Author's personal copy - Carlson School of …...Author's personal copy Research Article Corporate sponsorships may hurt nonpro ts: Understanding their effects on charitable giving

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Research Article

Corporate sponsorships may hurt nonprofits: Understandingtheir effects on charitable giving☆

Christine M. Bennett a, 1, Hakkyun Kim b,⁎, Barbara Loken c, 2

a Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403, USAb School of Business, Sungkyunkwan University, 25-2 Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-745 South Koreac Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

Received 5 January 2012; received in revised form 25 October 2012; accepted 26 October 2012Available online 3 November 2012

Abstract

While prior research suggests that corporate sponsorship can positively affect consumers' perceptions of sponsors, little research to date hasinvestigated the impact of such sponsorships on an individual's willingness to support nonprofits. This paper investigates the psychologicalprocesses that underlie whether and how corporate sponsorship impacts an individual's willingness to support nonprofit organizations and suggeststhat unintended negative outcomes may emerge. Specifically, results from five studies suggest that exposure to sponsorship information can reduceprospective donors' willingness to support a nonprofit because people believe that their individual contributions will matter less. In addition, thisresearch identifies a potential mechanism (i.e., donor-company identification) that can mitigate these negative effects.© 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Nonprofit marketing; Sponsorship; Donation; Charitable giving; Social loafing

Introduction

“It's the classic ‘win–win’ situation. The corporation getscredit for being a good citizen, while [nonprofits] receivesupport to accomplish good things in the community.”—Society for Nonprofit Organizations, 2011

The above quote summarizes the prevailing wisdom in thenonprofit sector: corporate sponsorship will not only benefit the

sponsor, but will also benefit the nonprofit by enabling it toacquire the needed resources to do its work in the community.This paper examines whether an unintended outcome mayemerge with other donor groups (i.e., individual donors). Asnonprofit charitable organizations face a growing need forservices, inter-charity competition, and reduced governmentalfunding (Bendapudi, Singh, & Bendapudi, 1996; Small &Verrochi, 2009), effective fundraising from all donor groupscontinues to be pivotal to their success. Moreover, with problemsheightened by the recent recession, nonprofit organizations areincreasingly incorporating corporate sponsorships into theirfundraising and development initiatives. For example, of the 10largest charities ranked by Forbes in terms of private donations,all charities provided sponsorship information in some format ontheir national or affiliates' websites (Barrett, 2008). Given thatmany nonprofits engage in the practice of publicizing theircorporate sponsors, a question that emerges is whether and howsuch exposure impacts an individual's charitable giving.

Lay theory suggests that while corporate sponsors receivepositive publicity for their goodwill, the nonprofit, in turn, not

☆ This research was partially supported by the Opus College of BusinessSummer Research Award in 2011 (awarded to C.M. Bennett), the Institute forResearch in Marketing, Carlson School of Management (awarded to B. Loken)and Carlson School of Management Dean's Small Grant (awarded to B. Loken).The authors thank Tianchi Hou, Marco Morelli and Wyatt Wenzel for researchassistance in conducting interviews and experiments.⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +82 2 760 0950.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.M. Bennett),[email protected] (H. Kim), [email protected] (B. Loken).1 Fax: +1 651 962 5093.2 Fax: +1 612 624 8804.

1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.010

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 3 (2013) 288–300


only receives financial or in-kind support from the corporation,but also receives increased public awareness and enhancedcreditability, which is believed to increase public support interms of monetary donations, volunteer hours and the like. Priorresearch also indicates that consumers favor companies andbrands engaged in corporate social responsibility (cf., Yoon,Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006), and the assumption has beenthat these preferences can potentially impact both the corporatesponsor and the nonprofit favorably (for a review, seeGürhan-Canli & Fries, 2010). However, while the positiveeffects of these corporate sponsorships on consumers' percep-tions and purchases of the corporations' branded products arewell documented, little research to date has investigated theimpact of these sponsorships on nonprofits. Specifically, mostresearch investigating the impact of sponsorship initiativestakes the perspective of the sponsoring company, either byfocusing on the impact of corporate sponsorship on the per-formance of sponsoring companies (e.g., Barone, Miyazaki, &Taylor, 2000; Henderson & Arora, 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya,2001) or by choosing a context where the company requests thattheir customers also support the nonprofit (e.g., Lichtenstein,Drumwright, & Braig, 2004). Thus, the impact of corporatesponsorship on prospective donors, specifically when the non-profit is the entity communicating the existence of the sponsor-ship to the public and requesting support from individuals(e.g., donating money, volunteering, signing petitions, or par-ticipating in fundraising events) has been largely ignored in theliterature.

The current research addresses this question, which isimportant from the perspective of consumer psychologists,nonprofit managers, as well as society at large. Its importancestems from the fact that individual donors as a group accountfor the largest single source of donations to nonprofit organiza-tions: out of all estimated donations in 2011 ($298.42 billion),individual donations accounted for $217.79 billion or 73%. Incontrast, corporate donations account for 4.9% (GivingUSAFoundation, 2010). Thus, given the critical role that individualshave in generating needed revenue for nonprofits, it is im-portant to investigate whether and how corporate sponsorsimpact an individual's charitable behavior. Thus, our researchaims to advance prior findings by providing new insights intohow these sponsorships impact prospective donors' willingnessto support nonprofits.

Conceptual background

Charitable giving

Prior research has investigated factors that impact charitablegiving including prospective donors' empathic responses tovictims (Hung & Wyer, 2009; Small & Simonsohn, 2008;Small & Verrochi, 2009), donor identity salience (Arnett,German, & Hunt, 2003), moral identity (Reed, Aquino, &Levy, 2007; Winterich, Mittal, & Ross, 2009), self-benefitversus other-benefit appeals (White & Peloza, 2009) and thepublic's images of nonprofits (Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner,2010). In addition, motivations for prosocial behavior that have

been identified include reducing personal distress (e.g., guilt),obtaining rewards (e.g., social recognition), or alleviating others'needs (e.g., the belief that one has made a significant difference toothers; see Clary & Snyder, 1991; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, &Schroeder, 2005 for a review).

When prospective donors become aware of the existenceof corporate donors, the question arises as to whether suchsponsorship information enhances or diminishes an individual'sdesire to support the organization, as well. On one hand, wemight expect that when prospective donors receive informationthat other entities have already supported the organization, theywill view this endorsement favorably and will also be inclinedto donate. This expectation is consistent with lay beliefs held bynonprofit managers and is in line with the principle of socialproof or informational social influence in the psychologyliterature, whereby an endorsement from a credible source (thecorporation) serves as a catalyst for donors to support theorganization. On the other hand, publicizing current donorsmay change an individual's perceptions of the impact their ownparticipation will have, thereby negatively impacting prospec-tive donors' willingness to support nonprofits. This negativeresponse may be triggered by a perception that one's individualdonation is not likely to make much of an impact to thenonprofit. This reasoning is in line with the theory of socialloafing. Thus, two competing predictions emerge from theliterature to explain the impact of publicizing corporate donorson individuals' willingness to support nonprofits. We nextbriefly review each of these streams of research.

Social proof

The principle of social proof, also known as informationalsocial influence, suggests that individuals sometimes look to thebehavior of others as a source for how to determine the appropriatecourse of action (Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008;Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007).Specifically, this principle suggests that “[w]e view a behavioras correct in a given situation to the degree that we see othersperforming it” (Cialdini, 1993, p. 100). Prior research has shownthat the principle of social proof has been influential in a numberof contexts, including returning lost property (Hornstein, Fisch, &Holmes, 1967), engaging in promiscuous sexual activity (Buunk& Baker, 1995; Winslow, Franzini, & Hwang, 1992) and suicidaldecisions (Garland & Zigler, 1993; Phillips & Carstensen, 1988).The extant research in a fundraising context suggests thatpublicizing donor information can have a positive effect on anindividual's willingness to donate, as well. In a study conductedby Reingen (1982), participants were solicited for a donation insupport of a heart association, either after being exposed to a list ofeight donors who had already donated to the organization, orwithout receiving any donor information. The results indicatedthat participants were more likely to donate when a donor list wasprovided, compared to when no donor information was provided.A similar pattern of results was obtained in a follow-up study inthe context of a blood drive campaign where participants wereasked to donate blood. Participants were more likely to agree todonate blood after seeing a list of eight people who had already

289C.M. Bennett et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 3 (2013) 288–300


donated versus participants who had not received donor informa-tion. Conditions under which people are more likely to beimpacted by informational social influence include ambiguous oruncertain situations (Allen, 1965; Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman,1996; Cialdini, 1993; Tesser, Campbell, & Mickler, 1983), whenthe source is similar (Cialdini, 1993) or when the source is anexpert (Allison, 1992; Bickman, 1974; Cialdini & Trost, 1998).The goal of social proof is knowledge, and this knowledge will bemore readily accepted from an expert or a very knowledgeableentity (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975; Kelman, 1961; McGuire,1969). Therefore, in line with this theorizing, we might expectcorporate sponsors to have a positive impact on prospectivedonors' willingness to support the nonprofit because the corporateentity is perceived as a credible source of information aboutwhether or not the nonprofit is worthy of a donation. In sum, wewould expect that publicizing corporate donors will have apositive effect on prospective donors' willingness to donate tononprofits such that when prospective donors receive informationthat expert others (i.e., corporations) have already donated to agiven charity, they will view this endorsement favorably and willbe inclined to donate as well, boosting much needed resources forthe nonprofit. We next review the theory of social loafing, whichoffers a competing prediction.

Social loafing

Social loafing refers to the well-documented finding thatindividuals contribute less to an effort when working collec-tively toward a goal than when working individually toward it(Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). For example, the earlieststudy by Max Ringelmann (1913) found that when studentswere asked to pull as hard as they could on a rope, they exertedless effort when working in groups than when working alone.Subsequent research suggests that this reduced effort can occurwhen working in either the real or imagined presence of others,and this phenomenon has been observed across a wide varietyof contexts (for a meta-analytic review, see Karau & Williams,1993). This stream of research suggests that in a corporatesponsorship context, individuals may be less willing to donateto a nonprofit when they perceive a fundraising drive as acollective effort shared by all donor groups (e.g., individuals,corporations). This negative effect is likely to be furtherheightened in our context since, compared to individuals,corporations are consistently believed to be very wealthy. Inturn, people may assume that the magnitude of the corporatedonations is relatively large, given the relative wealth of largecompanies, even though the donations could potentially bein-kind donations of the companies' products or services andnot monetary donations at all. In at least one noteworthyreal-world case in 2007, Albertson College of Idaho changed itsname back to the College of Idaho in the hopes of luring backalumni donors who were not contributing to the college be-cause of the presence of the Albertson Foundation (Strout,2007). Furthermore, in support of this reduced effort prediction,it has been noted that when people perceive that their inputsare not essential in reaching a group goal (i.e., their owncontributions will not make much of a difference), they are

more likely to reduce their efforts (Karau & Williams, 1993).For instance, when a number of corporate donors are high-lighted in a donor solicitation (compared to when suchinformation is not shown), prospective donors may perceivetheir own individual contributions as, at best, a very small partof the collective effort. The list of corporate sponsors donatingto the same common cause may reduce individuals' perceptionsof the marginal impact of their donation (i.e., that they will“make a difference”) and may heighten their perceptions thattheir individual contributions will have less of an impact on thenonprofit. Therefore, unless prospective donors feel sufficientlyattached to corporate donors (so as to create similarity oridentification with the donor, which can instill the belief thathelping is the norm), publicizing corporate sponsors can have anegative effect, resulting in decreased willingness to support anonprofit among prospective individual donors.

Given that social proof and social loafing theories offercompeting predictions about the impact of corporate sponsor-ship on an individual's willingness to support a nonprofit (thatis, consistent with the perspective of social proof, corporatesponsorship will have a positive effect on individual donations,whereas consistent with the perspective of social loafing,corporate sponsorship will have a negative effect on individualdonations), we launched an empirical investigation to deter-mine which perspective prevails. In the studies that follow, wefirst test these two contrasting hypotheses and then unpack theprocesses underlying the effect of corporate sponsorship onindividual donor behavior.

Overview of studies

Our research consists of five studies that examine the impact ofcorporate sponsorship on individuals' charitable behavior. Studies1 through 3 tested whether publicizing corporate sponsorsenhances or diminishes prospective donors' willingness to supportnonprofits. Specifically, the results of Studies 1 and 2 suggestedthat publicizing corporate sponsors lowers donors' willingness tosupport nonprofits. Study 3 further identified when the presence ofother donors can enhance or diminish individuals' donationbehavior, in line with social loafing and social proof theories.Study 4 heightened the validity of this research, in that actualdonation behavior, as well as intentions to donate, was measured.Study 4 also tested the process explanation while ruling outalternative accounts. Finally, Study 5 addressed a limitingcondition of when the negative impact of corporate sponsorshipcan be reversed by instilling a sense of identification withsponsoring companies. Taken together, we found that publicizingcorporate sponsors can reduce individuals' willingness to supportnonprofits by reducing the perception that their donations matter;in addition, we identified a salve that can ameliorate theunintended negative effects of corporate sponsorship.

Study 1

The primary purpose of the present study is to examinewhether corporate sponsorship can have a positive or negativeimpact on consumers' willingness to support a nonprofit. We

290 C.M. Bennett et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 3 (2013) 288–300


aim to first empirically test the effect of corporate sponsorshipon individuals' willingness to support a nonprofit organization.For this purpose, we developed two versions of an appeal fordonations, one of which included corporate sponsorship in-formation, and one that did not.

Participants and procedures

Fifty-four undergraduates participated in this study inexchange for a small snack (e.g., a can of Pringles), and theywere randomly assigned to one of the two sponsorship con-ditions (sponsorship versus control: no sponsorship informa-tion). The participants were first asked to examine an appealfrom an actual, but relatively unfamiliar, local nonprofitorganization serving homeless teens and young adults. Theappeal included general information about the rate of teenhomelessness in the county, as well as a description of thenonprofit's five core programs. In the sponsorship condition,the logos of five well-known corporations (Target, GeneralMills, 3M, Starbucks and US Bank) were listed at the bottom ofthe appeal with a note indicating, “We thank our sponsors fortheir support!” These five corporations were selected becausethey were well-known to the subject population. We alsoconsidered prior research on the congruency of corporatesponsorships and nonprofits (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), sincecongruity has been found in some prior research to increaseevaluations of both entities (brands) in the pairing. In particular,we sought to include only corporate sponsors perceived to havea moderately good fit for the profit–nonprofit sponsorshippairings. A pretest (n=35) conducted on the sample similar tothe participants of the main study confirmed that all cor-porations were considered to be neither a low nor high matchwith the selected nonprofit. In the control condition, no com-pany logos were shown.

After examining the nonprofit's appeal, participants wereasked to respond to the dependent measures concerning theirwillingness to support the nonprofit and their attitudes towardthe corporate sponsors. The five willingness-to-support mea-sures used for our main dependent variable were as follows:1) “To what extent would you be willing to donate money tothis organization?”; 2) “To what extent would you be willing tosolicit your friends and family members to donate money to thisorganization?”; 3) “To what extent would you be willingto give your time to support this organization's programs?”;4) “To what extent would you be willing to volunteer for thisorganization?”; and 5) “To what extent would you be willing toask your friends and family members to volunteer for thisorganization?” anchored on scales from 1 (“not at all willing”)to 7 (“very willing”). These five scales were found to bestrongly intercorrelated; thus, they were combined into a single“willingness to help” index (α= .89).

Participants' attitudes toward each company were also mea-sured. The single-item scale measure ranged from 1 (“nega-tive”) to 7 (“positive”). This attitude measure was included toverify and replicate prior research that consumers' attitudestoward the companies were not more negative in the spon-sorship condition, which would verify that negative affect

associated with the companies was not a significant contribut-ing factor toward reductions in willingness to donate. Finally,participants completed items assessing whether they wouldpurchase nonprofit-branded items as part of a separate fund-raising initiative. All items were measured on seven-pointscales ranging from 1 (“not at all willing”) to 7 (“very willing”).These items were included as secondary forms of donationbehavior to determine whether the negative effects of corporatesponsorships transfer to these more peripheral types of helpingbehaviors. After completing the questionnaire, the participantswere thanked and debriefed.

Results

For our primary inquiry as to whether publicizing corporatesponsors would enhance or lower individuals' donations, wefirst compared participants assigned to the sponsorship con-dition with those assigned to the control condition. The resultsindicated that those in the sponsorship condition were lesswilling to support the nonprofit (M=3.69, SD=1.41), relativeto those in control condition (M=4.41, SD= .78; F(1, 52)=7.03, pb .05, η2 = .10). This result reveals that corporate spon-sorship had a negative impact on individual donors' willingnessto support a nonprofit, suggesting that the theory of socialloafing has explanatory power in the context of corporatesponsorship, compared to the theory of social proof.

Corporate sponsorship appeared to have an impact on othertypes of support, as well. Specifically, participants in thesponsorship condition indicated that they were less likely tosupport the nonprofit by purchasing nonprofit-branded t-shirts($12) or coffee mugs ($7) as part of a separate fundraisinginitiative (Msponsorship =3.02, SD=1.61 vs. Mcontrol =3.77, SD=1.47; F(1, 52)=3.18, pb .08, η2 = .06), albeit marginally.

In contrast to the aforementioned results and consistentwith prior research (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), comparedto participants in the control condition, participants in thesponsorship condition held more favorable attitudes toward thesponsoring companies (Msponsorship=5.90, SD= .41 vs.Mcontrol =5.33, SD= .80; F(1, 52)=10.48, pb .01, η2 = .17). Takentogether, these results suggest that while corporate sponsorshipseems to have a positive impact on the sponsoring corporationsin terms of their being perceived positively by prospectivedonors, corporate sponsorship tends to yield an unintendednegative effect in terms of prospective donors' willingness tosupport the nonprofit.

Discussion

The results of Study 1 show that individuals were lesswilling to support the nonprofit organization when they hadexplicit information that the organization was being sponsoredby corporations. This finding suggests that corporate sponsor-ship information can diminish individual donors' desire tosupport nonprofit organizations. As a result, corporate spon-sorship may not always be beneficial for nonprofit organiza-tions seeking individual donors. In addition, individualsexposed to corporate sponsorship information appear to be



less willing to purchase products as a part of a separatefundraising initiative. However, people tend to view corporatesponsors paired with the nonprofit in a favorable light, which isconsistent with earlier findings in the CSR literature (Brown &Dacin, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Combined, thesefindings imply that the presumed “win–win” dictum for bothsponsoring companies and nonprofit organizations needs to beheeded with an important caveat: an important donor group,individual donors, may be negatively impacted. Specifically,unlike the conventional wisdom suggesting that partnering withcorporations enhances the general public's perceptions of thenonprofit, such partnerships may actually lower the public'shelping behaviors toward the nonprofit. Therefore, the currentstudy stands in sharp contrast to current fundraising assump-tions, suggesting the possibility that nonprofits may not beawarded entirely positive benefits from the corporation–nonprofit link.

Study 2

In the current study, we intended to provide convergentsupport for the negative influences on people's willingness tosupport a nonprofit when it reveals that corporate sponsors arehelping the organization. Specifically, to bestow robustness onthe effects obtained in Study 1, we made two changes: First,rather than relying on homogeneous student participants, weused an online panel to reach respondents throughout thecountry. Second, we sought to determine whether the effectgeneralizes further to other dependent variables and types ofappeals. Specifically, we measured people's intentions to sign apetition for a nonprofit as our primary dependent variable. Inthe nonprofit sector, petitions are commonly used to qualifynonprofits for further support from local or federal governmentsand to promote a change in the course of action or legislationrelated to the cause to which a nonprofit dedicates its focus.Since accumulating a supportive force from citizens andcommunities can operate as a critical prerequisite to theultimate goals of nonprofit organizations, understanding howcorporate sponsorship influences people's willingness to sign apetition is of considerable importance.


A total of 102 adults were recruited and participated in thisonline experiment in exchange for a chance to win a $50 giftcertificate. These participants live in 32 states, and 81% werenot students. Also, the mean age was 38.14, and a skew towardwomen was observed. Our research is concerned with theimpact of sponsorship on intentions to support a nonprofitorganization by signing a petition. Therefore, this skew shouldhave little impact, except for the possibility that women areactually less likely to engage in social loafing (Karau &Williams, 1993). Thus, a deviation of the sample from thepopulation is not expected, but it can create a basis for strongerhypothesis testing.

The procedures and stimuli were similar to those used in theprevious study. However, to accommodate the national context,

a nonprofit was described as targeting homeless teens through-out the United States and as being located in Washington, D.C.,to make this nonprofit perceived equally from participants ofdifferent states. In addition, we chose a different dependentvariable: whether or not participants would be willing to sign apetition requesting additional funds from the government tosupport the nonprofit. This dependent variable was used for tworeasons. First, given the current economic climate, we wanteda measure to assess whether or not participants would bewilling to support the nonprofit organization without directlydiminishing participants' current resources (even hypothetical-ly). Second, we wanted to reduce the possibility of observingfloor effects such that participants across conditions wouldreport extremely low willingness to donate since the nonprofitwas not located in respective hometowns. Thus, followingexposure to the appeal, respondents indicated their willingnessto sign a petition for the organization as a focal dependentmeasure. The description read as the following: “SupposeYouthLink asks you to endorse their petition for an increase inthe funding allocated to this organization. Each year YouthLinkreceives a grant from the federal government. However, toeffectively run their programs, they are in the process ofpreparing a petition for more financial support from thegovernment. To what extent are you willing to sign theirpetition?”

Results

A one-way ANOVA was run on intentions to sign thepetition, with sponsorship as a factor, which generated asignificant main effect of sponsorship. Specifically, respon-dents who viewed a message with sponsors listed were lesslikely to sign the petition for the nonprofit, compared tothose who viewed the message without any sponsors listed(Msponsorship = 5.04, SD=1.95 vs. Mcontrol = 5.76, SD=1.66;F(1, 99) = 4.06, pb .05, η2 = .04).

Discussion

In this study, we replicated our previous findings in a newcontext, indicating that publicizing corporate sponsors maynegatively impact an individual's willingness to support anonprofit.

Study 3

As discussed earlier, when prospective donors receiveinformation about a nonprofit that already has donors onboard, two outcomes can emerge: either prospective donorswill lend a hand and donate as well, or they will close theirpurse strings and be less willing to donate. The findings fromthe first two studies indicate that the influence of corporatedonors follows a path consistent with the predictions of socialloafing theory: donors are less likely to give when working aspart of a group effort involving corporate and individualdonors. A question that then emerges is whether this effect isunique to the corporate sponsorship context. That is, will



prospective donors increase their participation in the causewhen similar, less wealthy donors are already in action, as thesocial proof theory posits? The current study intended toexamine this issue by further distinguishing the influence ofcorporate donors from other types of donors.


Eighty-three undergraduates participated in this study inexchange for extra course credit. They were asked to view oneof the three different types of appeals: one with corporatesponsors, another with no sponsorship information, and a thirdwith a list of names of students and staff members of the sameuniversity as the respondents. Specifically, in the last condition,the statement, “[A] lot of [school name] students and staffmembers have agreed to be part of our programs, with theirmoney and time” was inserted at the bottom of the appeal,3 andapproximately 70 individuals' names (instead of corporatesponsor logos) were listed below. Similar to the previous study,upon exposure to the appeal, all respondents generatedintentions to support the nonprofit using the same five measuresused in Study 1. Additionally, they indicated their willingnessto purchase an item offered as part of the organization'sfundraising campaign. After completing the questionnaire, theparticipants were thanked and debriefed.

Results

An ANOVA run on willingness to support the nonprofit(α= .83) generated a significant main effect of sponsorship(F(1, 80)=10.44, pb .01, η2 = .21), revealing patterns predictedby both social proof and social loafing theories, depending onthe type of existing donors. Specifically, respondents whoviewed a message with corporate sponsors listed were lesslikely to support the organization, compared to those whoviewed the message without any sponsors listed (Mcompany=3.38 vs. Mcontrol =3.93; pb .07), a pattern consistent with thesocial loafing theory and results from Studies 1 and 2. Incontrast, respondents who viewed a message with a list of otherindividual donors were more likely to support the organization,compared to those who viewed the message without anysponsors listed (Mindividuals =4.62 vs. Mcontrol =3.93; pb .05),a pattern consistent with the social proof theory. A similarpattern emerged in terms of their willingness to buy anonprofit-branded product (Mcompany=2.67 vs. Mcontrol =3.30vs. Mindividuals =4.31; (F(1, 80)=5.94, pb .05, η

2 = .13).

Discussion

The current study suggests that both theories (i.e., socialproof and social loafing theories) have merits in predicting theinfluence of sponsors on prospective donors, but the type ofsponsor seems to determine which theory exerts relatively moreinfluence on individuals' donation decisions. Although corpo-rations can be viewed as possessing a certain level of expertisein this context, presumably corporate sponsors are perceived asquite dissimilar from individual donors, particularly in terms ofwealth, and their donations are generally expected to be moreinfluential than those from average individuals. Thus, partici-pants tend to report lower willingness to donate when corporatesponsors are shown on an appeal versus when no corporatesponsors are shown, which is consistent with social loafing.However, in line with the theory of social proof, willingness todonate is greater when other individuals have already donated.These findings altogether appear to indicate the complexity ofindividuals' donation decision making processes.

Our next goal is to investigate by what process social loafingoccurs in the context of corporate sponsorship. Given theresults obtained in this study, we presumed that corporatesponsorship cues (i.e., the perceived wealth of corporations)would instigate beliefs that individuals' personal donationswould be less likely to make a difference to a nonprofit, therebymaking individuals less likely to help a nonprofit withcorporate sponsors. That is, people may believe that their ownindividual efforts will matter less and will make less of animpact when other, wealthier donor groups such as corpora-tions are involved. Therefore, publicizing corporate sponsorscan result in decreased willingness to support a nonprofitamong prospective individual donors via such an impactperception. To assess this claim, and to marshal initial evidencein support of our conceptualization, we performed a follow-upstudy in which participants were first asked to review twononprofit organizations under the assumption that they woulddonate some of their money to the nonprofit organizations.They were asked, subsequently, to choose one of these twocharities. The two nonprofit organizations were comparable toeach other in terms of mission, main programs, and degree ofgovernment support. The only exception between the two wasfunding composition: one charity had the majority of itsfunding source from corporate sponsors, while the otherwas portrayed as heavily relying on individual donors. Wealso counterbalanced the description so that each charity waspresented as having corporate sponsors to half of the respon-dents. After perusing the table depicting these two charities, theparticipants rated their preference for a charity as a recipient oftheir personal donations and beliefs regarding how theirpersonal donations would be valued by nonprofits without(versus with) corporate sponsors, on seven-point scales.

A one-sample t-test using the midpoint as the test valueindicated that participants preferred to help the nonprofitwithout any corporate sponsors rather than the nonprofit withcorporate sponsors (M=4.81, SD=2.10; t=3.91, pb .01). Inaddition, participants' preference for the nonprofit withoutcorporate sponsors was highly correlated with their beliefs that

3 We should note that there could have been a confounding issue, since thenumber of corporate sponsors and existing individual donors were not identical.Since listing a few individual names (unless prominent or famous) is notcommon, while a small number of corporate sponsors are often shown innonprofits' appeals, we used a different number for the people-donor condition.Future research investing this issue and any additional difference betweencorporate sponsors and general people can further extend the effect of existingdonors on prospective ones.



their donations would be more valued by the nonprofit withoutcorporate sponsors, compared to the nonprofit with corporatesponsors (r= .49. pb .01). These data support the notion thatseeing corporate sponsor cues triggers perceptions that in-dividuals' personal donations will not make an impact whennonprofits already have corporate sponsors, a hypothesis weformally tested in the next study.

Study 4

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we intended tofurther examine the underlying mechanism by investigating themediating role of “making a difference” perceptions, a pro-posed mediator construct. In addition, we tested other alternat-ive process variables. In particular, we note that perceptions ofthe nonprofit's need can also potentially have a negative effecton individuals' willingness to support a corporate-sponsorednonprofit, rivaling the social loafing explanation. That is, thereason for observing any negative effects in individual donorbehavior in a corporate sponsorship context can be due toperceptions that the nonprofit is no longer in need of funding.Prior research suggests that perceptions of a nonprofit's need isan important factor in donor decisions (Fisher & Ackerman,1998). In light of this, we also test whether perceptions of thenonprofit's need is a contributing factor in the relationshipbetween corporate sponsorship and individual donor behavior.Second, unlike previous studies that measured only intentionsto donate, the present study aimed to measure the actualdonation behavior, so as to enhance the validity of this research.

Participants and procedure

Eighty-two undergraduates enrolled in marketing coursesparticipated in the study. The participants were randomlyassigned to either the control or sponsorship conditions. Theoverall procedures used in this study are similar to those used inprevious studies, except for the following changes. First, at thebeginning of the sessions, the participants were informed thatthey would participate in several unrelated studies groupedtogether and that they would be given three dollars for theirparticipation. An envelope that contained twelve quarters($3.00) was placed in each seat before the start of the session.Participants first worked on a short survey about their per-sonality and their social media use. They were then introducedto a second study where they were asked to view an appealfrom a genuine nonprofit working for a local children'shospital. The content concerning the nonprofit's mission andhow to make donations, as well as images used in the appeal,were obtained from its website in order to maintain the truenature of the organization. Also, for the sponsorship condition,there was an additional section highlighting corporate donors,where some of the names of the most recent actual corporatesponsors shown on the organization's website and in thenewsletters were displayed. In the control condition, no suchinformation was provided.

Following the exposure to the appeal, participants wereasked to respond to dependent measures concerning their

willingness to donate their money to this nonprofit and theirperceptions as to whether they believed their donations wouldmake an impact. The two items for willingness to donate werethe following: “To what extent would you be willing to donatemoney to this organization?” and, “How likely would youdonate money to this organization?” (1 = “not at all willing/unlikely,” 7 = “very willing/likely”; α= .86). The average scoreon the items formed an index of willingness to donate.Participants then rated the perceived impact of their donationsby responding to these two items: “To what extent do youperceive that your personal donation to this organization wouldmake a difference?” and, “To what extent do you believe thatgiving your money to support this organization would increasethe nonprofit's likelihood of reaching its goals?” anchored onscales from 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “very much.” Later, these twoitems were averaged to form an impact perception index (α=.83). Participants also responded to other alternative processmeasures, such as feelings of guilt (“I would feel guilty if I didnot donate my money or time to this organization,” and “Iwould feel uncomfortable if I did not donate my money or timeto this organization,” α= .86); perceptions that the nonprofitwould need funds (“This organization is currently well-funded”); and perceived integrity of the organization (“Thisorganization appears to have a good deal of integrity”), all ofwhich we intended to rule out.

Next, participants were reminded that they had been given aseparate envelope where they could find 12 quarters (i.e., $3) asa compensation for their participation in this study and werethen asked if they wanted to make a donation to the charity. Forthose who wished to do so, they were asked to insert thenumber of quarters they wanted to give to the charity back intothe envelope. To minimize social pressure, the envelopeamounts were disguised to other participants (e.g., all in-dividuals submitted an envelope whether they gave or not) andthe experimenter in the room was unobtrusive. Finally,participants were thanked and debriefed.

Results

Intentions to donateA one-way ANOVA run on intentions to donate revealed a

significant effect of sponsorship, replicating the results ofprevious studies. Specifically, respondents who received anappeal including corporate sponsorship information were lesslikely to donate, relative to those who viewed an appeal that didnot include such information (Msponsorship =4.38, SD=1.51 vs.Mcontrol =5.11, SD=1.33; F(1, 80)=5.43, pb .05, η2 = .06).

Actual donationsWe next tested whether revealing corporate sponsorship to

prospective donors had a negative impact on the actual amountof dollars that prospective donors gave to the nonprofit. Thesame analysis on the number of quarters donated revealed asimilar pattern, in that respondents who received an appeal withcorporate sponsorship information donated fewer quarterscompared to those in the control condition (Msponsorship=8.24,SD=4.86 vs. Mcontrol=11.00, SD=2.85; F(1, 80)=9.81, pb .05,



η2 = .11).4 Thus, this result indicates a negative effect ofrevealing corporate sponsors on actual donor behavior.

Impact perceptionsWe next performed a similar analysis with perceptions as to

whether individuals' personal donations can make an impact,averaged on two items, as a dependent variable. Overall, thepattern is very similar to the one obtained above, with bothintentions to donate and actual donations. Specifically, re-spondents who viewed the message with sponsorship informa-tion perceived their contribution as less meaningful andimpactful than those in the control condition (Msponsorship =3.96, SD=1.51 vs. Mcontrol =4.68, SD=1.22; F(1, 80)=5.62,pb .05, η2 = .07).

Moreover, a bootstrapping analysis revealed, with 95%confidence, that the indirect effect of perception in making animpact on both intentions to donate and actual donations wassignificant, with a point estimate of − .42 and a 95% BCa(bias-corrected and accelerated) bootstrap confidence intervalfrom − .8109 to − .0927 for intentions to donate, and with apoint estimate of − .88 and a 95% BCa (bias-correctedand accelerated) bootstrap confidence interval from −1.8568to − .2048 for the actual donations, respectively.

We also tested several alternative explanations. First, wefound that people's feelings of guilt varied as a function ofsponsorship, such that participants in the sponsorship conditionwere less likely to feel guilty for not helping the nonprofit thanparticipants in the control condition (Msponsorship=3.29, SD=1.60 vs. Mcontrol =4.01, SD=1.64; F(1, 80)=4.03, pb .05).However, feelings of guilt were not found to operate as anunderlying process of the negative influence of sponsorship onpeople's donation behavior, in that a 95% BCa (bias-correctedand accelerated) bootstrap confidence interval was [− .5781,.3575]. In addition, neither were people's perceptions about theaffluence of the organization nor their perceived integrity of theorganization affected by sponsorship cues (pN .57 and pN .46,respectively). Given this pattern of results, our premise seemsto be the most viable explanation for the process, compared tothe other candidate explanations.5

Discussion

In this study, we replicated our basic findings on people'sactual donations, beyond mere measured intentions. Similar toprevious studies, this study confirms that revealing corporate

sponsors may negatively impact prospective donors' willing-ness to support a nonprofit organization.6 Further, the findingsindicate an underlying cause of such a negative impact ofsponsorship, such that people's donation decisions are mediat-ed by their perceptions of whether their personal donations willhave an impact on the nonprofit. To be more specific, revealingcorporate sponsorship leads people to believe that theirpersonal donations will not benefit the nonprofit to a greatdegree, and this belief, in turn, lowers people's motivation tosupport the nonprofit financially. With respect to this processexplanation, we also ruled out alternative processes that couldaccount for such a negative influence of sponsorship.Altogether, this study further corroborates our line of reasoningas to the mechanism by showing how people's actual donationsare influenced by sponsorship information.

Study 5

Study 5 investigates conditions under which the negativeeffects of sponsorship are mitigated. As noted in Karau andWilliams (1993), people are less likely to engage in socialloafing when group identification is high. Increasing groupidentity can enhance self-evaluation by increasing people'sfeelings of group spirit and belonging. As the social identitytheory (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1986)suggests, when people can relate to others in a group, they aremore likely to align their goals and motivations with those ofother members. In a cohesive group, people tend to showmotivational gains and tend to be more willing to follow thelead of others (Murray, Johnson, Luepker, & Mittelmark, 1984;Witte, 1989).

While a common scenario for group identification by anonprofit might be to encourage prospective donors to identifywith the cause and/or empathize with its victims (e.g., Aaker &Akutsu, 2009; Winterich & Barone, 2011), a scenario in whichprospective donors identify with for-profit brands (i.e., sponsoringcompanies) may yield a different response to the nonprofit. Thus,the question as to whether publicizing corporate sponsors willlower individuals' willingness to donate may depend on thedegree to which individuals identify with the sponsoringcompanies via the group identification's role of reversing

4 From this study, a total of $197.25 was collected. This amount was donatedto the local Children's Hospital Foundation.5 The bootstrap test based on Preacher and Hayes' (2008) macro accommodates

multiple mediators. When we put all potential variables (i.e., impact perceptions,feelings of guilt, perceived nonprofit's need for funds, and integrity of the nonprofit)as proposed mediators for the model, we obtained a similar set of results.Specifically, only the impact perceptions were a significant mediator for the effect ofcorporate sponsorship on donations, in that a 95% BCa bootstrap confidenceinterval was [−1.7931, − .1378], whereas corresponding confidence intervals of theothers all included a zero ([− .6241, .3512] for feelings of guilt, [− .2799, .3587] forintegrity of the nonprofit, and [− .2007, .8975] for perceived need of funds,respectively). Therefore, we could confidently rule out these alternative explana-tions for the effect obtained in this research.

6 One caveat of this study is on the structure and order of this study. That is,the measurement of intentions that preceded the actual donation could haveaffected people's actual behavior, per the mere measurement effect (Morwitz &Fitzsimons, 2004). To address this “pollution” possibility, we conductedanother study (n=42) where only actual donations were measured. As in thefollow-up study of Study 3, participants were asked to review two nonprofitorganizations that were comparable to each other, except for the fundingcomposition. They were then asked to choose one of these two charities as therecipient of their personal donations and to make donations of up to $3, inquarters. Consistent with our predictions, two pieces of findings emerged: 1) aone-sample binomial test confirmed that people were more likely to select thenonprofit that did not have corporate sponsors, relative to the nonprofit that hadseveral corporate sponsors (pb .01); and 2) the nonprofit not having corporatesponsors tended to generate a higher amount of personal donations than thenonprofit having corporate sponsors (M=10.27, SD=3.32 vs. M=8.83,SD=4.22, F(1, 38)=5.05, pb .05, η2= .12). Thus, the obtained effect in Study4 seems to be maintained, even without the stage of forming intentions prior toactual donation behavior.



reduced “make a difference” perceptions. In other words,prospective donors' identification with the sponsors, andsubsequent increased group spirit, may overturn the reducedwillingness to support that we have observed in Studies 1through 4. Further, when prospective donors identify with acollective effort, they are more likely to want to participate ingroup outcomes, and group identification with corporatesponsors should provide an impetus to behave as the sponsorsbehave, and will not necessarily trivialize the impact they canhave on nonprofits by comparing it to that of corporatesponsors. As a result, the present study aims to examinewhether a donor's identification with sponsors can moderatethe influence of corporate sponsors on an individual's willing-ness to donate, a boundary condition that may shed light onhow nonprofit organizations can diminish the social loafingeffect and heighten donations while maintaining the benefits ofa partnership with corporate sponsors.

Participants and procedure

A total of 90 undergraduates participated in exchange forextra course credit. This study used a 2 (sponsorship: sponsor-ship vs. control)×2 (identification: high vs. low) design.

Participants were given a set of questionnaires and were toldthat each questionnaire was a separate study. For the iden-tification manipulation, half of the participants were introducedto a purportedly separate “imagination study,” whose supposedpurpose was to investigate how well people can envisionthemselves in a particular setting. They were then asked towrite a paragraph describing themselves as an employee of amajor corporation who has some high-level responsibilities anda small staff that reports to them. People in the controlcondition proceeded to the main task, without performing thistask.

To assess the efficacy of this manipulation to vary the degreeof identification with large corporations, we performed a test ona separate pretest sample of 48 undergraduates. Participantswere asked to indicate how closely they identified with cor-porations using a self-other overlapping circle measure (Levinger& Snoek, 1972; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Schubert & Otten,2002). For comparison, participants also completed the samemeasure regarding their identification with the government.People in the identification (vs. control) condition showed ahigher degree of identification with corporations (Midentification=4.17, SD=1.34 vs. Mcontrol=2.92, SD=.86; F(1, 48)=15.11,pb .01). However, in a similar item asking how closely theyidentified with the government, there was no difference (M-identification=2.71, SD=1.52 vs. Mcontrol=2.92, SD=1.53; Fb1),suggesting that our manipulation affected the degree to whichpeople identify themselves with large corporations, but not withall entities (e.g., the government).

Next, all participants saw an appeal from a nonprofit or-ganization helping at-risk and homeless teenagers; this organi-zation either had corporate sponsors or did not, depending onthe condition. Then, they rated their willingness to donate andtheir perceptions that their personal donations would make an

impact for this nonprofit, in the same way as in Study 3.Finally, the participants were thanked and debriefed.

Results

Willingness to helpA 2 (sponsorship: sponsorship vs. control)×2 (identifica-

tion: high vs. low) ANOVA on willingness to donate (α= .92)revealed the predicted interaction effect (F(1, 86)=4.57,pb .05, η2 = .05). Neither the main effect of sponsorship northat of identification was significant (Fsb1). Replicatingprevious findings, planned contrasts confirmed that participantsin the no-identification condition reported lower willingness todonate when corporate sponsors were listed on the appealversus when no corporate sponsors were present (Msponsorship =3.06, SD= .95 vs. Mcontrol =3.60, SD=1.40; F(1, 86)=2.91,pb .10). However, when people were made to identify them-selves with major corporations, willingness to donate did notvary as a function of sponsorship condition (Msponsorship =3.93,SD=1.27 vs. Mcontrol =3.29, SD=1.42; F(1, 86)=1.79, pN .18).This finding suggests that the negative influence of corporatesponsorship only occurs among people who do not identifywell with sponsoring companies.

Impact perceptionsWe next examined whether respondents' “make a difference”

perceptions (α= .89) mediated the interaction of sponsorshipand identification. First, a 2 (sponsorship)×2 (identification)ANOVA run on this process measure revealed a significanttwo-way interaction (F(1, 86)=5.53, pb .05, η2 = .06). Specif-ically, planned contrasts confirmed that participants in theno-identification condition perceived their personal donationsas more impactful when no corporate sponsors were listedon the appeal versus when corporate sponsors were present(Msponsorship=4.00, SD=1.06 vs. Mcontrol =4.51, SD=1.37; F(1,86)=4.65, pb .05). However, there was no difference for impactperceptions in the identification condition (Msponsorship=4.71,SD= .94 vs. Mcontrol =3.89, SD=1.70; F(1, 86)=1.79, pN .22).

Further, a bootstrapping analysis revealed, with 95% con-fidence, that the indirect effect of perception in making animpact on willingness to donate was significant, with apoint estimate of − .78 and a 95% BCa (bias-corrected andaccelerated) bootstrap confidence interval from −1.4826 to− .1647. Thus, once again, respondents' perceptions as towhether their donations can make an impact seem to operate asthe underlying mechanism.

Discussion

In this study, we show that the negative impact of corporatesponsorship (which occurs via perceptions that individuals'personal donations would not make a difference) can bereduced by enhancing the donor-sponsoring company's iden-tification. People who momentarily identified themselves withmajor corporations were not vulnerable to the negativeinfluence of corporate sponsorship. This finding echoes thenotion that individuals do not necessarily loaf when they



identify with others in the group, which suggests one possiblesolution for nonprofits who wish to keep both major corpora-tions and people in general on board as their sponsors.

General discussion

Sponsorship is the fastest growing segment of nonprofitfundraising, due to the lay theory that it is a “win–win” strategyfor sponsors and nonprofit organizations. By examining cor-porate sponsorship in a context whereby the nonprofit reveals theexistence of the sponsorship, and subsequently requests supportfrom the general public, we show that there are some caveats tothe “win–win” dictum. The results of the current researchindicate that individuals are sometimes less willing to supportnonprofit organizations, be it monetary donations, volunteerwork, purchasing fundraising items, or signing a petition. Whencorporate sponsorship does have this negative impact, it occursdue to heightened perceptions that individuals' personal dona-tions would not make a difference. Given that the public hasbecome aware of the funding support from corporate donorsthrough public acknowledgement activities, the relevance of thisresearch seems to be high. Furthermore, this research suggeststhat the negative effect of sponsorship on prospective donors canbe mitigated or eliminated by heightening identification betweenprospective donors and the sponsoring companies.

Theoretical contributions

Several insights emerge from the results of this study. First,this research examines the impact that publicizing corporatesponsorships in promotional materials has on individualdonors. While the literature on corporate social responsibilityand sustainability suggests (and our findings concur) thatpositive outcomes emerge for the corporate sponsor, the studiesreported herein also demonstrate that unintended negativeoutcomes may emerge in terms of the likelihood that individualdonors will support the nonprofit, as well. Specifically, weshow that individuals are less willing to support a nonprofitorganization after receiving information that the nonprofit hascorporate sponsors. In this regard, the current research hasidentified conditions under which people's participation inhelping behavior is lowered, while most extant literature showsmotivating factors or mechanisms (e.g., Huang, Zhang, &Broniarczyk, 2012; Winterich et al., 2009).

Also, in terms of the lowered donating behavior amongindividuals while corporate sponsors are present, two contrast-ing hypotheses were tested based on theories whose predictionsare opposite in nature. Although the social proof theory is aviable and potential theoretical account for the phenomenonthat individuals are positively affected by others' prosocialbehaviors, its range seems to fall within other individuals whoare perceived to be quite similar to the prospective donors (asStudy 3 confirmed). However, in the context of corporatesponsorship, the pattern predicted by the social loafing theoryappears to be of a more direct influence on prospective donors.While, to our knowledge, the social loafing theory has not beenexamined in a fundraising context, the efforts expended by

individuals in a group context appear to include not onlyexertions to achieve physical and cognitive goals (Karau &Williams, 1993), but also efforts to achieve financial goals. Assuch, we extend the social loafing theory to a new context.Furthermore, our research confirms the boundary conditions ofthese two theories and suggests the importance of context underwhich one theory dominates the other.

Second, this research identified and found support for themediating role of prospective donors' perceptions of making animpact. Specifically, when corporate sponsors were publicized,individuals were less likely to believe that their donation wouldmake a difference to the nonprofit organization, which reducedtheir willingness to donate to it. However, we also found astrategy to reduce the negative impact corporate sponsors haveon individual giving: instilling individuals with a perceivedidentification with the sponsoring companies. By identifyingwith corporate sponsors, individual donors became immune tothe negative impact of corporate sponsorship, which, in turn,made them more motivated to support nonprofit organizationswith corporate sponsors already on board. This finding suggeststhat individuals are less likely to free-ride on others' effortswhen they believe that their own efforts or contributions areinstrumental in achieving valued outcomes.

Other alternative explanations for the negative effects ofcorporate sponsorship on willingness to donate were ruled outin our empirical testing. First, the findings could not beattributed to negative affect generated about the companieslisted in the appeal. In fact, the results of Study 1 showed thatcorporations can still benefit from the partnership in terms ofenhanced attitudes toward the sponsoring companies, a findingconsistent with prior research (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Sen &Bhattacharya, 2001). Second, while other research has indicat-ed that people use donations to manage mood states and reducenegative feelings of guilt (Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998), ourresearch suggests that reducing guilt feelings was not amediating factor in willingness to donate. Third, we also testedwhether the presence of corporate sponsors lowered theperceived nonprofits' need of additional funding. Given thatperceptions regarding how well-funded the nonprofit was didnot vary by the sponsorship cue, the concern for this alternativeprocess is lessened. Further, in a follow-up study (n=34), weexplicitly revealed the degree of need of the nonprofitorganization for additional funding in the appeal (by listingboth the intended goal of the fundraising campaign ($100,000)and the level of the currently obtained funds ($50,000), in theformat of a thermometer) and measured people's intentions tohelp the nonprofit. In this study, we observed the pattern oflowered donations when corporate sponsors were present(Msponsorship=3.31, SD=1.16 vs. Mcontrol =4.20, SD=1.20;F(1, 32)=4.84, pb .05, η2 = .13). Altogether, the way corporatesponsors hurt nonprofits that want to invite individual donorsdoes not seem to occur due to the perceived need for money.

Managerial implications

Our findings provide important implications for nonprofitmanagers and development directors. Corporations have been



instrumental in boosting the coffers of nonprofits and providingmuch-needed resources during economically strapped times. Insome cases, asking for donations from selected corporationsis more cost-effective than reaching out to the public forassistance. Nevertheless, contributions by individuals are crit-ical for the survival of nonprofits. This research is the first todocument the potential harmful effect of the public acknowl-edgement of corporate sponsorship on individuals' willingnessto support the same nonprofits. Conventional wisdom suggeststhat public acknowledgement of corporate sponsors helps thenonprofit, via validating their programs and increasing aware-ness of the organization. Most nonprofit managers weinterviewed while conducting this research expressed thissentiment. One nonprofit manager we interviewed said, “It isa good way to validate the organization. If you have a majorcorporation's seal of approval then others are more likely to getinvolved.” However, as reported in this research, publicacknowledgement of corporate sponsorship is not alwaysadvised, which calls for nonprofit organizations to exercisecaution. Some nonprofit managers we interviewed seemedto be aware of certain risks in being associated with corporatepartners, such as mismatched or questionable sponsors(e.g., nonprofits working for cancer and tobacco companiesor foundations for children's hospitals and fast-food restaurantchains, respectively) or the perception of an association with aprofit motive. For example, one manager mentioned that whencorporate logos are used in connection with a nonprofit, peoplemay not like “seeing what they feel are commercials.” Never-theless, the nonprofits we interviewed seemed largely unaware ofthe issues addressed in this research concerning the potentialeffect of corporate donors on prospective individual donors'contributions.

To combat the belief that an individual's personal donationwill have little impact, nonprofits may want to reassureprospective donors that their individual contributions willmake a difference for the nonprofit and the cause. In thisresearch, identifying with the corporate sponsor was found toheighten individuals' perceptions that their donations wouldmake an impact. Since perceptions of “making an impact” werefound to mediate effects on willingness to donate, it stands toreason that strategies increasing this perception should countercorporate sponsor effects. Tactics, such as revealing moredetailed information about the types and magnitudes of cor-porate sponsorships, and highlighting the importance of even asmall donation may work, given its relation to the perceivedimpacts of personal donations. For example, while a nonprofitmay indicate that a company is a sponsor, they may also wantto indicate: 1) whether the donation was “in kind” such thatservices or expertise were donated to the organization and notmoney; or 2) the amount donated in relation to the total revenueneeded to sustain the organization's programs or specificexpenditures of those donations, which may indicate only a partof the needed budget. Our results suggest that managers shouldbe well recognizant of a full range of the possible effects ofsponsorship and should not uniformly publicize informationabout their corporate sponsors. More research is needed tounderstand which tactics might best increase the beneficial

effects of corporate sponsorship and reduce its harmful effectson individual donation behavior.

Limitations and directions for future research

The present research investigated the influence of corporatesponsorship on individuals' willingness to help a nonprofitwhen the nonprofit publicizes the presence of corporatesponsors, which itself is an advance in that some unexpectedor unintended effects of corporate sponsorship occur andpeople's donation decision processes are corroborated ascomplex and dynamic ones. However, there are also limitationsand unanswered questions that await scholarship for futureresearch.

First, a further tightened distinction between the social proofand social loafing theories is desirable. Although our studiesgenerally indicate patterns consistent with social loafingtendencies, situations may exist where the informational valuesof corporate sponsors can further motivate individual donors toparticipate. For instance, for a cause that is not well-known orlacks credibility (such as charities fighting against recentlyfound diseases or epidemics in less familiar areas only orcharities whose credibility is questioned), the presence ofcorporate sponsors who can clear up ambiguity as to the targetcan actually benefit the nonprofits. Thus, for the donationdecision process, if prospective donors need to first consider,“What kind of charity is it?” before considering, “Should I giveto this charity?” the route suggested by social proof might bemore likely than that suggested by social loafing.

Second, our take on the underlying mechanism is based onpeople's motivation to assign more meaning to their action. Inother words, given that a nonprofit has corporate sponsors andone does not, people are assumed to prefer to give to a charitywhere their personal donations are more valued, assuming thatthe way people interpret the degree of corporate contributions isfixed. However, recent research by Huang et al. (2012) sug-gests that people may exaggerate or downplay achievedprogress in order to stay motivated in a goal pursuit process.Thus, in a corporate sponsorship context, people may dif-ferently interpret the degree of support from corporations,depending on their personal interests or preferences. Forinstance, when people place a high value on the programs ofa nonprofit organization (or when they are attached or com-mitted to the cause), they may downplay the contributions ofcorporations, whereby social loafing is ceased or reversed. Incontrast, for a nonprofit organization whose programs ormission is not highly valued, they may exaggerate the roleof corporations. Thus, how prospective donors interpret thepresence of corporate sponsors can be a fruitful area ofexploration.

Third, the current research looked at a flow of resourcesfrom individuals to nonprofits, ignoring the feedback loop,which may include feelings individual donors can experienceafter having made personal donations, or changes in personalidentities that they may go through afterward. For instance,Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (2008) found that higher prosocialspending is associated with greater happiness, and Mogilner,



Chance, and Norton (2012) showed that spending time onothers increases one's feeling of time affluence and futureengagement, as well. Future research could examine how orwhether corporate sponsorship moderates the influence ofpersonal donations on any subsequent psychological, emotionalor behavioral outcomes.

Conclusion

To summarize, we show that communicating about corpo-rate sponsors may not be beneficial to nonprofit organizationsseeking individual donors, inasmuch as publicizing sponsorscan negatively affect a nonprofit's effort to garner financialsupport from the general public. In addition, we find that such anegative impact of sponsorship occurs as a result of people'sperceptions that their personal donations will not benefit thenonprofit to a great degree. Moreover, counteracting the nega-tive effects of corporate sponsorship appears to occur incontexts in which people can perceive a bond with sponsoringcompanies. Overall, the insights from the consideration of“make a difference” beliefs advance our understanding of whypeople give, and why they are less likely to give. Specifically,this research adds to the literature streams on both social loafingand sponsorships by identifying the underlying mechanisms ofmotivation gain/loss in the context of charitable behaviors, andby proposing the boundary conditions under which socialloafing tendencies are eliminated or reversed. We believe thatour findings in an emerging area should generate broad interestamong researchers and should help nonprofits maximize thebenefits of a partnership with prominent sponsors.

References

Aaker, J. L., & Akutsu, S. (2009). Why do people give? The role of identity ingiving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 267–270.

Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm andfor-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 37, 224–237.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self categorizationand social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228.

Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 133–175), NewYork: Academic.

Allison, P. D. (1992). The cultural evolution of beneficent norms. SocialForces, 71, 279–301.

Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience modelof relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journalof Marketing, 67, 89–105.

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable inconformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915–927.

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence ofcause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserveanother? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 248–262.

Barrett, W. P. (November 19). America's 200 largest charities: Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/philanthropy/2008/2011/2019/americas-largest-charities-pf-charities2008-cx_wb_1119charity_land.html).

Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helpingbehavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal ofMarketing, 60, 33–49.

Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 4, 47–61.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporateassociations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.

Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative socialinfluence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 206–215.

Buunk, B., & Baker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive andinjunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 313–318.

Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice.NewYork: HarperCollins.Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms,

conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Thehandbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 151–192), New York:McGraw-Hill.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism andprosocial behavior: The case of volunteerism. Prosocial behavior. Review ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 12, 119–148.

Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on otherspromotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687–1688.

Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group needon volunteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 25, 262–275.

Garland, A. F., & Zigler, E. (1993). Adolescent suicide prevention: Currentresearch and social policy implications. American Psychologist, 48, 169–182.

GivingUSA Foundation (2010). U.S. charitable giving falls 3.6 percent in 2009 to$303.75 billion. http://www.givingusa.org/press_releases/gusa/gusa060910.pdf

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with aviewpoint: Using social norms to motivate conservation in hotels. Journalof Consumer Research, 35, 472–482.

Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Fries, A. (2010). Branding and corporate socialresponsibility (CSR). In B. Loken, R. Ahluwalia, & M. J. Houston (Eds.),Brands and brand management: Contemporary research perspectives(pp. 91–109). New York: Psychology Press.

Henderson, T., & Arora, N. (2010). Promoting brands across categories with asocial cause: Implementing effective embedded premium programs. Journalof Marketing, 74, 41–60.

Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1967). Influence of a model's feelingabout his behavior and his relevance as a comparison other on observers'helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 222–226.

Huang, S. -C., Zhang, Y., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2012). So near and yet sofar — The mental representation of progress. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 103, 225–241.

Hung, I. W., & Wyer, R. S. J. (2009). The impact of differences in perspectiveon the influence of charitable appeals: When imagining oneself as the victimis not always beneficial. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 421–434.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic reviewand theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65, 681–706.

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly,25, 57–78.

Latané, B., Williams, K. D., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light thework: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 67, 822–832.

Levinger, G., & Snoek, J. D. (1972). Attraction in relationship: A new look atinterpersonal attraction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect ofcorporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G.Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 3.(pp. 136–314), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mogilner, C., Chance, Z., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Giving time gives you time.Psychological Science, 23, 1233–1238.

Morwitz, V. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004). The mere-measurement effect:Why does measuring intentions change actual behavior? Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 14, 64–73.

Murray, D. M., Johnson, C. A., Luepker, R. V., & Mittelmark, M. B. (1984).The prevention of cigarette smoking in children: A comparison of fourstrategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 274–288.



Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005).Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology,56, 365–392.

Phillips, D. D., & Carstensen, L. L. (1988). The effect of suicide stories onvarious demographic groups, 1968–1985. Suicide & Life-ThreateningBehavior, 18, 100–114.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategiesfor assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Reed, A., II, Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and judgments ofcharitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71, 178–193.

Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with arequest to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 110–118.

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail del'homme. Annales de l'Institut National Argonomique, 2, 1–40.

Schubert, T., & Otten, S. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup:Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity, 1, 535–576.

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius,V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of socialnorms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doingbetter? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal ofMarketing Research, 38, 225–243.

Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experienceand prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 532–542.

Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. (2009). The face of need: Facial emotionexpression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46,777–787.

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchaseincentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell.Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 434–446.

Strout, E. (2007). Face value: News about fund raising and alumni relationsfrom around the web: The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroupbehavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergrouprelations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Mickler, S. (1983). The role of social pressure,attention to the stimulus, and self-doubt in conformity. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 13, 217–233.

White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketingappeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal ofMarketing, 73, 109–124.

Winslow, R. W., Franzini, L. R., & Hwang, J. (1992). Perceived peer norms,casual sex, and aids risk prevention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,22, 1809–1827.

Winterich, K. P., & Barone, M. J. (2011). Warm glow or cold, hard cash? Socialidentity effects on consumer choice for donation versus discount pro-motions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 855–868.

Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T., Jr. (2009). Donation behaviortoward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender and moral identity.Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 199–214.

Witte, E. H. (1989). Köhler rediscovered: The anti-Ringelmann effect.European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 147–154.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) on companies with bad reputation. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 16, 377–390.


Documents

Author's personal copy - Carlson School of …...Author's personal copy Research Article Corporate sponsorships may hurt nonpro ts: Understanding their effects on charitable giving