in the
highest income bracket. Although the gift amount from women in middle
income brackets may be less than wealthier individuals, the additive effects of greater numbers can be substantial. It is also important for
athletic fundraisers to set goals for increasing the longevity of female
donors. They should strive to get younger women involved in annual
giving and work hard to meet their needs so that the donor relationship
is sustained and can accrue over time.
Although there were no gender differences in cognitive involvement,
it is important to note that overall scores for cognitive involvement (M
= 4.54, SD = .587) were greater than scores for affective involvement (M
= 4.16, SD = .586). In a quest to increase female donors, athletic
fundraising personnel should not focus exclusively on affective
involvement. Increasing both types of involvement will likely result in
higher levels of giving as there is a correlation between involvement
and donation amount (Tsiotsou 1998, 2004). That is, high involvement
donors are more likely to make larger contributions to athletics.
Increases in cognitive involvement can be garnered by ensuring donors
that their support of the athletic program is needed, important,
relevant, meaningful, and valuable. This can be done through effective
communication so that donors understand how their gifts contribute to
athletics and the development of student-athletes. This is especially
important to women who, more so than men, want to know how their
charitable dollars are being used (Marx, 2000). Based on the findings of
Staurowsky (1996) and Tsiotsou (2006), marketing efforts targeting
female athletic donors may be more effective if they highlight
intangible philanthropic benefits such as the opportunity to help
student-athletes rather than focusing on tangible benefits and perks
such as priority seating and preferred parking. Being sensitive to the
involvement needs of female donors may allow athletic fundraisers to
better leverage this potentially lucrative market segment.
Future Research
There are multiple opportunities for future investigations of the
influence of involvement on charitable contributions in college
athletics. As mentioned previously, additional assessment of the PII
using athletic donors from diverse institutions (i.e., size of school
and athletic department, geographic location, level of competition) will
enhance generalizability for the population of college athletic donors.
Future research should also focus on the influence of both cognitive and
affective involvement on general donor behavior (i.e. decisions to
contribute, gift amount, retention, and longevity). Understanding the
impact of involvement on past donor behavior and future intentions will
provide additional evidence of the importance if this construct.
Additionally, there may be some interaction between donor motivations
and donor involvement. These two attitudinal measures could be examined
within the same sample of donors to assess the relationship between the
two constructs.
Another idea for future research would be to examine perceptions of
importance of the various benefits and required giving levels offered by
intercollegiate athletic departments and compare these by gender.
Although some studies have found that women are less motivated by the
social and tangible benefits associated with contributions to athletic
programs (Staurowsky, 1996; Tsiotsou, 2006), there is some evidence that
more women are seeking out perks and recognition for giving (Hall,
2004). There is still much to be learned about gender differences in
donor behavior. The potential population of female donors will continue
to grow; therefore, an increased understanding of male and female donor
attitudes will ultimately enhance recruitment and retention strategies
for development offices.
References
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex?
Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1),
293-312.
Billing, J. E., Holt, D., & Smith, J. (1985). Athletic
fund-raising: Exploring the motives behind donations. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Braus, P. (1994). Will boomers give generously? American
Demographics, 48, 50, 52, 57.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Celuch, K., & Taylor, S. A. (1999). Involvement with services:
An empirical replication and extension of Zaichkowsky's personal
involvement inventory. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 12, 109-122.
Coughlin, C.C., & Erekson, O. H. (1985). Contributions to
intercollegiate athletic programs: Further evidence. Social Science
Quarterly, 66(1), 194-202.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Daughtrey, C., & Stotlar, D. K. (2000). Donations: Are they
affected by a football championship? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(4),
185-193.
Duarte Silva, P. A., & Stam, A. (1995). Discriminant analysis.
In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding
multivariate statistics (pp. 277-318). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Fulks, D. L. (2008). 2004-2006 NCAA revenue and expenses of
Division I intercollegiate athletic programs report. Indianapolis, IN:
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Giving USA (2009, June). U.S. charitable giving estimated to be
$307.65 billion in 2008. Glenview, IL: Author.
Gladden, J. M., Mahony, D. F., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2005).
Toward a better understanding of college athletic donors: What are the
primary motives? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 18-30.
Hall, H. (2004). Gender differences in giving: Going, going, gone?
New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising. 43, 71-81.
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), 1-55.
Humphreys, B. R. & Mondello, M. (2007). Intercollegiate
athletic success and donations at NCAA Division I institutions. Journal
of Sport Management, 21(2), 265-280.
Kaplan, A. E., & Hayes, M. J. (1993). What we know about women
as donors. In A. J. von Schlegell & J. M. Fisher (Eds.), New
directions for philanthropic fundraising Women as donors, women as
philanthropists (pp. 5-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kottasz, R. (2004). Differences in the donor behavior
characteristics of young affluent males and females: Empirical evidence
from Britain. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 15(2), 181-203
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer
involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41-53.
Mahony, D. F., Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2003). Examining
athletic donors at NCAA Division I institutions. International Sports
Journal, 7(1), 9-27.
Marx, J. D. (2000). Women and human services. Social Work, 45,
27-38.
Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., Denton, B. (2006).
The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and
volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
35(4), 565-587.
Newman. R. (2000). Gender differences in philanthropy. Fund Raising
Management, 28-29.
Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1983). Types and levels of
involvement and brand attitude formation. In R. P Bagozzi & A. M.
Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 10, 320-324, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Rothchild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: Current
problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11,
216-217.
Shaw, S. C. (1992). Communicating with women: Understanding and
applying the differences. In A. J. von Schlegell & J. M. Fisher
(Eds.), New directions for philanthropic fundraising: Women as donors,
women as philanthropists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, S. C., & Taylor, M. A. (1995). Reinventing fundraising
Realizing the potential of women's philanthropy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego
involvements, social attitudes and identifications. New York: Wiley.
Sherif. M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment:
Assimilation and contrast effects in reaction to communication and
attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sigelman, L., & Bookheimer, S. (1983). Is it whether you win or
lose? Monetary contributions to big-time college athletic programs.
Social Science Quarterly, 64(2), 347-359.
Sigelman, L., & Carter, R. (1979). Win one for the giver?
Alumni giving and big-time college sports. Social Science Quarterly,
60(2), 284-294.
Sommerfeld, M. (2000, October 5). A close look at ways to increase
giving by women and to instill the habit in girls. Chronicle of
Philanthropy, p. 12.
Stafford, M. R., & Day, E. (1995). Measuring service
involvement: A preliminary assessment. American Marketing Association
Educators' Proceedings, 6, 75-80.
Staurowsky, E. J. (1996). Women and athletic fund raising:
Exploring the connection between gender and giving. Journal of Sport
Management, 10, 401-416.
Staurowsky, E. J., Parkhouse, B., & Sachs, M. (1996).
Developing an instrument to measure athletic donor behavior and
motivation. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 262-277.
Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2004). Scoreboards vs.
mortarboards: Major donor behavior and intercollegiate athletics. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 13(3), 129-140.
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.
Stone, K., & Sublett, D. (1992). The UCLA women and
philanthropy focus groups. Los Angeles: University of California at Los
Angeles.
Strout, E. (2007, July). Courting female donors. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 53(44), A21-A22.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Taylor, M. A., & Shaw, S. C. (1997). Women as philanthropists:
Leading the transformation in major gift fundraising. New Directions for
Philanthropic Fundraising, 16, 61-74
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis:
Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Tsiotsou, R. (1998). Motivations for donations to athletic programs
[Electronic version]. The Cyber-Journal of Sport Marketing. Retrieved
November 1, 2008, from
http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1998/cjsm/v2n2/tsiotsou22.htm
Tsiotsou, R. (2004). The role of involvement and income in
predicting large and small donations to college athletics. International
Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6(2), 117-123.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006). Investigating differences between female and
male athletic donors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 11(3), 209-223.
Verner, M. E. (1996). Developing women as financial donors and
philanthropists: A way to enhance intercollegiate athletics
opportunities. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 5(1),
29-49.
Wiley, C. E., Shaw, S. M., & Havitz, M. E. (2000). Men's
and women's involvement in sports: An examination of the gendered
aspects of leisure involvement. Leisure Sciences, 22, 19-31.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory:
Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
Zgonc, E. (2010). NCAA: 1981-82--2008-09 NCAA Sports Sponsorship
and Participation Rates Report. Indianapolis, IN: The National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
Stephen L. Shapiro, PhD, is an assistant professor in the
Department of Human Movement Sciences at Old Dominion University. His
research interests include college athletic fundraising, ticket pricing,
and consumer behavior.
Lynn L. Ridinger, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department
of Human Movement Sciences at Old Dominion University. Her research
interests include gender equity, consumer behavior, and college
athletics.
Table 1.
Profile of Donors Broken Down by Institution
Institution A Institution B
(n = 575) (n = 820)
Male Female Male Female
Gender 68.3% 31.7% 83.2% 16.8%
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian 77.3% 78.4% 94.3% 92.0%
Asian 1.0% 0% 0.6% 0.7%
African American 18.8% 18.2% 2.2% 1.5%
Native American 0.8% 0% 2.5% 5.1%
Hispanic 2.1% 3.4% 0.3% 0.7%
Household Income
Less than $20,000 0.8% 2.4% 1.1% 4.7%
$20,000-$39,999 5.4% 10.7% 3.4% 12.6%
$40,000-$59,999 9.9% 18.3% 11.4% 15.0%
$60,000-$99,999 24.7% 27.2% 16.6% 15.7%
$100,000 or More 59.2% 41.4% 67.5% 52.0%
Marital Status
Single 8.2% 14.9% 5.5% 14.1%
Married 86.4% 60.8% 88.6% 70.4%
Divorced 3.9% 13.3% 4.0% 5.9%
Widowed 0.8% 6.6% 1.0% 8.1%
Separated 0.3% 1.1% 0.6% 0.7%
Other 0.5% 3.3% 0.3% 0.7%
Education
Graduated High School 4.9% 8.3% 2.7% 9.6%
Some College 18.2% 16.7% 16.0% 30.4%
Bachelor's Degree 29.5% 32.2% 37.9% 33.3%
Some Graduate School 11.8% 6.1% 7.7% 5.2%
Graduate Degree 35.6% 36.7% 35.7% 21.5%
Age 56.4 56.1 53.0 52.4
Annual Donation $1,267 $601 $1,399 $928
Donor Length 10.0 8.6 12.0 11.2
Institution C
(n = 251)
Male Female
Gender 84.1% 15.9%
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian 97.6% 95.0%
Asian 0.5% 0%
African American 1.9% 0%
Native American 0% 0%
Hispanic 0% 5.0%
Household Income
Less than $20,000 3.5% 2.6%
$20,000-$39,999 1.0% 7.9%
$40,000-$59,999 9.5% 10.5%
$60,000-$99,999 15.9% 18.4%
$100,000 or More 70.1% 60.5%
Marital Status
Single 10.6% 10.3%
Married 81.6% 82.1%
Divorced 4.8% 2.6%
Widowed 2.9% 5.1%
Separated 0% 0%
Other 0% 0%
Education
Graduated High School 0.5% 7.5%
Some College 4.4% 10.0%
Bachelor's Degree 41.3% 37.5%
Some Graduate School 7.3% 7.5%
Graduate Degree 46.6% 37.5%
Age 50.0 48.5
Annual Donation $1,397 $635
Donor Length 12.2 8.2
Note: Gender, Ethnicity, Household Income, Marital Status,
and Education are Frequency Percentages; Age, Annual
Donation, and Donor Length are Mean Values
Table 2.
Reliability and Validity Scores for the PII
Factors Mean
and Items interitem
ITTC correlation [varies]
Affective .703 .87
Exciting .76
Appealing .79
Fascinating .72
Cognitive .705 .92
Needed .81
Important .81
Relevant .83
Means A Lot .80
Valuable .70
Factors
and Items Factor
loading AVE SE t
Affective .82
Exciting .85 -- --
Appealing .96 .02 51.21 *
Fascinating .90 .02 46.50 *
Cognitive .84
Needed .85 -- --
Important .95 .02 51.42 *
Relevant .92 .02 46.95 *
Means A Lot .95 .02 49.36 *
Valuable .92 .02 47.22 *
Note: * p < .05; ITTC = Item-to-total correlation;
[varies] = Cronbach's alpha coefficient; AVE = Average
variance extracted; SE = Standard error; t = t-values
Table 3.
Donor Mean (Standard Deviation) Gender Comparisons--
Annual Contribution, Donor Longevity, & Age
Variable Male Female
Annual Contribution * $1,360.58(3149.07) $728.76(1235.49)
Donor Longevity * 11.4(9.49) 9.5(8.61)
Age 53.54(12.81) 53.89(11.76)
Note: * = Significant difference;
Bonferonni adjustment significance--p = .017
Table 4.
Donor Gender & Annual Income
Annual Income Level Male Female
Less than $30,000 17 (1.4%) 11 (3.3%)
$30,000-$49,999 44 (3.6%) 37 (11.1%)
$50,000-$69,999 130 (10.6%) 54 (16.2%)
$70,000-$99,999 232 (19%) 73 (21.9%)
More than $100,000 801 (65.4%) 159 (47.6%)
Note: [X.sup.2](4) = 55.07, p < .001