Extending Models of Prosocial Behavior to Explain University Alumni Contributions¹

Abstract

Survey data merged with contribution records from a development office database provided a basis for understanding alumni support for a university. The survey randomly sampled alumni of a state university school of management who had graduated between 1980 and 1988. Subjects filled out mail questionnaires measuring social psychological constructs from the literature on prosocial behavior. The determinants of obligation to donate included perceived efficacy, perceived need, reciprocity, and individual attachment to the university. Obligation and other constructs explained the number of donations recorded in the development office database over 6 years. The model also predicted intentions to support the university by working for an alumni association or attending reunions. This model of alumni donation leads to recommendations for designing university fund-raising communications.'The authors wish to thank Ellen Catabia and Gwen Hubler of the Development Office at the University of Massachusetts School of Management for their assistance. We also appreciate the support of the University of Massachusetts Development Office.

Morality and Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Awareness, Responsibility, and Norms in the Norm Activation Model

“…In turn, responsibility feelings increase feelings of moral obligation to act prosocially, and these feelings of obligation induce prosocial behavioral intentions. These results are in line with studies that have proposed that awareness of consequences affect ascription of responsibility and that responsibility indirectly affects intentions and behavior via PN (Black et al, 1985;De Ruyer & Wetzels, 2000;Diamond & Kashyap, 1997;Steg et al, 2005;Stern, 2000). A mediator model also seems theoretically plausible because it is difficult to feel responsible for acting prosocially or to think about the effectiveness of possible actions without knowing whether not acting prosocially is a problem.…”

“…A large amount of studies show, however, that intentions are closely linked to behavior (see Armitage & Conner, 2001). Subsequently, most studies that tested the NAM included only self-reported behavior (e.g., De Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000;Diamond & Kashyap, 1997;Guagnano, 2001;Nordlund & Garvill, 2002Steg et al, 2005;Stern, 2000;Tyler et al, 1982;Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978). Choosing similar dependent measures as these studies makes comparing results easier.…”

“…This interpretation of the NAM has been supported in several studies. For example, Diamond and Kashyap (1997) found in a study among 246 alumni on contributing money to a university that personal obligation toward donating money to their university is a direct antecedent of intending to donate money and actually donating money to the university. The effects of AC and AR on intentions and behavior were mediated by PN.…”

Profiles of Supportive Alumni: Donors, Volunteers, and Those Who “Do It All”

“…For instance, the variable, " perceived need for fi nancial support " has been shown in many studies to be an important predictor of alumni giving ( Miracle, 1977 ;House, 1987 ;Taylor and Martin, 1995 ;Diamond and Kashyap, 1997 ). Similarly, Pearson's (1999) research found that a signifi cant deterrent to giving is a feeling among alumni that the university does not need their gifts as much as other nonprofi t organizations.…”

Who Decides in Giving to Education? A Study of Charitable Giving by Married Couples

“…With the increasing competitiveness in the market, combined with rising educational costs and reductions in student fi nancial aid, college and university alumni are ever more essential in providing fi nancial support to their institutions ( Briechle, 2003 ;Liu, 2006 ;Weerts and Ronca, 2007 ). Research on giving to higher education generally has focused on predicting the factors and characteristics of alumni who give (e.g., Taylor and Martin, 1995 ;Baade and Sundberg, 1996 ;Okunade and Berl, 1997 ;Belfi eld and Beney, 2000 ;Clotfelter, 2003 ;Weerts and Ronca, 2007 ), the institutional and macroeconomic factors in explaining variations in giving (e.g., Briechle, 2003 ;Gunsalus, 2004 ;Liu, 2006 ), alumni motivation for giving (e.g., Diamond and Kashyap, 1997 ;Weerts and Ronca, 2007 ), fundraising practices in higher education (e.g., Harrison, 1995 ;Harrison et al , 1995 ), and the determinants of donor revenue (e.g., Cunningham and Cochi-Ficano, 2001 ; see review of literature in Liu, 2006 ).…”