Case Study: Examining the Differences between Donors and Non-donors to an Intercollegiate Athletics Department

Eddie G. Walker II, Mikayla Jones
{"title":"Case Study: Examining the Differences between Donors and Non-donors to an Intercollegiate Athletics Department","authors":"Eddie G. Walker II, Mikayla Jones","doi":"10.13189/aeb.2021.090301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research has provided evidence for a relationship among donor perceptions of social responsibility, trust, commitment, and intentions to donate. One research area lacking is how donors and non-donors to an institution differ in those factors. Communication between an institution and stakeholders helps build understanding and support. One approach to communication strategies includes the varying involvement of the stakeholders. This study endeavors to accomplish two goals: 1) to fit the data from a purposive sample to a validated model; and 2) to examine differences between donors and non-donors on the factors within that model. Results indicated that the data from this case study fit the theoretical model. Also, while donors and non-donors defined the factors in the model in similar ways, there were differences between donors and non-donors related to the intensity of the relationships between factors. Donors demonstrated a stronger relationship between trust/commitment and commitment/intent than non-donors did. Non-donors demonstrated a stronger relationship between trust/intent than donors did. One implication of this study is that universities and athletic departments can use information from the results to aid them in communicating with donors and alumni during fundraising campaigns. Specifically, if you can communicate with stakeholders in a way that increases trust and commitment to the institution then they would likely strengthen the donation intentions of current donors and encourage non-donors to donate in the future. Future research can build upon this study by determining the effects that a stakeholder involvement communication strategy would have on non-donor donation intentions.","PeriodicalId":91438,"journal":{"name":"Advances in economics and business","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in economics and business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13189/aeb.2021.090301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research has provided evidence for a relationship among donor perceptions of social responsibility, trust, commitment, and intentions to donate. One research area lacking is how donors and non-donors to an institution differ in those factors. Communication between an institution and stakeholders helps build understanding and support. One approach to communication strategies includes the varying involvement of the stakeholders. This study endeavors to accomplish two goals: 1) to fit the data from a purposive sample to a validated model; and 2) to examine differences between donors and non-donors on the factors within that model. Results indicated that the data from this case study fit the theoretical model. Also, while donors and non-donors defined the factors in the model in similar ways, there were differences between donors and non-donors related to the intensity of the relationships between factors. Donors demonstrated a stronger relationship between trust/commitment and commitment/intent than non-donors did. Non-donors demonstrated a stronger relationship between trust/intent than donors did. One implication of this study is that universities and athletic departments can use information from the results to aid them in communicating with donors and alumni during fundraising campaigns. Specifically, if you can communicate with stakeholders in a way that increases trust and commitment to the institution then they would likely strengthen the donation intentions of current donors and encourage non-donors to donate in the future. Future research can build upon this study by determining the effects that a stakeholder involvement communication strategy would have on non-donor donation intentions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
案例研究:校际体育部门捐赠者和非捐赠者之间的差异
研究为捐赠者对社会责任、信任、承诺和捐赠意愿的看法之间的关系提供了证据。缺乏的一个研究领域是,一个机构的捐赠者和非捐赠者在这些因素上有何不同。机构和利益相关者之间的沟通有助于建立理解和支持。沟通策略的一种方法包括利益相关者的不同参与。本研究致力于实现两个目标:1)将目标样本的数据拟合到经过验证的模型中;以及2)研究捐助者和非捐助者在该模型内的因素上的差异。结果表明,该案例研究的数据符合理论模型。此外,尽管捐助者和非捐助者以类似的方式定义了模型中的因素,但捐助者和非捐助方之间在因素之间关系的强度方面存在差异。捐助者表现出的信任/承诺与承诺/意图之间的关系比非捐助者更强。非捐助者表现出的信任/意图之间的关系比捐助者更强。这项研究的一个含义是,大学和体育部门可以利用研究结果中的信息,帮助他们在筹款活动中与捐赠者和校友沟通。具体来说,如果你能以增加对机构信任和承诺的方式与利益相关者沟通,那么他们可能会加强当前捐赠者的捐赠意愿,并鼓励非捐赠者在未来捐赠。未来的研究可以在这项研究的基础上,通过确定利益相关者参与沟通策略对非捐赠者捐赠意愿的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Estimation of Individual Claims Reserves Using K Modes Cluster and Reserving by Detailed Conditioning Research on the Impact of an Immature Market on the Entrepreneurial Orientation and Success of SMEs from the Private Health Sector in the Republic of North Macedonia Exploring Informal Cross-Border Trade and Its Impact on Security Challenges in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Nigeria-Benin Border A New Framework for Fujian's "Double Carbon" Strategy Based on Digital Finance Theory A Study on Pandemic COVID-19 on Indonesia's Consumer Preferences: Input for Business and Government Policies in Indonesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1