Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NONPROFIT RELATIONSHIP MARKETING:
THE ROLE OF IDENTIFICATION
by
STEVEN D. GERMAN, B.S., B.S., M.B.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
<
/
August, 1997
Ill7
A C. —"
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
^ f My thanks go to a group of professionals who, without hesitation, agreed
to serve on my dissertation committee. Dr. Debra Laverie and Dr. David Roach
gave me considerable insight into Identity Theory. With both kindness and
patience Professor Dale Duhan helped me move my dissertation from what was
originally a narrowly focused study of donating to a study with implications for
the whole of supportive behavior and also suggested statistical procedures that
solved data problems at key junctures in data analysis. Foremost, Professor
Shelby Hunt, as chairman of the committee, not only took time to help me
develop a piece of worthwhile research, but also made it a point to build me up
both professionally and personally.
Throughout my doctoral program I was fortunate to be associated with
fellow doctoral students, Steve Edison and Dennis Arnett, who never ceased in
providing me with their expertise, insight and encouragement.
Several others outside of the doctoral program were instrumental in this
achievement. Mary Davis taught me how to study and persevere when I
returned to college. John King, my boss and friend, encouraged me in my
graduate work even though it did not directly apply to my position at that time.
Dr. Steven Lemley, then the president of Lubbock Christian University where this
all began, inspired me to reach for a doctorate.
II
My family deserves so much more than the gratitude I feel for them. I
want to thank my wife, Libby, daughters Gerianne and Gina, and my mother,
Anna Lou German. Libby made it a point to praise and encourage me through
the four years it took to complete the program and continues to spur me on to do
things I would not attempt on my own. Gerianne and Gina loved me despite my
apparent attachment to our computer. My mom convinced me that I could do
this even when I was not so sure.
Finally, I want to dedicate this dissertation to my father, Gary Dale
German, who passed from this life to be with God during the time I worked on
this dissertation. Dad always had faith in me, was proud of my
accomplishments, and took care of me. Dad did a multitude of things to help me
reach this point. Most importantly, however. Dad made sure I went to college
and graduated. Only things of a spiritual nature took precedence over education
with Dad. Dad, I miss you. However, your belief in me is a strength to me, your
life Is an Inspiration to me, and your love remains with me always. I cannot wait
to see you again to thank you in person.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF RELATIONAL
EXCHANGE INVOLVING SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIORS 10
The Importance of Marketing to Nonprofit Organizations 10
Identification: Key Mediator of Relational Exchange 13
Relationship-Inducing Factors (Antecedents) 27
Nonrelationship-lnducing Factors
(Control Variables) 38
Outcomes of Identification 40
III. RESEARCH METHOD 44
General Sample Frame Characteristics 44
Specific Sample Frame Characteristics 47
Measures of Constructs 50
Method and Results of Data Collection 59
Respondent Characteristics 65
IV
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
Measurement Model Development
Structural Model Analysis
Proposed Model - Rival Model Comparison
Proposed Model Revision
V. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
A Key Mediator of Relational Exchange: Identification
Encouraging and Developing Identification
Encouraging and Developing Supportive Behaviors: Donating
Encouraging and Developing Supportive Behaviors: Function Attendance
Encouraging and Developing Supportive Behaviors: Promotion
Limitations and Future Research
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A - QUESTIONNAIRE
B - FINAL MEASUREMENT ITEMS
68
69
80
85
91
99
100
101
107
109
110
113
116
126
132
C - INTEREST IN SPECIFIC PROGRAMS 138
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Individual, Institutional, and Situational Factors Influencing 14 Supportive Behaviors
3.1 Donation Categories by Sample and Respondents 60
3.2 T-tests of Means of Selected Variables 64
3.3 Chi-square Test For Differences Between Expected and Observed Frequencies 64
3.4 Respondent Characteristics: Gender, Income, Degree, Major, and Extracurricular Activities 66
4.1 Summary of the Measurement Model Respecification Process 70
4.2 Full Measurement Model ~ Indicator Loadings 76
4.3 Descriptive Information and Composite Reliability of the Reflective Measures 78
4.4 Estimated Correlations for Measurement Constructs 79
4.5 Proposed Structural Model Parameter Estimates 82
4.6 Model Comparisons 84
4.7 Rival Model Parameter Estimates 88
4.8 Revised Structural Model ~ Significant Paths 92
4.9 Total Effects (Revised Model) 96
C.I Interest In Specific Programs: Parameter Estimates 141
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 A Model of the Mediating Influence of Identification on Supportive 5 Behaviors
2.1 Social Identity Theory 21
2.2 A Model of the Mediating Influence of Identification on Supportive 42 Behaviors (With Control Variables)
3.1 Continuum of Exchange Satisfaction 45
4.1 Modified Model of the Mediating Influence of Identification on 75 Supportive Behaviors (With Control Variables)
4.2 Modified Model of the Mediating Influence of Identification on Supportive Behaviors With Significant Parameter Estimates 83
4.3 Rival Model of Relational Exchange 87
4.4 Revised Model of the Mediating Influence of Identification on Supportive Behaviors With Significant Parameter Estimates 93
VII
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Under the rubric of "relationship marketing" (Morgan and Hunt 1994), both
marketing practice and theory are increasingly focusing on the benefits of
relational, versus transactional, exchange. Scholars and practitioners are
studying selling alliances (Smith and Barclay 1997), interdependency (Lusch
and Brown 1996), collaborative communication (Mohr, Fisher, and Nevin 1996),
market orientation (Slater and Narver 1995), long-term manufacturer-supplier
relationships (Kalwani and Narayandas 1995), market-driven organizations (Day
1994), co-marketing alliances (Bucklin and Sengupta 1993), working
partnerships (Anderson and Narus 1990), strategic alliances (Day 1990),
relational marketing (Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987), symbiotic marketing
(Varadarajan and Rajaratnam 1986), internal marketing (Arndt 1983; Berry and
Parasuraman 1991), and relational contracting (MacNeil 1980). The common
element in these diverse perspectives is that "all view relationship marketing as
implying that, increasingly, firms are competing through developing relatively
long-term relationships with such stakeholders as customers, suppliers,
employees, and competitors" (Hunt 1996, p.1). Suppliers are partners, the
buying process is a means of creating value, and the partnership is a tool for
increasing the firm's ability to compete - to obtain a sustainable competitive
advantage through the long-term nature of these partnerships. These dynamics
underscore the "somewhat paradoxical nature of relationship marketing: To be
an effective competitor... requires one to be a trusted cooperator..." (Morgan
and Hunt 1994, p. 20).
Nonprofit organizations have marketplace problems that are similar to
those found in for-profit organizations. Indeed, nonprofits must compete ~ for
funds and other types of support. Therefore, nonprofits have adopted many
business management functions performed in for-profit organizations, such as
accounting, financial management, personnel administration, and formal
planning. However, as long as nonprofits operated in a "sellers' market" - as
colleges did throughout the 1960's and hospitals have until the last few years ~
marketing related activities were often ignored.
Presently, although nonprofit organizations' services are growing in
importance, it is becoming more difficult to elicit support from individuals
(Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi 1996). Nonprofit organizations are no
longer in a "sellers' market." In addressing the growing difficulty faced by
nonprofit organizations to generate support, the marketing literature for the past
quarter-century has encouraged the adoption of marketing activities (e.g., Kotler
and Levy 1969; Kotler 1979; Smith and Beik 1982; Lovelock and Wineberg
1984; Harvey 1990; Kotler and Andreasen 1991; Kotler 1994; Keegan, Moriarity,
and Duncan 1995). For nonprofits, the marketing perspective is a new approach
for managing relationships with donors and other stakeholders. Marketing
strategies involving targeting and segmentation can aid the nonprofit in
attracting support in an environment of increasing competition for private and
public resources. Key to these strategies is the identification of factors that
influence relational exchange between an individual and a nonprofit
organization.
In understanding supportive behavior in the nonprofit context, it is useful
to conceptualize the process of donating and other supportive behaviors as a
relational exchange, rather than a simple transaction. A transaction is typically
thought of as an exchange of money for a service or product. Kotler (1972)
broadened the concept of "transaction" by defining it as an exchange of values
between two parties. By stipulating "value" as the criterion for exchange, a
transaction may include other exchanges in addition to exchanges of money for
products and services. For example, buyers in for-profit firms are engaging in
relationship marketing by moving away from a "traditional approach of
adversarial relationships with a multitude of suppliers to one of forging
longer-term relationships with a few select suppliers" (Kalwani and Narayandas
1995). Here, a long-term relationship is the value, that, when exchanged, may
lead to higher quality, lower cost products from suppliers. In the nonprofit
context, value may include contributions of time, money, or possessions
exchanged for increased self esteem or a feeling of gratification. These
exchanges are often made possible because nonprofit organizations initiated,
developed, and nurtured relationships with others capable of supporting the
organization. Relational exchanges such as these are fundamental to nonprofit
relationship marketing.
In for-profit exchange contexts, relational factors such as trust and
commitment are considered to be key factors in encouraging cooperative
behavior and long term relationships - relational exchange - among institutions
in channels of distribution (Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer 1995; Morgan and
Hunt 1994; Ganesan 1994; Heide 1994; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987). If
relational factors are influential in buyer-supplier relational exchange, relational
factors may be similarly influential in exchange relationships between individuals
and nonprofit organizations.
This dissertation investigates relationship marketing In a heretofore
unresearched context ~ nonprofit organizations. The thesis of this research is
that a key relational factor, "identification," drawn from social psychology and
organizational behavior, mediates relational exchange in the nonprofit context
(see Figure 1.1). Identification is defined as "the perception of belonging to a
group with the result that a person identifies with that group (i.e., I am a
member)" (Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995, p. 47). Identification is related
to trust and commitment, which have been viewed as key factors In studies of
relationship marketing in the for-profit context (cf., Morgan and Hunt 1994).
Specifically, one can trust and be committed to a relationship with the
organization but not identify ~ feel a belongingness - with it. However, when
C3>
"(6 c o Q
8 c (0
c (D
c o is c 3
n § O Q. -^ C W o
c o
Q. C o
£ CO c o) w 2 .g ? .g o S g E ^ o-2 o ^
X (0 z o
LU
O
< O LU
O
O <
g • >
CO sz 0
CQ 0) >
o Q. Q.
CO c o c g
O)
IDU
CIN
G
^ l-dlH
RE
LATI
ON
S!
• m
OR
S
FAC
T le
s:
1. In
divi
dual
Var
iab
It le
vel
1)
achi
evem
ei
orga
niza
tion
_C
edw
it
2)
tim
eaff
iliat
^^ CO
c
in o
rgan
izat
io
M H B
t le
ve
3)
invo
lvem
en
u
>
CO
ffili
atio
n w
ith
CO
bers
* 4)
fa
mily
mem
(-
orga
niza
tio
in
iriab
le
II.
Inst
itutio
nal V
a
stig
e
<D
nal p
r 1)
or
gani
zatio
e
natio
n's
lead
e
•^
orga
n 2)
re
spec
t fo
r
rgan
izat
ion
a
with
1 3)
sa
tisfa
ctio
n ' 3
4)
feltr
ecip
ro
8 C (D
0)
0
0 • D O
one identifies with a nonprofit, the feeling of belongingness implies one trusts
the nonprofit and is committed to a relationship with it.
Additionally, trust in for-profit marketing relationships involves an element
of risk, the risk of negative outcomes, not typically present in nonprofit relational
exchange. In for-profit exchange, trust is exemplified by the "belief that another
company [trading partner] will perform actions that will result in positive
outcomes for the firm as well as not take unexpected actions [opportunism] that
will result in negative outcomes" (Anderson and Narus 1990, p. 45). There is
little, if any, risk of opportunism involved in the exchange between a nonprofit
organization and its supporters. In for-profit relationship marketing, trust
embodies the promise of positive, as well as the risk of negative, outcomes
made possible by the relationship. Identification focuses on the positive
outcomes for the nonprofit organization that are made possible through
relational exchange.
The concept of Identification originates in identity theory (cf., Ashforth and
Mael 1989; Serpe 1987; Callero 1985; Hoelter 1983; Stryker 1980; Mael and
Ashforth 1992), which posits that a person has many roles, or identities, that
comprise his or her "self." Depending on the situation (e.g., an individual being
solicited for a donation by his or her alma mater or church) the importance of an
"alumnus" identity or "church member" identity, and the role defined by that
identity, is influenced by various individual, institutional, and situational factors.
The identity, depending on its importance to the individual, influences behaviors
supportive of the nonprofit organization. From the nonprofit perspective,
supportive behaviors are "behavior[s] that enhance the welfare of a needy other,
by providing aid or benefit, usually with little or no commensurate reward in
return" (Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi 1996, p. 34). By recognizing
supportive behaviors toward nonprofit organizations as relational exchange,
knowledge of relationship marketing in the context of for-profit business may be
applied to nonprofit organizations.
Studies of supportive behaviors, such as donating, tend to focus on
characteristics of the individual and/or the individual's perceptions of the
nonprofit organization, while overlooking the relationship between the individual
and the nonprofit. Typically, most research regarding supportive behaviors in
the nonprofit context examines monetary donation as the supportive behavior of
interest. Several factors are posited to explain monetary supportive behavior,
including: (1) individual factors - descriptors of the individual being solicited for
the support (i.e., age, gender, income), (2) institutional factors - descriptors of
perceptions regarding the nonprofit organization seeking support (i.e., the
prestige associated with the organization, respect for the organization's leaders),
and (3) situational factors - descriptors capturing influences on supportive
behaviors that are unique to segments within the overall donor category (i.e., tax
incentives, the individual's religious background, a perception of the
organization being in financial need).
This research focuses on the exchange between a nonprofit organization
and potential supporters of the organization, positing that some of the Individual,
institutional, and situational factors typically employed In explaining supportive
behaviors are factors that serve to induce a continuing relationship between the
individual and the nonprofit organization. Further, It is hypothesized that the
individual's level of identification with the nonprofit organization mediates the
path between relationship-inducing factors and supportive behaviors (see Figure
1.1). This research contends that identifying factors that induce and influence
the supporter-nonprofit organization relationship is an important marketing
problem to be studied and understood.
In summary, this dissertation explores relationship marketing In the
nonprofit context by (1) positing that identification mediates relational exchange
in the nonprofit context and (2) proposing several relationship-inducing factors
that serve to influence identification. In doing so, a foundation is first
constructed for this research by explaining how and why marketing applies to a
major challenge that most nonprofit organizations face ~ identifying people who
will support the organization with donations of time and money as well as by
promoting the organization to others.
Second, a conceptual framework of relational exchange in the nonprofit
context is presented, providing theoretical support for the model proposed in
Figure 1.1. This research posits that the Inclusion of a construct measuring the
8
strength of the identity being evoked in the current situation provides a richer,
more complete understanding of the factors that influence supportive behaviors.
Third, the means by which the theory proposed by this dissertation - that
identification is a key mediating variable in relational exchange - is to be tested
are discussed, as well as issues of measures development, data collection, and
sampling. Fourth, using data obtained from alumni of a major university, the
explanatory power of the hypothesized model of relational exchange will be
compared with a rival model that positions identification as just one more
interesting outcome of relational exchange. Finally, results of the data analysis
are discussed, the limitations of the present research are examined, and future
directions for the expansion of knowledge concerning supportive behaviors in
the nonprofit context are presented.
CHAPTER n
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF RELATIONAL EXCHANGE
INVOLVING SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIORS
The central hypothesis guiding this research is that identification
mediates the influence of relationship-inducing factors on supportive behaviors
(Figure 1.1). This section of model development (1) argues that marketing,
although clearly important to nonprofit as well as to for-profit organizations,
remains an underemphasized area of research, (2) builds the case for the
mediating influence of identification on relational exchange, (3) posits that there
are factors that serve to induce and influence identification, and (4) identifies
donating, function attendance, and promotion as important supportive (toward
nonprofit organizations) behaviors that are influenced by identification.
The Importance of Marketing to Nonprofit Organizations
Sadly, most administrators of nonprofit organizations and many academicians in other areas still do not perceive that many problems of nonprofit organizations are basically marketing in nature, and that there is an extant body of knowledge In marketing academla and a group of trained marketing practitioners that can help to resolve these problems. (Hunt 1976, p. 24)
[Mjany of those who could use marketing principles do not do so because they do not see the relevance of marketing to their tasks. But we would argue that, in nonprofit organizations, public relations specialists, fund-raisers, volunteer recruiters, and employee supervisors are all at one time or another marketers. And, as such, they can all benefit from understanding the philosophy and approach to marketing . . . (Kotler and Andreasen 1991, p. 38)
10
These quotes, spanning fifteen years, suggest that the application of
marketing in the nonprofit organizational setting remains underemphasized.
For-profit organizations began giving attention to a broader concept of marketing
in the 1950's, marking a change in the business philosophy of that era. Until
then "marketing" was equated with "selling," and the key to profitability was
thought to be greater sales volume. Through a focus on selling, firms attempted
to "change consumers to fit what the organization had to offer" (Kotler and
Andreasen 1991, p. 42). This inward focus on the products produced by the firm
and the firm's ability to sell these products continued until the end of World War
During World War II manufacturers expanded and multiplied to supply the
war effort. After the war, these manufacturers quickly shifted resources into the
production of consumer goods, a shift which created many more manufacturers
and brands competing for the patronage of consumers than before the war. The
proliferation of goods and brands during the post-war era signaled the end of the
seller's market and the beginning of the adoption of the "marketing concept"
(Shapiro 1988). For-profit organizations adhering to the marketing concept
recognized that "consumers ultimately decide when transactions [are] to be
made - not the marketers Therefore, marketing planning . . . must start with
customer perceptions, needs, and wants" (Kotler and Andreasen 1991, pp.
42-43).
11
If nonprofits consider "marketing," it is often with a pre-1950's sales-era
mentality. That is, the nonprofit typically concentrates its efforts on selling its
service(s) (e.g., emphasis on "fundraising") rather than on developing the
broader relationship and related customer-focused strategies. Adoption of the
marketing concept as a guiding philosophy can help bring nonprofit
organizations such as universities, churches, charities, and groups advocating
social causes out of the "sales era."
As a guiding philosophy within any organization, for-profit or nonprofit, the
marketing concept Is a culture that "can be Influenced, modified, formed, or
shaped" (Hunt and Morgan 1995, p. 11). Although culture, unlike strategies and
plans, is not a selection made by the organization, the organization that adopts a
marketing concept philosophy can influence the organization's culture via a
proactive strategy of market orientation development. It is during the process of
market orientation development that the nonprofit may progress from an
organizationally-focused, sales-era mode of thinking to a customer-focused
market orientation. Market-oriented nonprofit organizations proactlvely gather
information on both customers and competitors. Customers may be those who
use the nonprofit's services or those who support the nonprofit. Competitors are
organizations that vie for the same patrons or supporters. Once the information
is gathered, those managing the nonprofit analyze the information for the
purpose of developing market knowledge, and use the knowledge to guide their
strategies (Hunt and Morgan 1995).
12
For the nonprofit, an example of the strategies employed to influence
supportive behaviors is to identify appropriate donor segments, develop and/or
match attributes of the nonprofit organization to the benefits desired by each
donor segment, and then develop a marketing program, with an appropriate
marketing mix, to reach each segment. Central to strategy development is an
understanding of supportive behaviors such as donating as being more than an
individual's action of giving something of value to a nonprofit organization.
Donating often involves a relationship, implying some sort of developed
understanding between two parties. The relationship between the individual and
the nonprofit organization may have developed quickly or may have been
nurtured over a period of many years. Supportive behaviors such as donating
involve relational exchange.
Identification: Key Mediator of Relational Exchange
Why do individuals support nonprofit organizations? Past research
hypothesizes various factors to be direct influences on supportive behaviors.
These explanatory variables typically fall into three categories (see Table 2.1).
The first entails characteristics of the individual. These characteristics include
demographic variables, such as the individual's age, gender, income, and family
size, as well as variables that measure the individual's history with the nonprofit
organization.
13
g • >
CO
m > '•c o Q. Q. 3 (0 a» c "o c 0>
{2 o rs CO
u. To c g To
CO
C CO
"co c o
Tn
CO 3
• g • >
C
CM
.a CO
a>
c (0 •c (0
CO
c a> E _3
CQ
O)
o (0
CO 00
• a (0
• o T3 (0
X
0) 00 r>. JO O) o>
S $2 CO 3 ^
(£ X S
1 - CD
•^ Jo o a>
¥^ CO ?
•gj 3
C3>
(D CQ i5 ^ CQ
i n
c (0
-c (0
CO 09
c
0
o
(A
um«
CQ
o> s ^ ^
(I)
iracI
98
1). M
a
hl(
1
Q
^
986
>- T3 (0
• 0 X I
). H
a
y(1
99
1
gles
b
0
974)
^
C 3
Ost
I
(D
'«.' CO c (0
son
(19
hom
p
H
E
Blu
0 00 a> T -
^-'
Crit
z (1
987)
. 19
85)
ouse
X Q
Sod (A
0)
S (0 «J 2 Q. o C,co ^ i2 ^ S"
<A ~ (A
- C N
a> ^ ^ ^ k . —' 0)
Z^
CO
' - <A
> , ®
3 - 3
l o S2
nj CO
« ^ 00 .2
C3> O )
^ 2 CD CQ
( 0 • « -
(0
X
= E
OOQ
o
CQ
9 u
00
<0 ^-» •O CO "O 00 (0 <3>
00 "O Oi "O • ^ <0
<A . - < 3 C>4 O Oi X O)
31 "
> . J) JQ (A (A 0)
O CQ
04
<3>
J C
c (0
•5 (0
i n
O)
c _>.
(0 ._ - ^ Qi ®
^-. CN . T 3 CO 2 (0 5 OT a> >» c
• ^ f ^ o CO
c ^ 5 3 ^ (0 = fc- ~ . C (0 C3 O CQ X
a> _ ^ (A
o
<A
E (0
—I I
(A • >
(D Q
_o" O (A (0
u.
« . 0 c
(A
Li
in <3>
I m
CQ
(A c o
Xi
b CN
(A
O I
(A (A
3 CQ
a > C3>
• « - ' • * . »
3 3 Z Z u u
00 00
0)
c c u u
CM CM o) Oi cy 2 o> J5 (A (A c c o o
. 0 .Q <A
:9 :9 o O O X
10 09
c
(A
o 52 E § <» "o
o
• o
X c o (A ^
TJ O
k. O I
C o > \ <D <A JC
TO O
• o
X +
c o
'••-•
c (0 k .
o
9
c
CO 0)
(0 >
u
(0 c
c o
N C
(0 2> o> o o c
I li CO ^ t S 9) O n
i ^
O )
o
.2
e (0 2 .0 £
E c (0 4} .;:; o>
9
com
c
0) N (A
mlly
.«
CD C o
*.» (D
. N C (Q O ) ^
O
O C
« E flj >
^ O
S 5. 0) (3) (0
>
(0
o c (A
0) «A Q .
_W a> Q. «:c
o E
- E O) t c
(A
"s^ 0)
TJ (0
(A
.2» * :
£ I Q . (0
— C3»
c o O I -
% -2 E ^ (0 ex P (A o £
«A
(0 N C (Q
o>
O 4>
" >
.!S <A • .» (D (A
U O
O
5
(A
E 2 o> o .
Q. U
o 0) Q . (A
(0 o c (0
(Q
(0
c (0 O )
(A
c
(A « _ ® O
: 5 - i ® IS ^ •'3 c .2 ® ® - o> o c 08 ® ®
10 « _
? I to f
(0 c o
(A c
(0 c o (0
CO
14
The second category hypothesizes that individuals' perceptions of the
organization soliciting the support influence supportive behavior. Individuals
being asked for their time, money, and other types of support are thought to be
influenced by perceptions of prestige of the organization, respect for the
organization's leaders, satisfaction with the organization's services, and felt
reciprocity.
The third category of factors involves variables that are specific to the
particular organization. These factors include individuals' interest in specific
programs offered by the organization, the desire for a tax break, and motivation
stemming from religious beliefs. Additionally, some individuals respond to
organizations that are in need - these people usually give when asked.
On the practitioner side, many of the available "how to" books on the
subject of donating stress the importance of the relationship between the one
being solicited for the support and the organization soliciting the support (cf.,
Panas 1984; Broce 1991). The implication of these books Is that donating is a
type of relational exchange. A better understanding is required concerning why
people do or do not support organizations of which they may consider
themselves members (implying a relationship between the person and the
organization).
This research proposes that understanding the role of "self in the context
of supportive behaviors toward nonprofit organizations will facilitate a more
complete understanding of the exchange relationship between nonprofit
15
organizations and their "members." Theory and empirica^ work concerning one's
"identities" offer a stronger position for explaining supportive behaviors than past
research employing only individual, situational, and institutional types of
variables. Identities are defined as "internalized sets of role expectations, with
the person having as many identities as she or he plays roles in distinct sets of
social relationships" (Stryker 1980, p. 46). Understanding the individual's "self
and the identities comprising the "self is key to understanding the individual's
decision process regarding supporting a particular nonprofit organization.
Identity Theory
Identity theory posits that the "self is composed of related "multiple
selves" or "identities," each being a reflection of a social role that the person
engages in from time to time (Stryker 1968, 1980; Callero 1985; Greenwood
1994). The individual develops, over time, internal definitions of each role he or
she plays with the person's definition of a role being influenced by those who
also play the role (I.e., those who share an identity and thus are within the same
social network as the individual). The process of internally defining a particular
identity and the role corresponding to the identity tends to personalize the
identity ~ creating an ownership of the identity. Burke (1950, p. 21) emphasizes
the Importance of shared identities by terming the sharing of an identity with
another "consubstantiality," meaning that an individual, in sharing an identity
16
with another, is substantially one with a person other than him or herself while,
at the same time, remaining unique. Burke (1950) further states that,
[a] doctrine of consubstantiality, either explicit or implicit, may be necessary to any way of life. For substance, in the old philosophies, was an act, and a way of life is an acting-together, and in acting together, men have common sensations, concepts, images, ideas, attitudes that make them consubstantial. (p. 21)
Here, Burke's consubstantiality ~ shared identity ~ implies that one's identity,
especially a strong identity, has a profound influence on those with whom the
identity is shared.
A person's expectations concerning each role and, through expectations,
the influence of social networks, weight each identity according to the probability
of the role being played in a given situation. Identities, such as "father,"
"mother," "employee," "student," "church member," "university alumnus," etc.,
are organized hierarchically by an individual depending on the weight given to
the identity, reflecting the relative importance or salience of each identity to the
individual (Callero 1985).
Identity salience has been defined as "the relative importance or centrality
of a given identity (and thus role) for defining oneself (Hoelter 1983, p. 141).
For this research, the terms "salience" and "importance" both refer to the
centrality or strength of an identity as defined by Hoelter above. For example,
when people go to work they may assume an identity of "employee." Some may
view the employee Identity as a very important part of who they are and their
behavior at work likely reflects the salient employee identity. Other individuals
17
whose "employee" Identity is not salient may think of employment as a means by
which money is obtained, enabling them to engage in other activities (e.g.,
attending college, which implies that the person's "student" identity may be
stronger, even in an employment situation). Here, the "employee" identity is not
salient, which is likely evidenced by low commitment to the job or perhaps poor
work output. In both cases, the hierarchy of salience or importance of the
person's identities has a direct impact on the individual's behavior In the work
situation. In other research, a salient identity has been found to influence other
types of behavior such as church attendance and athletic participation (Santee
and Jackson 1979), amount of time spent in a religious role (Stryker and Serpe
1982), and blood donation (Callero 1985).
Identity theory is based on the assumption that identities, though they
evolve, are relatively stable over time. If one's identities were transient,
predicting behavior based on a particularly identity would be problematic.
However, identities are believed to be influenced by beliefs, principles, and
commitments held by the individual, which are psychological aspects of
individuals that remain relatively constant throughout their lives (cf., Serpe 1987;
Kihistrom and Cantor 1984; Rosenberg 1979). These beliefs, principles, and
commitments govern individuals' lives and
play a central role in the psychological explanation of the intentional behavior of persons . . . they determine what we care about in our everyday lives . . . [and] determine the types of action that we are proud of, offended at, ashamed of, that we hope to achieve, seek revenge for, try to compensate for, and so forth . . . (Greenwood 1994, p. 106)
18
For example, the commitment one may feel to the pursuit of higher education, or
his or her belief in God, tends to remain the same qualitatively as well as
quantitatively over a period of many years or even a lifetime (Greenwood 1994).
Other examples of stable identities would be university alumni and people
who were Boy or Girl Scouts. The feelings people carry with them about their
university and/or scouting experiences tend to reflect what their feelings were
when they left the university, in the case of alumni, or ceased being active
members of Boy or Girl Scouts (although some continue into, and through, their
adult years). Alumni may remember feelings of being "grown up" because they
are away from home, friendships formed that are still a part of their lives, and
instructors with whom they spent many hours. Scouts may hold feelings of
accomplishment regarding their progress through the levels of scouting as well
as appreciation for the values that scouting fosters. These experiences, though
in the past, continue to be important to the person, thus contributing to the
stability of the person's "alumnus" or "Scout" identity.
Identity theory attempts to differentiate between one's commitment to an
identity and the salience of that identity in relation to the person's other identities
by contending that the more committed to a role-Identity, the more salient that
identity (Burke and Reitzes 1991; Serpe 1987; Callero 1985; Hoelter 1983;
Stryker and Serpe 1982). Commitment to one's identity is defined as the degree
to which "one's relationships to specific others depend on one's being a
particular kind of person . . . In this sense commitment is measured by the 'costs'
19
of giving up meaningful relationships . .." (Stryker 1968, p. 560). Defining
commitment in this manner accounts for the Individual's relationship with
identity-related social networks.
For example, "church member," "Boy/Girl Scout," and "university
alumnus" may be identities to which an individual is committed. If, for some
reason, an individual is unable to sustain a relationship with those possessing
these identities, he or she would experience a sense of loss. Commitment to the
identity is measured by the magnitude of the loss.
Conceptually, commitment to an identity may be separate from the
importance of the identity to the person. However, differentiating empirically
between the two concepts is difficult (Laverie 1995) and would add little
substance to this current study. This current research is interested in the
importance of the identity to the individual, with commitment of the person to the
identity being an implied state.
Social Identitv Theorv
Identity theory is based on the proposition that the individual is comprised
of multiple selves or identities. Social identity theory extends traditional Identity
theory by classifying the individual's identities into two groups (see Figure 2.1).
One group is comprised of personal identities derived from the individual's
abilities and interests (e.g., "I am a concert pianist," or "I am a teacher," or "I
enjoy being a researcher"). The second group is comprised of social identities,
20
" Self"
Personal Identity - abilities
- interests
> Social Identity: - religious affiliation - organizational
membership
Figure 2.1 Social Identity Theory
21
which encompass salient group classifications (e.g., organizational membership,
religious affiliation, gender, and age cohort).
Individuals classify their social identities according to prototypical
characteristics ascribed to the class by its members (Turner 1985; Ashforth and
Mael 1989; Mael and Ashforth 1992). Classifying themselves in this manner
enables people to "order their social environment and locate themselves and
others within it" (Mael and Ashforth 1992, p. 104).
Social identity theory, then, would say that the various identities that
comprise an individual's "self strongly influence whether or not an individual
enters into a relationship with a particular organization comprised of members
sharing a common identity. Identities associated with a profession, religion, or
organization would define the parameters by which the individual would choose
to be "identified" with a social network - a particular group of people comprising
the profession, religion, or organization (Stryker and Serpe 1982, 1983; Serpe
1987).
Organizational Identification
Greenwood (1994) terms social networks "social collectives" and
differentiates them from aggregate groups of people In that "genuine social
collectives [networks] have some sort of 'internal structure' in the sense that they
are composed of Individuals who are parties to sets of arrangements,
conventions, and agreements" (p. 80). In other words, social networks (often
22
involving group membership) contribute to the individual's definition and
expectations of the role played by each identity.
Identity theory does not view the roles played by individuals as being
based on group membership per se. However, social identity theory recognizes
the importance of group membership. This research focuses on one class of
social identity - organizational identification - because of the potential for this
variable to contribute to the explanation of supportive behaviors. Organizational
identification is defined as "the perception of belonging to a group with the result
that a person identifies with that group (i.e., I am a member)" (Bhattacharya,
Rao, and Glynn 1995, p. 47). Because of inconsistent definitions of
organizational identification, scholars have often confused organizational
Identification with related constructs such as (1) organizational commitment (cf.,
Mowday, Steers, and Porter 1979; Allen and Meyer 1990), (2) loyalty, and (3)
satisfaction. Identification differs from these constructs in that it is:
a perceptual/cognitive construct that is not necessarily associated with any specific behaviors or affective states.... To identify, the individual need only see him or herself as psychologically intertwined in the fate of the group; behavior and affect are viewed only as potential antecedents and consequences. (Mael and Ashforth 1992, p. 104, emphasis added)
In other words, an Individual need not expend effort toward an organization in
order to identify with the organization, although these individuals may tend to
behave positively toward the organization.
In distinguishing identification from organizational commitment, it is useful
to refer to the difference between the way in which Mowday, Steers, and Porter
23
(1979) define organizational commitment and the way in which they
operationalize organizational commitment. Mowday et al. (1979, p. 226) define
organizational commitment as "the relative strength of an individual's
identification with and involvement in a particular organization." However, these
authors' operationalization of commitment is stated in terms of an individual's:
(1) strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; (2)
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (3)
desire to maintain membership in the organization. The Mowday et al. (1979)
operationalization of organizational commitment as individuals' internalizations
of goals and values, behavioral intentions, and affect does not include
identification as viewed In social identity theory (Mael and Ashforth 1989, 1992).
Identification with an organization does not involve a behavioral component and
"while identification is organization-specific, commitment and internalization may
not be" (Mael and Ashforth 1992, p. 105).
Identification also differs from loyalty in that while loyal donors often
donate because they have had good experiences with a church, charity, or
university in the past and feel obligated to see the organization through its
difficult times, these loyal donors may not identify with the organization. They
may even be disappointed or discouraged by the present state of affairs at the
organization. For example, consider the recent problems the United Way
experienced as a result of a past president who mishandled donated funds
(Glaser 1994; Lucas 1995). Even though few individuals would identify with the
24
United Way during this difficult time, there still remain many individuals who,
perhaps out of loyalty, support this organization. Ceteris paribus, people who
identify with an organization are likely to be loyal, but not all loyal individuals
may identify with an organization (Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995).
Finally, identification differs from satisfaction. Satisfaction with a nonprofit
organization may depend on one's perception of the nonprofit "contributing
suitably to the attainment of one's personal objectives" (Bullock 1952, p. 7). For
example, alumni of a university may be "satisfied" with the education they
received because the education enabled them to enter into desired professions
such as accounting or medicine. However, these individuals may not perceive a
"oneness with or belongingness to" the university and so do not identity with the
university.
Two types of membership may foster identification with a nonprofit
organization. Some organizations employ direct membership strategies to
encourage identification with the organization. For example, museums "seek to
build identification by drawing consumers' inside by making them members"
(Bhattacharya et al. 1995, p. 46). Museums and other similar nonprofits often
offer membership for a fee or a certain level of donation. Similarly, religious
organizations offer membership to individuals who perform specific rituals.
Organizations such as Boy/Girl Scouts have long-standing prerequisites to
membership in the organization and detailed rules governing advancement to
higher levels of membership.
25
On the other hand, other nonprofits' memberships are implied. For
example, university graduates are typically automatically inducted into (become
members of) their university's alumni association. As depicted in Figure 1.1,
when people view themselves as members of an organization, the organization
should see increased positive behaviors from the members. If an individual's
identity positively influences behaviors as theory and empirical work indicate,
then a strong "church member," "Boy/Girl Scout," or "university alumnus" identity
should positively Influence the person to be an active supporter of the
corresponding nonprofit organization. Not only does the individual identify him
or her self as a university alumnus ("I graduated from a university"), or as a
church member ("I am a part of the Baptist church"), he or she also extends that
identification to the organization (e.g., "I am a Texas Tech University alumnus"
or "I am a Southern Baptist from the Indiana Avenue Baptist Church").
An indication of an individual's identification with an organization is the
tendency to experience personally the successes and failures of the
organization (Foote 1951). For example, some Texas Tech University and
Texas A&M University alumni possess salient alumnus identities; they are highly
committed ~ "die-hard" - Red Raiders or Aggies. These individuals identify Wsih
their alma maters and would be distressed and/or personally affronted
concerning a negative article in the local newspaper about their university. On
the other hand, there are individuals whose level of commitment to the "alumnus
identity" is low. There are likely many graduates of Texas Tech University or
26
Texas A&M University who would not consider themselves "die-hard" alumni.
Negative articles about their respective universities in the newspaper would be
of little concern for them.
In summary, referring to the model of relational exchange involving
supportive behaviors hypothesized in this study (Figure 1.1), theory and
empirical evidence discussed thus far leads to the hypothesis that the more
salient, or important, one's identification with a particular nonprofit organization,
the stronger the influence of that identity on behaviors supportive of the
organization. Greenwood (1994) emphasizes the importance of the concept of
identity in explaining individuals' behaviors when he states that "it would be hard
to imagine a person in any form of social life . . . whose actions could be wholly
explained without any reference to an identity project [i.e., developing an
identity]: for this would be to Imagine a person devoid of characteristic human
emotions and motives" (p 115).
Relationship-Inducing Factors (Antecedents^
If identification is a key variable mediating relational exchange as
suggested by Figure 1.1, then there must be factors present that account for the
strength of, or conversely, the lack of, an individual's identification with the
nonprofit organization, given the person's involvement, or history, with the
organization. It Is probable that some of the factors that are typically cited as
explaining supportive behaviors in prior academic research and the practitioner
27
literature (refer to Table 2.1) may actually be the forces that influence an
individual's identification with the organization. This research draws on the
individual, institutional, and situational variables typically cited in donating
research and hypothesizes that some, but not all, of these variables are factors
that serve to induce and influence relational exchange between individuals and
nonprofit organizations (see Figure 1.1).
The variables that influence identification are termed "relationship-
inducing factors" because they play a role in generating and influencing the
individual's relationship with the nonprofit. In general, the more involved an
individual is with an organization and the more he or she perceives the nonprofit
in a positive manner, the more the individual will identify with the organization.
Two of the categories ~ individual and organizational - are hypothesized to
contain variables that serve to induce and influence relationships between
individuals and nonprofit organizations.
Individual Variables
The first category of relationship-inducing factors entails individual
variables from Table 2.1 that describe the person's history with the nonprofit
organization. The first of these characteristics is the person's level of
achievement within the organization. Nonprofit organizations involving
membership often recognize members' achievements by awarding rank or
status. For example, Boy and Girl Scouts award their members with badges and
28
coH'esponding rank. Universities award students with degrees. Keller (1982)
and Morris (1970), among others, have found that donors are more often
graduates of the university rather than individuals who attended for a time but
did not graduate. Churches often confer rank to their members whether it be
officially within the hierarchy of church leadership or within committees and other
groups formed for special projects.
A second individual characteristic represents the length of time the
person was, or is, affiliated with the organization. The longer a person was, or is,
a member of Boy or Girl Scouts the more likely that person is to have a strong,
salient. Boy or Girl Scout identity. Nonprofit organizations such as Scouting
involve substantial donations of time among other things. Most people who do
not develop a strong Boy or Girl Scout identity do not tend to remain with the
organization for a long period of time. Research has found that the longer a
student attends his or her university, the more likely it is that person will donate
to the university (Morris 1970; Koole 1981).
The third individual characteristic involves the person's level of
involvement in organizational activities. Nonprofit organizations such as
churches offer many activities such as teaching classes, holding office, and
influencing others to become members of the church. The more deeply involved
the person is in various areas of the church, the stronger his or her support of
the church. Boy and Girl Scouts are well known for the activities in which their
members participate - ranging from projects leading to merit badges to
29
fundraising for the organization. Involvement in these activities serves to
strengthen the participant's Boy or Girl Scout identity. A positive relationship
between university students and later financial contributions tends to develop
when the student is involved in extra-curricular activities sponsored by the
university (e.g., intramurals, sororities and fraternities, student government, and
departmental organizations) (Nelson 1984; Gardner 1975; Blakely 1974;
McNulty 1977).
The fourth individual characteristic, family members' affiliation with the
organization, is important because many people are strongly influenced by
fathers, mothers, siblings, and other family members (Thompson 1994;
SInatra-Ostlund 1984). Very often family serves as an important referent that
influences what a person chooses to wear, what a person chooses to become, or
even where a person chooses to spend their time. When an individual has
several family members who have been involved with the same nonprofit
organization (e.g., have attended the same university or are members of the
same church) a stronger likelihood should exist of that Individual supporting the
nonprofit. The supportive tendency stems not only from the person's
experiences while a member, but also from the family members' experiences as
they are related to that person. Universities such as Texas A&M, Harvard, and
Notre Dame have generations of families that have attended their respective
institutions. A son may be more heavily influenced to attend Texas A&M
because his father was an "Aggie" and a member of the "Corps" than because
30
Texas A&M would provide him with a desired area of study. Churches rely
heavily on family participation. Parents teach their children by their active
membership that membership in a particular church group is good. Universities,
churches, and other nonprofit organizations adept at fostering a family
membership should see the "attendance of family members" variable strongly
influence the person's support of the organization.
Even though the preceding individual characteristics are often cited in
explaining variance in supportive behaviors, a stronger relationship may be
found between these variables and the manner in which each variable
influences the individual's identification with the nonprofit organization. One's
level of achievement, length of time affiliated with the organization, and activities
while affiliated are all variables formed while the individual was involved with the
nonprofit and represent personal history with the nonprofit. These variables may
be thought of as measuring the extent to which a person has given him or herself
to the organization while a member and indicate the extent to which the
individual feels a sense of membership with, or belongingness to, the
organization. The fourth variable, family members' affiliation, also represents
personal history, although this history is accumulated by the individual through
family members' experiences.
Identity theory leads to the hypothesis that identification is fostered in
students who attend their universities for a longer length of time and especially
in those who stay long enough to finish their degrees. The more time students
31
spend at a university the stronger their feeling of being where they belong or
doing something useful or consequential with their time. Once they leave the
university they may find they have "grown to love" (identify with) their university.
Further, identity theory gives reason to conclude that those with stronger
identification with the university should be more likely to support the university
with resource donations and other forms of supportive behaviors.
Identity theory also leads to the hypothesis that identification may be
fostered through a person's participation in organizational activities while a
member of the organization. Returning to the example of a university setting
where students are involved in the larger scope of the university (e.g., student
government, intramural sports, fraternities and sororities), these students may
view their Involvement as an investment of themselves in the university through
these activities. The greater the investment, the stronger should be the
students' identification with the university, which then should positively influence
their supportive behaviors toward the university.
Regarding family members' experiences with the nonprofit, identity theory
Indicates that "belongingness" will be enhanced due to the influence of family
members on an individual's learning (experience) curve in becoming familiar and
comfortable with the nonprofit. The more the person hears about the nonprofit
through family, the more easily and quickly his or her identification with the
organization develops. Stronger identification as a result of the influence of
family will then lead to stronger supportive behaviors toward the organization.
32
institutional Variables
The second category of antecedent ~ relationship-Inducing - factors is
comprised of perceptions of the nonprofit organization (refer again to Figure
1.1). Prior research has found that people tend to donate resources to
organizations that are perceived to be prestigious (Grunig 1993;. Universities
such as Harvard, Yale, or Purdue, are able to raise large sums of money from
alumni and other individuals because the status of these schools among
institutions of higher education influences people to perceive them favorably.
Cameron and Ulrich (1986) found that financial support for organizations has
been increased or renewed due to efforts directed toward the transformation of
an image from mediocrity to one of excellence or prestige. Mael and Ashforth
(1992) found organizational prestige to be significantly correlated with several
variables denoting positive outcomes to a nonprofit institution, one of which was
contributing. Large, well-known churches are able to rally volunteers and raise
large amounts of donations of money and possessions because of their prestige
in the local community and/or in their circle of affiliated churches.
A second organizational factor shown by past research to influence a
person to donate resources to a nonprofit organization is a feeling of respect for
the institution's leaders (Gibbons 1992;. The influence of this factor may be
stronger when the perception Is negative than when it is positive. When the
leader of the United Way was recently found to have misused funds, there was a
very quick and negative reaction from the press and from donors (Glaser 1994,
33
Lucas 1995). When Jim Bakker, lead spokesperson for PTL (Praise the Lord)
ministries, was found to have misused funds, many of the projects supported by
PTL such as Heritage USA (a Christian theme park) lost funding due to negative
reactions on the part of donors (Reid 1989; TIdwell 1994). However, the positive
influence of a respected leader can be seen in the recent naming of John
Montford as chancellor of Texas Tech University. Prior to Montford's nomination
an ambitious athletic arena building project had been proposed and advertised,
but subsequently failed to materialize. After Montford was named chancellor,
support quickly coalesced for the project, providing sufficient monetary
contributions to fund the arena.
A third organizational factor that could strongly influence one's
identification with the organization is a general satisfaction with the
organization's services. People tend to donate resources to organizations they
perceive to have served them well (Hall and Schneider 1972; Bhattacharya et al.
1995; Mael and Ashforth 1992). Oliver and Swann (1989, p. 21) observed that
"satisfaction in exchange Is necessary If ongoing relationships are to be
maintained and future relationships are to be facilitated" and indicate that
satisfaction is a function of the extent to which a person's expectations of an
organization are not met or exceeded. It is likely that university alumni carry
meaningful memories of (dis)satisfaction with the quality of department or
college from which they received their degree, or the manner In which they were
treated as students, or with the university's facilities. Churches across the
34
United States that are growing in membership are reported to be doing so
because they are fulfilling their constituency's needs such as personal
counseling, special forms of corporate worship, and a place to use specific
talents such as singing and teaching (Spiegler 1996).
Although past research links perceived prestige and respect as well as
satisfaction directly to supportive behaviors, identity theory leads to the
hypothesis that identification with the organization mediates these linkages. In
general, people want to be associated with other people and organizations that
are considered to be prestigious, whose leaders are respected, and that satisfy
their needs and wants. These three factors should positively influence the
person's Identification with the organization by influencing their desire to belong
to the organization. Once a person belongs to, is a member of, an organization
he or thinks highly of ~ due to perceived prestige, respect, or satisfaction, or a
combination of the three ~ and through membership identifies with the
organization, that person should exhibit behaviors supportive of the
organization.
The final organizational factor that may induce an individual's supportive
behaviors toward the nonprofit organization is a feeling of reciprocity - the sense
that the organization not only takes donations of time, money, or possessions,
but also gives something in return such as gratitude or outward recognition for
donations (Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-Lamastro 1990). Conceptual and
empirical work In the marketing and management literatures support reciprocity's
35
significant influence on exchange relationships. Bagozzi (1995) discusses
reciprocity in countering a claim by Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) that consumers
enter into a marketing relationship with a goal of choice reduction. In addressing
Sheth and Parvatiyar's claim, Bagozzi (1995, p. 273) says,
I suspect that people enter relationships for a variety of reasons, and this results in reduced choices, but the reduction in choices may never have been the motive, per se.. . . [W]hy then do people enter into marketing relationships? I believe that the most common and determinative motive for entering a marketing relationship is that consumers see the relationship as a means for fulfillment of a goal. . . and a relationship then becomes instrumental in goal achievement.
What might be a goal that an individual would wish to fulfill by entering Into a
relationship with a nonprofit organization? Bagozzi (1995, p. 275) focuses on
the goal of reciprocity as being "at the core of marketing relationships" and
regards reciprocity as "much more than tit for tat, and . . . more than a norm . . .
is not only a virtue but. . . is a fundamental virtue." It seems that Bagozzi is
saying that the virtue found in reciprocity is that it is a type of equity. In the
nonprofit setting, equity, or reciprocity may be seen in alumni who donate to their
university because of their perception that the university supports them.
A second, and related, perspective of reciprocity is found in social
exchange theory, which proposes that individuals "form a general perception
concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and
cares about their well-being" (Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
The social exchange view posits that employees' commitment to an organization
reflects their perceptions about the nature of the relationship which exists
36
between themselves and their employers. Reciprocity on the part of the
organization may take the form of rewards, both material (e.g., pay) and
symbolic (e.g., formal and informal praise, rank, job enrichment), given to the
employee as a result of his or her efforts. The stronger the employee's
perception of support from the organization the stronger will be the employee's
ties to the organization. In an employee-organization relationship, perceived
reciprocity was found to directly and negatively impact the employee's inclination
to leave the organization (Eisenberger et al. 1990).
In a supporter-nonprofit organization relationship, perceived reciprocity
may have a similar influence in that individuals may respond more positively to
appeals for support the more they perceive that the organization supports them.
Reciprocity may be seen in the naming of buildings to honor a donor and in the
way in which donors are thanked for their time or money with letters and
memorabilia related to the particular project for which the support was garnered.
Similar to the individual variables, the institutional variables also have a
common characteristic in addition to the individual they characterize. All
represent the individual's expectations of the nonprofit organization, with
expectations being on a continuum from the member being "let down" by the
nonprofit to the person viewing his or her expectations of the organization to be
exceeded. One's expectations are based on a perception of what "should be."
As consumers of typical products such as food, health care items, and so forth,
we often expect these products to perform in a certain manner. As consumers of
37
a nonprofit organization's products, such as the activities sponsored by
Scouting, universities, and churches, we expect certain levels of prestige,
leadership, service, and reciprocal action on the part of these organizations.
Even though these variables may explain variance in behaviors supportive of the
nonprofit (e.g., donating), they should be more strongly correlated with one's
identification with the organization and empirical work supports this relationship.
Mael and Ashforth (1992) found that organizational identification is significantly
correlated with the prestige of the organization, satisfaction with the
organization's services, and the respondents' priority assigned to contributing to
the nonprofit organization.
Nonrelationship-lnducing Factors (Control Vanables^
There are other factors typically cited in studies of supportive behaviors to
explain variance in supportive behaviors. These factors include demographic
variables such as the individual's age, gender, income, and family size (cf.,
Burgess-Getts 1992; Oglesby 1991; House 1987; Haddad 1986). Typically, as
people grow older, move children out of the house and into their own homes,
and develop relatively larger incomes, they also more actively support the
organizations with which they identify. Churches, schools, and other
"membership-Involved" groups receive much of their resources from these
individuals. However, as hypothesized in this research, age, family members
moving out of the house, and other similar factors are not viewed to be factors
38
that influence one's identification with nonprofit organizations. These are simply
situational factors that directly Influence the likelihood, as well as the magnitude,
of the support.
A second source of variables that directly influence supportive behaviors
are those that are specific to the particular organization. The first situational
variable takes into account that a person's reason for supporting an organization
may be due to his or her interest in specific programs offered by the nonprofit
such as a university's athletic or fine arts program or a senior citizens' program
offered at the individual's church. Tax incentives are often cited by fundraisers
as an Important reason people donate their resources . The issue of tax
incentives on supportive behaviors is somewhat controversial. For example,
Gibbons (1992), in an empirical study, found tax incentives to be a significant
predictor of monetary contributions. However, professional fundraisers claim
that tax incentives are little, or no, incentive at all (Broce 1991). Panas (1984)
found In a study of individuals who had given large amounts that tax
considerations ranked 19th of 22 reasons for giving. Tax incentive, however, is
intuitively plausible as an explanatory variable because of the pervasive impact
of taxes on all individuals.
A third situational variable is the individual's involvement in a religious
organization. Lawson (1991, p. 12) observes that "[a] religious or spiritual
connection is clearly the driving force behind much of America's benevolence."
Hodgkinson (1988) reports that one of the most important factors influencing
39
charitable giving is attendance at religious services. Those who regularly attend
services account for approximately 70 percent of all giving (2.4 percent of their
income) and those who do not attend services give approximately 0.8 percent of
their income.
The final situational variable to be employed by this research is the
individual's perception of the organization being in financial need (House 1987).
As is often the case, churches, universities, and other nonprofits require outside
funds for building expansion or program creation. Many of these organizations
are relatively young, or if not young, some of the programs within the
organization are new. A common appeal in these situations is that this new
building or program is needed to enable the organization to progress or reach
some stated goal. There are people who enjoy contributing to "needy" causes.
Outcomes of Identification
In the for-profit business context, the paradox of relationship marketing is
that effective cooperation within a network promotes effective competition among
networks (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Hunt 1996). Cooperation promotes
relationship marketing success. In the nonprofit context, what would be
indicators of relationship marketing success? Three types of supportive
behaviors are posited to be positive outcomes of successful nonprofit
relationship marketing: donating, function attendance, and promotion. Donating
Is the more easily viewed type of relational exchange because It entails time,
40
money or possessions given directly to the nonprofit organization. Function
attendance is often a silent, but visible, measure of support shown by people
toward the nonprofit - similar to a situation where a person might vouch for a
friend by standing with him or her before others. Promotion is the verbal,
proactive form of support ~ that word-of-mouth advertising that businesses,
for-profit as well as nonprofit, covet because of its perceived superiority in terms
of cost versus benefits over other forms of promotion. Although there may be
other supportive behaviors that identification will predict, these are cited by
practitioner literature to be the behaviors that are influential in the success of the
nonprofit organization.
The theory proposed in this dissertation is that the strength, or salience,
of a person's identification with a nonprofit organization mediates the potential
exchange relationship between the person and the organization. Further, there
are specific antecedents that serve to induce and influence the relationship.
These antecedents, or relationship-inducing factors, stem from the individual as
well as from the individual's perceptions of the organization. The stronger the
influence of these antecedents on one's identification with the organization, the
more likely the individual will respond positively to the organization in terms of
supportive behaviors.
The inclusion of the relational factor, identification, as a key mediating
variable pertaining to one's "self in a model of relational exchange suggests the
following model (Figure 2.2) and summary of hypotheses:
41
SU
PP
OR
T B
EH
AV
IO
Q.
NSH
I lA
TIN
G R
ELA
TIO
FAC
TOR
:
a UJ
onat
ing
a
danc
e un
ctio
n a
tten
u.
<D ±i
ers
to b
no
npro
f ec
rulti
ng o
th
a pa
rt of
the
Q:
i <
Z O
ICA
TI
EN
TIF
C 3
' 4 - '
> -
nonp
ro
rom
otin
g th
e
Q.
to fr
iend
s an
d ac
quai
ntan
ces
o z
ND
UC
lO
NS
HIP
-l
CT
OR
S:
lON
RE
LA
T
FA
^
3 ram
s
tiona
l
peci
fic p
ro<
e 3f o
rgan
iza
need
inte
rest
in s
ta
x in
cent
iv
relig
iosi
ty
perc
eptio
n (
finan
cial
ge
nder
fn
zatio
nj
a of
org
ani
ent
inco
me
fam
ily s
ize
prim
ary
are
invo
lvem
c o c g
s (0
eg CO
>
z o i 8
I
CO o § CO
UJ
Si c:
•c «
CO ^ CO 0)
5 i e 7a > ^
.> CO ^ •a ^
S ^ ft
8 S,
2 CO CO c o
i2 (U
"O CO
M 'c , 0 '••3 CO N
'E CO
s> o
CO N
'E CO O)
O -S £ •"« CO c o
CO
CO N
'E CO
o
2 p
(/) 2
CM
O CO
« ^ -(0
CO
CO
o 2 o. o
.<1>
c (D 2 O
I—
o c O O
CM C ^
.0)0.2 u. c .0
•5 >
"Si <D S *- ti: O Q.
0 §-
42
Hypothesis 1
The individual's identification with the nonprofit organization is positively influenced by
(a) achievement level in the organization, time affiliated with the organization, involvement level in the organization, family members' affiliation with the organization, and
(b) perception of organizational prestige, respect for the organization's leaders, satisfaction with the organization, and felt reciprocity.
HypQthesI? 2
An individual's identification with the nonprofit organization positively influences his or her
(a) donating resources to the nonprofit organization, (b) attendance at functions sponsored by the nonprofit, (c) recruitment of others to be a part of the nonprofit, and (d) promotion of the nonprofit to friends and acquaintances.
Hypothesis 3
Variance in supportive behaviors of the individual toward the nonprofit organization (donating, function attendance, recruiting of other to be a part of the nonprofit, promoting the nonprofit to friends and acquaintances) is accounted for by the individual's
(a) interest In specific programs, (b) interest In reducing taxes, (c) religiosity, (d) perception of organizational financial need, (e) gender, (f) income, (g) family size, and (h) primary area of organizational involvement.
43
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
This section (1) defines general and specific sample frame characteristics
and offers a rival model for comparison to the hypothesized model of relational
exchange, (2) Identifies measures of constructs, (3) discusses the method of
data collection, and (4) delineates respondent characteristics.
General Sample Frame Characteristics
When exploring relational exchange, it becomes evident that there are
many types of nonprofit organizations vying for support. A study by the
Independent Sector (Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1989) found 1,368,000 private
nonprofit organizations and government entities in the United States. Although
varied in mission, most nonprofit organizations share a common need ~ partial,
and sometimes total, support from individuals and other entities such as
corporations and foundations.
One means of distinguishing among the variety of nonprofit organizations
is to consider the "satisfaction," both economic and altruistic, that the customer
might derive from the exchange with the nonprofit (see Figure 3.1). Some
organizations, although structured as nonprofit, exchange with their customers
economic satisfaction in much the same manner as for-profit organizations
exchange economic satisfaction with their customers. For example, credit
44
o
ist
3 Lav
;±i
c / o / T5 / ~ 5 / (/) /
CO / < CO /
.2
c CO
(O o
§ 1
.0)
>
o E o c o o UJ
c o "S j5 0) • ^^M
CO CO
J2 CO
"5. (/) (A o c .c o
o {XL Q .
Z o
CO
c g
CO CO Q) O
c © ? bo
" ^
E
C o o
i2 §12 H
3 <U O ^
45
unions are nonprofit organizations that perform many of the same functions
found In for-profit banks such as Nationsbank or Nonvest Bank. The primary
difference between Non/vest Bank and the Federal Credit Union is how "profits"
are distributed. However, both organizations are very similar in that they provide
their customers with economic satisfaction in the form of credit, savings
instruments, and other banking services.
Other organizations structured as nonprofit exchange with their customers
altruistic satisfaction for donations. If altruism is defined as an act performed by
an individual with the intent of helping others (see Batson (1991) for his defense
of this definition), then supporters of nonprofit organizations such as Boy/Girl
Scouts and churches must primarily receive altruistic satisfaction. Seldom, If
ever, do those who support these institutions receive something material In
nature (with the exception of Girl Scout cookies). Nonprofit organizations such
as universities may offer both types of satisfaction. A university's students most
likely view what they receive in the exchange as something economic (e.g., job
training). However, after these individuals leave the university and become
alumni, their relationship may change in that they transact with the university via
donating as well as other supportive behavior and receive from the transaction
(exchange) altruistic satisfaction.
A second distinction to be recognized among nonprofit organizations is
that they differ in terms of who supports the organization. Some nonprofits such
as the United Way and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) receive
46
substantial monetary donations from people who are not closely affiliated with
the organization. Donors to these organizations tend to have no strong personal
feeling or attachment for the organization; donating is a way to serve the needs
of society without personal involvement. On the other hand, nonprofits such as
universities, churches, and Boy/Girl Scouts entail personal involvement, that is,
membership (past and/or present) in the organization. These are the people
who identify with the organization to the extent that they may publicly claim
membership (e.g., "I am a Girl Scout," or "I am a Baptist," or "I am an Aggie").
Because of the element of personal involvement, these people tend to exhibit a
wider range of supportive behavior toward a nonprofit organization with which
they identify including support in the form of resource donations.
This research is interested in an exchange between individuals and
nonprofit organizations having two characteristics: (1) the satisfaction received
from the exchange is primarily altruistic, and (2) the individuals solicited for
various types of support potentially see themselves as members of the
organization or, in terms of social identity theory, they have the potential to
identify w\ih the organization.
Specific Sample Frame Characteristics
Some nonprofit organizations are progressing from an arm's length,
transactional view of exchange to the adoption of a relational view, similar to the
trend in long-term business-to-business relationships. For example, colleges
47
and universities that have been funded on an annual basis primarily by tax
dollars are presently seeing that source (tax dollars) diminish (Blumenstyk and
Cage 1991). In response to reduced funding from state governments, many
colleges and universities are developing fundraising strategies to provide
needed short-term and long-term funding (Hall 1996). If these institutions are to
raise funds to maintain present facilities and services, as well as to expand to
meet challenges presented by new technologies, new views of business
operations, and other areas of change, then colleges and universities must rely
increasingly on relational exchange (e.g., donations) to augment moneys from
state governments.
To develop relationships between their organizations and potential
donors, fundraisers develop and implement strategies that include determining
what type and size of donations are needed (segmenting), the identification of
potential donors in each segment (targeting), the development of a strategy
through which these donors may be pursued (strategic planning), the actual
contact with those who were identified as potential donors (the sale) and, finally,
maintaining the relationship with the donor (service after the sale). These
fundraising strategies are centered around the donor. Dependence on donors
underscores the need for a better understanding of personal donating behavior
(Smith 1980; Hodgkinson 1985; Harvey 1990).
The exchange between a university and one group of stakeholders, its
alumni, serves as the frame of reference for investigating factors that influence
48
the exchange relationship. Many alumni support their university by volunteering
to help with alumni-centered events, by recruiting students, and by giving
money. Such alumni are often cited as being the financial backbone of
educational institutions (Bakal 1979). However, alumni participation In support
of a university is not universal. The estimated percentage of alumni who provide
financial support ranges from 14 to 25 percent (Bakal 1979; Reichley 1977).
University alumni provide an effective means by which supportive behavior may
be studied in part because their "alumnus identity" ranges from being a vital,
important part of who they are, to being a source of negative feelings and
embarrassment. The continuum of identity importance, or salience, provides a
rich source of variance to be explained.
Another reason for the employment of university alumni In this study of
supportive behavior is that even though the importance of alumni is
acknowledged, Frey (1981, p. 46) observes that "universities probably know little
about their alumni. They presume opinions, beliefs, and preferences, yet they
almost never conduct scientific research into the matter." If university
fundraisers are to use marketing techniques such as targeting and segmentation
in marketing the university to stakeholders such as alumni, they must
understand the alumni in terms of the factors that influence them to exhibit
supportive behavior.
Although this study utilizes university alumni as the sample frame, the
model in Figures 1.1 and 2.2 is generalizable to other nonprofit settings as long
49
as the nonprofit has stakeholders (similar to the alumni in this study) who view
themselves as members of the organization and thus, potentially, can identify
with the organization.
Measures of Constructs
A questionnaire was developed using items that were adapted from
existing scales and donating-related research. The questionnaire was
accompanied by a cover letter from this researcher and the dissertation chair.
The cover letter assured the confidentiality of the information given by the
respondent and emphasized the significance of the study's contribution to the
university's continuing efforts to improve the quality of education along with
similar efforts to improve relationships with the university's various constituents
(see Appendix A).
Constructs employed in this research, with the exception of level of
donation, were measured using self-report measures of the respondents'
perceptions (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1977).' Identification, recruiting others,
promoting the nonprofit, organizational prestige, respect for the organization's
leaders, and reciprocity are theoretically unobserved constructs. Questionnaire
items for this study were chosen, or designed, to be "reflections" of the
unobservable constructs. Satisfaction was measured by Items that could be
construed as "formative", meaning that "more" of each satisfaction item would be
defined as higher respondent indications on a 1 to 7 scale. However, factor
50
analysis of the satisfaction items reveals one factor with item loadings ranging
from .77 to .91 and high reliability as evidenced by a Cronbach's alpha of .92.
The individuals who responded to these items seem to be indicating a general
satisfaction with their university experience rather than satisfaction with specific
areas of the university. Based on this analysis, satisfaction will also be viewed
in this research as a reflective measure. Donating, level of achievement, length
of time, extra-curricular activities, and family members' affiliation are cx)nstructs
measured by single items.
Each construct and corresponding measures are discussed and the
coding designation (e.g., "ID1") for each item is listed to simplify the process of
identifying items in question later In this research.
Identification was measured using Items adapted from a scale developed
and tested by Callero (1985). The items used in the Callero (1985) study
had a Cronbach's alpha of .81 and predicted respondents' likelihood of
donating blood. Laverie, Kleine, and Kleine (1996), using the Callero
(1985) scale (Cronbach's alpha of .88), found that the self is "an
important driver of consumption behavior related to activities" (p 23).
51
Consider your status as a Texas Tech University alumnus.
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
Being a Texas Tech University graduate...
ID1 . . . is an important part of who I am. ID2 . . . is something about which I have no clear feelings. (R)
^103 . . . means more to me than just having a degree. ID4 . . . is something I rarely think about. (R)
• Donating was measured with the levels of donating assigned to each
member of the sample prior to mailing the questionnaires. To preserve
the respondents' anonymity, each person in the sample received a
questionnaire that was coded with one of five colors and one of four
heading variations, allowing identification of 20 levels of donating.
• Function Attendance was measured with two questions concerning the
number of planned visits the respondent has made to the campus since
graduation and the number of off-campus alumni activities the
respondent has attended since graduation:
Since graduation, how many times have you . . .
PGI1 . . been bact to the Texas Tech campus for a visit such as homecoming, a class reunion, sporting event, etc.? (please circle the number of times)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 times
as a etc.? (circle
PGI2 . . .participated in an off-campus alumni actiyitv such as an alumni meeting phonathon recruiting event, volunteer work, e the number of times)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 times
52
student Recruiting was measured by items assessing the
respondent's willingness to recruit others:
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
SR1 When I have the opportunity, I advise potential students that they should attend Texas Tech University.
SR2 I encourage those who are considering attending college to go to Texas Tech.
SR3 When I meet high school students, and the topic arises, I usually advise them to attend Texas Tech University.
Promoting Texas Tech to friends and acquaintances was measured by
three items that assess the respondent's desire to "talk up" Texas Tech
to others:
[1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree]
PR01 I "talk-up" Texas Tech University to people I know. PR02 I bring up Texas Tech in a positive way in conversations I
have with friends and acquaintances. PROS In social situations, I often speak favorably about Texas
Tech.
Organizational Prestige was measured with five Items adapted from the
scale for this construct used by Mael and Ashforth (1992). This scale
has demonstrated good psychometric properties in previous studies. In
the Mael (1988) study the Cronbach's alpha for the perceived
organizational prestige construct was .88, in the Ashforth (1990) study
the Cronbach alpha was .83, and in the Bhattacharya, et al. (1995) study
the Cronbach alpha was .87.
53
[1 = strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
P0P1 People I know think highly of Texas Tech University. POP2 It is prestigious to be an alumnus of Texas Tech
University. POPS People seeking to advance their careers should downplay
their association with Texas Tech University. (R) P0P4 Most people are proud when their children attend Texas Tech. POPS People I know look down at Texas Tech University. (R)
Respect ^or the institution's leaders was measured with the following four
items:
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 - Strongly agree]
RES1 I have positive feelings about Texas Tech's administration. RES2 The administration of Texas Tech, on the whole, is good. RESS Those leading Texas Tech are not doing a good job. (R) RES4 I think the people leading Texas Tech are fulfilling their
responsibilities well.
Satisfaction with the organization was measured with an adaptation of a
six item bipolar adjective scale tested by Westbrook and Oliver (1981),
who reported reliability estimates ranging from .91 to .95 over two
samples:
[1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree]
54
/ am satisfied with...
SAT1 . . . the education I received while a student at Texas Tech. ^ SAT2 . . . the facilities at Texas Tech when I was a student. ^ SATS . . . with the manner in which I was treated as a student at
Texas Tech. ^SAT4 . . . how Texas Tech prepare me for my career.
SATS . . . with my choice to attend Texas Tech. SAT6 . . . with Texas Tech in general.
• The extent to which Felt Reciprocity exists between a person and the
nonprofit organization was measured with six items adapted from the
Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) (Eisenberger, et al.,
1986).
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
Texas Tech University...
P0S1 . . . values my contribution to its well-being. P0S2 . . . appreciates any extra effort from me. POSS . . . listens to any complaints I might have concerning
the university. POS4 . . . would notice if I did something that benefited the
university. POSS . . . shows concern for me. POS6 . . . takes pride in my accomplishments.
• Involvement Level in organizational activities (TECA and EGA) while in
college was measured by the number of activities in which the
respondent participated while a student:
Please list the different extra-curricular activities or organizations that you participated in while a student at Texas Tech. (List those you actively participated in, such as student government, fraternities/sororities, music, drama, service organizations, athletics/intramurals, etc.):
55
Interest in Specific Programs was measured by:
[1 = not deserving at all; 7 = very deserving]
/ thinl( the foilowing areas deserve financial support by Texas Tech alumni:
ISP1 Student scholarships ISP2 Library ISPS University athletics (football, basketball, tennis, etc.) ISP4 The unrestricted fund (money that can be use in any area
of the university) ISPS Research ISP6 Endowed faculty chairs or professorships ISP7 Instructional equipment
• Tax Incentives (IFDD) was measured by:
[1 = not Important; 7 = very important]
How important is (or would be) the tax deductibility of the gift in your decision to donate to Texas Tech?
Religiosity was measured using Wilkes, Burnett and Howell's (1986) 4-item
scale. The scale approximates an individual's perceived religious
commitment using a 7-point Likert scale with higher scores Indicating
higher perceived religious commitment:
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
RELG1 I go to church regulariy RELG2 Spiritual values are more important than material things RELGS If people were more religious, this would be a better
country RELG4 I am a religious person
56
Family Members'Affiliation (AFM) was measured by:
Did any family members listed below attend Texas Tech? (circle the numbers that apply and indicate how many of each attended Texas Tech):
1. 2. S. 4. S. 6. 7. 8.
Grandparent(s) Parent(s) Brother(s) and Sister(s) Aunt(s) and Uncle(s) Spouse Child (children) Grandchild (grandchildren) Other
Perception of the Institution Being in Financial Need was measured by:
[1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree]
PFN1 Texas Tech's need for financial support from its alumni will be even greater in the future.
PFN2 State universities need the financial support of their alumni just as much as private universities.
PFNS Texas Tech University presently needs strong financial from its alumni.
Family Size (NFM) was measured by:
How many people are in your household? (count yourself, spouse, children, and other dependents):
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 MORE THAN 7
57
Primary Area of Involvement While in the Organization (MAJ) and
Level of Achievement (DEG) were measured by:
Your degrees? (check all that apply and please specify your major)
Major Bachelor's -Master's Doctorate Other (specify below)
Length of Time Affiliated With the Organization was measured by:
How many of each of the following types of semesters did you attend Texas Tech?
(SEM) Regular semesters (fall/spring)
(SUM) Summer terms (count each session as "one")
Other individual and situational variables were measured by single items:
household income (INC), and gencfer (GEN).
58
Method and Results of Data Collection
The meditating role of identification in a model of supportive behavior was
assessed using a self-administered questionnaire comprised of the items
described above. The questionnaire was mailed to 2,542 Texas Tech University
alumni from the 1974 graduating class. A draft of the questionnaire was
pretested using a convenience sample of university alumni. Taking into account
the feedback from the convenience sample, the questionnaire was revised and
sent to the sample.
Responses were returned to the researcher in preaddressed,
postage-paid envelopes provided with the questionnaire. Combinations of five
colors and four variations of the questionnaire title were used to enable
identification of twenty levels of donations (the anonymity of the respondents
necessitated this procedure). Of the 2,542 questionnaires mailed, eleven were
returned as nondeliverable, resulting in 2,531 delivered questionnaires. Of the
2,531 delivered questionnaires, 457 were returned ~ an 18% response rate.
Four of the returned questionnaires were unusable due to an excessive number
of unanswered items. Table 3.1 delineates by donation levels the delivered
sample of 2,531 and the 453 usable responses.
Of the 453 responses, 201 were nondonors, a response rate of 12.6%.
Two hundred fifty-two of the responses were from donors, a response rate of
27%. The higher rate of donor response may be Interpreted as a positive
59
Table 3.1 Donation Categories by Sample and Respondents
Donor Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
totals
% of tot.
Donation Categories
$0
1-49
50-99
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
500-599
600-799
800-999
1000-1249
1250-1749
1750-2499
2500-3999
4000-9999
10,000-19,999
20,000-44,999
45,000-149,999
Class of 1974 Sample Rec'd
1.597
262
152
129
53
85
53
29
28
37
14
21
20
15
16
12
4
3
1
2.531
56.7
201
42
38
31
16
27
21
8
2
17
8
7
10
6
9
5
2
3
0
453
17.9
%of sample
12.6
16.0
25.0
24.0
30.2
31.8
39.6
27.6
7.1
45.9
57.1
33.3
50.0
40.0
56.2
41.7
50.0
100.0
0.0
%of total
44.4
9.3
8.4
6.8
3.5
6.0
4.6
1.8
0.4
3.8
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.3
2.0
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.0
100.0
60
indication that donating and identification are related. Additionally, as the donor
levels increase, the likelihood of the alumnus returning the questionnaire
increases. The lower donation levels (1-5) are characterized by response rates
of 16% to 30% as compared to the 33% to 100% response rates of the alumni
who have donated larger amounts (levels 10-18). Even though there are smaller
numbers of donors of large amounts in relation to donors of smaller amounts, it
is expected that this type of response pattern would hold even if there were large
numbers of donors of large amounts.
At the time this questionnaire was mailed to members of the class of
1974, questionnaires were also sent to two other classes ~ 1954 and 1994 ~ for
a separate study - making 4,481 questionnaires in the same mailing (fourteen
were returned as undeliverable). This is mentioned because of the 959
responses from members of all three classes (a 21.5% response rate), 170 of
the respondents understood the question, "What years did you attend Texas
Tech?" to ask how many years they attended Texas Tech. This resulted in 362
respondents that could be Identified as 1974 graduates, 89 as 1954 graduates,
320 as 1994 graduates, and 170 respondents for which a graduation year could
not initially be assigned.
In arriving at reliable parameter estimates using structural equation
modeling (LISREL 8 as the software program), approximately twenty
respondents are recommended for each construct In the model being tested.
Twenty-one constructs in the Figure 2.2 model equates to a sample size of
61
approximately 420 needed for there to be a reasonable basis for reliance on
parameter estimates resulting from the data analysis.
Based on the above criterion, the number of identified respondents from
the class of 1974 (362) is insufficient for data analysis using LISREL. Three
means by which response size could be increased were considered. One way to
increase response size would be to supplement the class of 1974 responses
with the responses from the classes of 1954 and 1994. However, this action
defeats the purpose of surveying alumni from one class year - that Is, to hold
constant the effects of age and time elapsed since active membership. These
constructs have been shown to be strong predictors of supportive behavior (see
Table 2.1). Holding age and elapsed time constant by using a sample taken
from one class year allows the inclusion of other influencing factors that have
basis in the literature but do not have strong empirical support. A second way to
increase response size would be to send a reminder to those who did not
respond. The questionnaire was designed to be anonymous, requiring the
reminder be sent to every person Included in the original mailing. However,
ignoring the issue of additional cost, if alumni chose not to respond to the first
mailing, the likelihood of them responding to a reminder is low. A few would
respond but most likely not enough to reach the desired number of responses.
A third method of increasing sample size was chosen. Assuming that the
170 unidentified respondents' class years are in the same proportion as the 789
respondents' class years (class of 1954 ~ 11%, class of 1974 - 47%, class of
62
1994 - 42%) it would be reasonable to assume that approximately 80 (47% of
170) of the 170 unidentified respondents are from the class of 1974. In order to
identify which of the 170 unidentified respondents are from the class of 1974, a
discriminant function using a measure of generalized squared distance was
derived employing ninety-one variables from the 789 responses. The derived
discriminant function correctly identified 85.3% of the sample of 789 and
correctly identified 87.24% of the respondents from the class of 1974.
Application of this function to the 170 unidentified respondents and the use of
priors in the same proportion as the sample resulted in 91 of the unidentified
respondents being classified as 1974 graduates.
Two tests were conducted to provide support for identifying this group of
91 respondents as 1974 university alumni. Table 3.2 contains mean responses
to nine questionnaire items from the 91 respondents now classified as 1974
graduates compared with mean responses from the 362 respondents who
identified themselves as 1974 graduates to see if there were any significant
differences. There were no significant differences, supporting the classification
of these 91 respondents as 1974 graduates.
Additionally, a chl-square test was conducted to test the hypothesis
implied by the discriminant analysis classification - that is, that the frequencies
of expected classifications (assumes that the 170 unidentified respondents' class
years are in the same proportion as the 789 respondents' class years) do not
deviate significantly from frequencies of observed classifications determined by
63
Table 3.2 T-tests of Means of Selected Variables
Variable Means
N = 91 N = 362 Standard Deviations
N = 91 N = 362 p-value
ID1 SAT1 SR1 PR01 DL (logged) TECA GEN NFM INC
4.697 5.835 5.088 5.212 3.703 1.274 1.432 3.677
103050.55
4.849 5.853 5.294 5.280 4.188 1.528 1.426 3.498
99884.23
1.709 1.138 1.575 1.156 4.151 1.359 0.490 1.111
89545.43
1.603 1.190 1.363 1.427 4.254 1.430 0.493 1.386
85215.89
0.4269 0.8965 0.2121 0.6737 0.3295 0.1285 0.9245 0.2529 0.7540
the discriminant function. Referring to Table 3.3, the chi-square test statistic
was 3.367, which is less than 5.99, the expected chl-square for 2 degrees of
freedom. The conclusion is, based on the evidence and at the .05 level of
significance, there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis ~ that is,
expected and observed frequencies do not deviate significantly from each other.
Table 3.3 Chl-square Test For Differences Between Expected and Observed Frequencies
Class of...
1954
1974
1994 totals
Observed Freqs.
(classified by
discrim. function)
18
91
fil 170
Expected Freqs.
(proportional to
identified respondents) Chi-Square Statistic
19.28
79.24
71.48 170
0.085
1.745
1.537 3.367
64
Respondent Characteristics
Table 3.4 summarizes four demographic characteristics of the
respondents: gender, degree received, college from which the respondent
graduated, and income. The 453 responses consists of a slightly higher
proportion of men (56.5%) to women (42.2%). The respondent household
income is noteworthy because of the high levels of Income reported. One
hundred and nineteen 1974 university alumni (26.2%) claim an average
household income of $62,500 and one hundred and four (23%) state a yearly
income of approximately $87,500. One hundred and twenty-two of the 1974
alumni (26.9%) report annual household incomes in excess of $100,000 and the
average class of 1974 household income is $100,520.
As expected, most of the degrees awarded are Bachelor's degrees
(79.7%). Approximately 53% of the respondents graduated from two colleges
within the university - Arts & Sciences (30.0%) and Business Administration
(22.7%), with the remainder graduating from six other areas.
65
Table 3.4 Respondent Characteristics: Gender, Income, Degree, Major, and Extracurricular Activities
Demographic Variable Number Percentage
Gender (N=447) Male 256 56.5 Female 191 42.2
Income - midpoints (N=4S1)
$ 12,500 17 3.8 $ 37,500 69 15.2 $ 62,500 119 26.2 $ 87,500 104 23.0 $112,500 47 10.4 $137,500 17 3.7 $162,500 15 3.3 $187,500 7 1.5 $225,000 13 2.9 $375,000 15 3.3
> $500,000 8 ^-^
Mean = $100,S20
Degree Received (N=449)
Bachelor's Master's Doctorate other
361 79.7 51 11.3 35 7.7 2 0.4
66
Table 3.4 Continued
Demographic Variable Number Percentage
College From Which Degree Received (N=426)
Agriculture Science 34 7.5
Architecture 11 2.4
Arts & Sciences 136 30.0
Business Administration 103 22.7
Education 58 12.8
Engineering 28 6.2
Home Economics 44 9.7
Law 12 2.6
Number of Extracurricular Activities (N=4SS)
0 155 34.2
1 95 21.0
2 89 19.6
3 75 16.6
4 29 6.4
5 6 1.3
6 3 0.7
7 1 0.2 Means i.s
67
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
Testing the model hypothesized in this study requires a method that
simultaneously evaluates (1) the measures of constructs comprising the model
and (2) the ability of the structure designated by the hypotheses to capture
causal relations between constructs. An appropriate tool for such an analysis is
structural equations modeling because it allows for more complete modeling of
hypothesized relations than traditional analyses, which are limited to
associations among measures (Bagozzi and Yi 1989). In other words, structural
equations modeling makes possible a test of the whole model rather than testing
segments, or stages, of a model. In the case of this research, traditional
analyses such as regression require that the proposed model (Figure 2.2) be
divided into two stages. Employing traditional tests to explore relationships
between antecedent variables of the first stage and dependent variables of the
second stage would be problematic.
The hypothesized model was analyzed via structural equations modeling,
employing the LISREL 8 software package (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993).
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a two-step approach was employed in
analyzing the model hypothesized In this research. The first step requires a type
of confirmatory factor analysis that allows simultaneous analysis of the construct
measures with all paths among the constructs free to vary. Anderson and
68
Gerbing (1988, p. 187) emphasize that "only confirmatory factor analysis of a
multiple-indicator measurement model directly tests unidimensionality," and
unldimensionality is a "most critical and basic assumption of measurement
theory" (Hattie 1985, p. 49). Measurement model development using the
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) approach is confirmatory factor analysis in that
relationships between all indicants are tested before estimating the structural
paths denoting hypothesized relationships between constructs. The
measurement model aids in arriving at a group of indicators for each latent
construct that has variance largely composed of the common variance between
the items of the intended construct.
Measurement Model Development
The process of developing the measurement model required deletion of
several items from the model constructs comprised of multiple indicants.
Construct items in this research were candidates for deletion from the
measurement model if they (1) displayed poor or insignificant loadings on the
expected construct, (2) shared large, unexplained error variance with other
indicants of the same construct, or (3) shared common variance with multiple
indicators of some other construct(s). Items were deleted in a stepwise fashion
(see Table 4.1). It is important to note that at each step, in addition to statistical
indicators, both content and underlying theory of the model were employed in
the decision whether to retain or delete an item. In all cases items that might be
69
Table 4.1 Summary of the Measurement Model Repecification Process
Items Deleted RMSEA RMR GFI CFI NFI x • •
none 0.071 0.044 0.81 0.88 0.84 2467.79 760
SR2 0.067 0.042 0.82 0.85 0.89 2188.41 718
SRI 0.065 0.041 0.84 0.85 0.90 1971.37 677
P0S2 0.060 0.040 0.85 0.87 0.91 1688.72 637
SAT4 0.058 0.040 0.87 0.88 0.92 1507.08 598
RESS 0.054 0.038 0.88 0.89 0.93 1307.32 560
SAT2 0.055 0.038 0.88 0.89 0.93 1236.84 523
SAT5 0.054 0.037 0.89 0.89 0.94 1131.08 487
replace SAT 3 with SAT 6 0.054 0.037 0.89 0.90 0.94 1122.25 487
frtd(4,1)andtd(4.2) 0.052 0.037 0.89 0.90 0.94 1072.52 485
frtd(9.8)andtd(17.16) 0.050 0.036 0.90 0.90 0.95 1022.08 483
RELG1 0.049 0.035 0.90 0.91 0.95 931.32 448
70
considered "core" indicators of the construct (i.e., identification indicated by
"Being a Texas Tech graduate is an important part of who I am") were not
considered for deletion. A listing of retained items is provided in Appendix B.
Early stage analysis of the constructs measured with reflective items
revealed that four constructs in the hypothesized model (Figure 2.2) ~
Identification, Organizational Prestige, Recruiting Others, and Promoting the
Nonprofit ~ were highly correlated (correlations ranged from .75 to .88). Two
explanations that would account for the high correlations are the constructs (1)
do not possess discriminant validity or (2) each measure a different
phenomenon but they act In accordance with theory; the constructs are different,
but closely associated, phenomena.
Close reading of the questionnaire items measuring Recruiting Others
and Promoting the Nonprofit indicates that the respondents may have interpreted
these items to be asking the degree to which they would promote ("talk-up") the
university to various groups such as students and friends. In other words, high
correlation indicates that the items did not discriminate between the two
hypothesized constructs. Therefore, Recruiting Others and Promoting the
Nonprofit were combined into one construct and termed "Promotion."
Organizational Prestige was also highly correlated with Recruiting Others
and Promoting the Nonprofit as well as with the new "Promotion" construct. The
Prestige construct was hypothesized to be antecedent to Identification and
Promotion was posited to be an outcome. However, structural model analysis
71
indicated that Prestige, being highly correlated with Promotion, was actually an
outcome of Identification rather than an antecedent. The focus of this research
is on supportive behaviors such as donating, attending nonprofit functions, and
promoting the nonprofit. Prestige is a person's perception regarding the
nonprofit ~ not a behavior. To keep the focus of this research on supportive
behavior the Prestige construct was dropped from the analysis.
Two other hypothesized constructs required modification In developing
the measurement model. The first. Interest in Specific Programs, Is a control
factor formed from seven items that asked respondents to indicate the degree to
which they felt a particular area of the university, e.g., athletics, the library, or
student scholarships, was deserving of financial support by Texas Tech alumni.
Proper analysis of these seven items would require that each item be a separate
construct within the proposed model of supportive behavior. The addition of
seven more constructs increases the number of constructs in the proposed
model to twenty-five. In the interest of parsimony and because the Specific
Program items were included only as control items and are not a focus of this
study. It was determined that the influence of these variables on supportive
behavior be explored In a separate analysis reported in Appendix C.
The second construct. Donating, is one of three dependent variables In
the proposed model. This construct was measured using the median of the
donation category to which the respondent was assigned (explanation of how
respondents were assigned to donated amount categories was reported in
72
Chapter III). Referring to Table 3.1, the range within the donation categories
was made wider as donated amounts became larger, thereby eliminating empty
categories. Of the 453 respondents, there were eight who had donated $10,000
or more since graduation. These respondents, though few in number, exert
disproportionate influence on regression or structural equations employing
Donating as a dependent variable. One method of minimizing the influence of
these "outliers" is to drop them from the sample. However, dropping
respondents who have given large sums of money is counterproductive in that
important information concerning attitudes and feelings of people who have
invested heavily in the university is lost. Some results, such as the amount of
the variance In the dependent variable that is explained, are strengthened as a
result of this method. However, the trade-off is weaker results regarding the
diversity of responses to the remaining questionnaire items.
A second method of minimizing outlier influence was employed in lieu of
dropping the eight respondents. Log transformation of a dependent variable has
the effect of lessening the impact of outlier responses on regression and
structural equations. Taking the log of the Donated Amount variable reduced
the increasingly wider range of each successive donation category, thereby
minimizing the influence of a few donors of large amounts while preserving their
responses to the other questionnaire items.
The proposed model reflecting the aforementioned modifications (see
Figure 4.1) is comprised of seven reflectively measured constructs -
73
Identification, Promotion, Respect, Satisfaction, Reciprocity, Religiosity, and
Perception of Financial Need, as well as eleven, single-indicant constructs ~
Donating, Function Attendance, Achievement Level, Time Affiliated With the
Organization, Involvement Level, Family Members' Affiliation, Tax Incentive,
Gender, Income, Family Size, and Primary Area of Involvement. Table 4.1
summarizes the purification process that began with 44 indicants and ended with
the retention of 36 items.
The purified measurement model constructs were evaluated according to
unidimensionality, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity. Of the
thirty-six retained indicants, twenty-five related to the seven reflective constructs.
All reflective measures exhibited loadings exceeding .70 and t-values that
exceeded 14.50, demonstrating convergent validity (see Table 4.2). Each of the
reflective measures exhibited good reliability evidenced by Cronbach's Alphas
ranging from .76 to .91 (see Table 4.3). Six of the seven alphas exceeded .85.
Also, each of the reflective measures' items contributed significantly to their
measures as demonstrated by large average amounts of variance extracted per
item ranging from 68 to 84 percent. One indication of the lack of discriminant
validity between two reflective constructs is a confidence interval (+ two standard
errors) for the estimated construct correlation that includes 1.0 (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). Referring to Table 4.4, although seven of the 21 correlations
between reflective constructs are greater than .50, and ten are greater than .40
(all for good theoretical reasons), none fail this test.
74
^ in
SU
PP
i B
EHA
CL
CA
ELA
TIO
N
TOR
:
o 2 z
ED
IATI
Don
atin
g
8 c CQ T3
atte
Fu
nctio
n i k
z
CA
TIO
TI
FI
z UJ c 3
C
Pro
mo
tio
o z o 3 Q
ON
SH
IP-IN
C
TO
RS
: E
LA
TI
FA
ON
R
z
CO
CO o
orga
niza
tioi
eed
of o
rgan
izat
nt
cent
lve
sity
pt
ion
of
mci
al n
ir e si
ze
ry a
rea
olve
me
C . 2 < D S . S E ^ W > X .S> 2 «i ? 8 1 E .£
c o c g
II 2 CO
•5> 8
o
UC
IN
o z
HIP
CO
ELA
TIO
ct
(0
O 1-O < u.
S
risti
acte
ha
r di
vidu
al C
1.
In
(U
[lev
( ac
hiev
emen
t
• ^
aniz
ati
S> o
ated
wit
time
affil
i
^
i
"o c c CI
c Cl
c c c
a
c (1
E a
C
P
i
i
9 4
i
> »
i Vi ? 0 )
activ
it
r
tion
w
.2
CO
12
E
fam
ily m
<
^
c o
zati
or
gani
cs:
sti
teri
ar
ac
o
stitu
tiona
l II.
In
{2 •a
n's
lea
g CO
rgar
o k.
o
resp
ect f
^
niz
atio
n
CO O) O
with
io
n sa
tisfa
ct
CM
>»
rod
fe
lt re
cip
CO
§ g -LL ^ .2
o >
11 •o ^
O
75
o d II
CM CO
CO Oi
CO
a:
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o S S S
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o S S S o d d
o o o o o o o o o o o o o q o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
(A O) C
T3 CO O
—J L_
o 8 T3 _C
1 1
"O) • D O
2 ^ _ j
c o E 0) 1 . .
(0 CO (D
S
lO Oi
d II
E O
^ a> d II
iZ z
o C7> d II
-^ u. O
- *
.03
o II
a:
o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o q o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o o o o o
.^ a:
<7>
CNJ °
0 111
(0 2 I - Q:
g
^ _ CO CO T- N ,
o o o o o o 2 ^ « » ® o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o q o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o p o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
2 8 c
00 Tf O CO
g ^ a g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
^ c ^ c o ^ < i « o o o e ) g g 5 S S 5 S f : ? g Q Q S S C ) - i Q r a : Q : : Q i u j L U L i j L L U J u j u j < < t y y S 9 _ i < w Q . Q . Q . Q l j h : < Q r a : t K g g §
76
^
CO U-
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o p o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o p o o o
o o o o o o o o o i ^ 5 o > o o o o o d d
^ ^ ^ CM IO 0>
o o o o o o ^ : ^ : o q o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o p o o o o o o o o o o
00 h» r- CM O
5 5 5 2 2 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
•o (D D C
^ ^ C o o
CM ^r (D
^ CO
o
ica
Ind
^ CO CM CO - ^ 0 CD O ' I - CM CO
O p p O O P u J U J U J i f z z z u. U-Q. Q.
LD o 5 ^ (!) ? Z O
"O 0 0) c CO 0 c CO
fin
osity
iv
ed
er
elig
i er
ce
end
a o . C9 II II II
S z z cc Q. 0
0
E 8
_c II
Z
. ^ c E a> > 0 > c
*^ 0 CO
ea Qi
ry a
r
. "= CO
h E CO 'C LL QL
II II
(0 < U. Q.
{2
> j j
c 0)
c 0
liati
£ CO
12 S E 0
E E
ivol
v k_
II
- J
milj
CO
• 0
lea
in
P 0
a>
5 13 8. Vi a>
P 0 «
« r f
^ c
:tio
5 CO
•3
p
cip
It re
m
0) >
^ i ^
8 X m
u. or CO U. h-II II II II
2 cou. Q: LL Q:: CO iL
II
P
E 8 P CO a> C CO 0) > P
.2 " -c i> o 0 c C o g £ 1 ^ c § E £
1 §» i S € E 2 _| U. Q. < I-II II II II II II
s S i f l ^
77
(O (D k_ 13 CO CO <D
CD >
XS
<D
O > % -
!5 CO
a:
'55 O Q. E o O • D C CO
c g "co E
(D >
(O 0
Q
CO
CO
I -
•o
c •<3 ^* o oc
gina
l •c
^ 0>
E 3 Z
mbe
r 3
O z
a> o c
nai
(0 >
(A E
^ 4 • ^ B
•»-o
tern
s ^ o
n TJ a> • *
o 2 4 i «
X
«*5 CO m CO
CO
(0
p <
1 ^
d (X)
s CJ)
d
O
>
O •a C O
(0
T- in
o o 1 ^ CO
in in
o B C o o
c o
c o
(X>
o C3)
1 ^ O
CO
(0 i _ <D
• D CO 0
(0 "c g CO N
"c CO O)
c 0
•o
o E o
^ CL
o 0 a CO 0
CD
CO
d
C3> 00
C3> CD
in
c o
8 5 ts 1 (0
CO
CO C O
CD CO
CN CO CO 1 ^ CD 1 ^ CD CD d
o C3>
CJ) C N
eg CJ) CO
c g CO N
'c CO
t: >> O
o Q. O 0 a:
CD 1 ^
CD CO
CD CM
CJ)
CD in
CM
in
(0
o
• D 0 0
TJ 0 >
"* — - ^ •— CO 0 0 0 0
or 0 Q.
E
CX
2
8 c CO •c CO >
c 3 O
E CO Q) Oi 2 o > CO
78
2 CO u.
CM
o
I
00
CO CO d I
oo CO cvi I
o Oi
00 CO d I
CO CO d
O Tl- T-"* CO h-d T- ,-:
CO 0> OJ
35 o CO oi I
O
a:
r" CM T-'- S 5 T 9 T
o I
CM 04 CO
00
CM
d
r^ h-
at
CO
CM
CO
o
Oi 00
CO CO
O T-I I
CM
Oi CM
d I
a> in
CO CO
o CM CO
9 T -
lO -r-O OO
•O T- T-'
CM
C3>
00 o Ui o d T-'
CO
o CM ^
CM •«-
lO T-a> CO
CO CO
CO Oi
CO I
CM
o d I
a> o CO t-U) CO
oo 00 CM I
o CD
ir>
o I
CM 1^
u) (o
ts E to c o
o c o E £ 3 (/) CO o
c ,2
_co
o
o •o CO
E Vi UJ
a:
CO
CO
oo CO
IO
CM
IO IO 1^
00
o CM I
IO o d
CM CO CO
Oi 00
CJi
o
IO
o IO
o IO
CO CO CM I
d I
CM CO
8 d I
IO It
d I
CM I
00
o
IO IO
•«- O t-I I o ^
00
CM I
C O •«-
•«- o
d d
CM
<» IO oo •»-IO CO CM ^ CM T-* d
8 CO o> T- O
CM h- CM CO T- V-
co oo
o I
CO
CO
o CD CO
o oo CO
CO 1^ CO
CM •r CM
CO CD
CO CO
t- CM T-
o oo
oo CO
Oi CO
CO o> CO
CM CO
IO
oo
CM IO
CO CM
o Oi CO
CM ^ ^
CO O IO
CM q o CO v^ d
y- r- O y- y- y-
co o r^ CM •^ O •^ y-
co V d d O CO C» T-q T- T- o
-r^ d d ci
o IO
CM
oo CO 00
CO
o CO
C7> Oi T- CO
CO IO CM
d
lO CM
-* "*
o
o oo ai
CM CO
Oi o d I
CJi
d CO
CM CO
d CM T-' o
•»- C O
oo oo C3> CO
O -t- T-
o cxI
CO 00 oci
00 o -* o CO T-"
O IO m
T- O
CO o
00
o
CO
o CO CM o
d
CM CO CO CM T- •«-
CD d d
o •
oo o
IO o d I
oo o d CO o d I
o I
o
I
IO
o d Oi CM
d IO o d
oo o d I
o o
CM
d
o d
o d I
o d I
CM
h- CO O •-
O T-
lO
T- CM d
O CM q lo T d
o Oi T-
co oo CD O
• ^ " V ^ ^ ' ^ C O ' . - . r - T -
CM O o
d I
CO lO
lO
o
O CM
d d
s ? o I
Oi CO
o d
o o
d
d
CM t- ,-
o
I
Oi o d
o d
o d
£
g
oo
CO
IO CM CM
Oi
Oi oo
CO iO
"^
CM CO
d
o C3> IO
CM T -
00 CO
T—
oo d
CO
o CM
d
IO T-O T-
^ o
^ S ZZ 9* ^ CO q q o o r T d d d
CO CM
00
CM
CM I
CM O O O CO ^
I** r-CO T-
d d 0> O lO '^ o> CM q 1- q 1-1** T d d d o
I
a> o o o oo •«-
C O •«-o> CM
d d
CO o
S o
O "* O CM ^ o
«0 CM CO T- •^
CO c3 S o CM d d d d d o CO
d d
C» T- 1^ O t- T-
CO
o I
Q ^ .< 5 -J — Q LL Q. <
CO
d I
1^ o
CM
o d I
CO
o
LL
1^ O d
I
Oi
CO
d CO CO
<» CO O T-
o o
T- O
o o
8 d o
o CO
d •«- O ^ -r-
0> IO o •«-d d vo O d I
IO CM d I
o CO
to
d d
CM oo r- CM
d d
CM
o d
o d I
oo CO
o I
o o
CM
o I
o I
CM
d
o d I
CO o d
8 d
"* CM O T-
lO
o IO t-O CO ? 8
d o I
: 8 CO o 1-T- O T-
d d d I
CM h* -* CO T- ^
d
C3>
d IO
'(T 1- T- ^ •^ -t-; CM CO
d d d d
o I
o o
IO
d
CO
o I
CM
d
•
CO
o CM
o d I
CO o I
<J> T -
o o o I
o I
o d
Oi o d
CO
o
00
o d I
00
o d I
CM O
CM O
d I
CO o d I
8 d
CO u. a: — c3 z Q: CO LL I- Q: Q. o ^
CO < U. CL
C
o (0 T3 <D
JZ
> O .Q (0
<1> •o
(0 •o c (0 •^ (/) 75 c o O)
S 0)
xz
.a k_ (D 0) Q.
a. (0
j5
k.
o
o
79
The final measurement model fit was acceptable as evidenced by a
goodness-of- fit index (GFI) of .90, CFI = .95, RMSEA of 0.049 and RMR of
0.034. The x (448) was 931.32 (p = 0.000). Overall, the conceptualization of the
constructs was supported empirically.
Structural Model Analysis
Development of the measurement model in accordance with Anderson
and Gerbing (1988) recommendations obviated respecification of the
measurement model during structural model analysis. The proposed structural
model was modified to reflect the combination of the Recruiting and Promotion
constructs as well as the exclusion of Prestige, and Interest in Specific Programs
(see Figure 4.1). Analysis of the structural model began by employing the
construct correlations (an 18 x 18 matrix) obtained from the measurement model.
The theory underlying the use of only the construct correlations (in this research
there are 18 constructs) rather than the correlation matrix of indicants (36
indicants in this study) is that the measurement model represents the best fit
possible given the hypothesized constructs due to the item purification process.
Therefore, the constructs may be viewed as "perfectly" measured, allowing a test
of only the hypothesized paths and correlations among the constructs. The
indicant paths to the constructs are not a part of the model, reducing the number
of degrees of freedom, making clearer the hypothesized structure of the model
as well as the modifications to the structure suggested by the LISREL program.
80
For the structural model analysis, only the hypothesized paths between
constructs were freed and all of the exogenous constructs (control factors and
relationship inducing factors) were allowed to correlate.
The proposed structural model analysis yielded a goodness-of-fit Index
(GFI) of .92. CFI = .85, RMSEA = .088, RMR = .047, and x' (ss) was 379.87 (p =
.001). Assessing the success of model conceptualization in terms of paths, nine
of the proposed ten paths (90%) from relationship-inducing factors to
Identification and from Identification to supportive behaviors have significant
t-values, eight are in the hypothesized direction (see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.2).
The only path that was not supported was from Family Members' Affiliation to
Identific^ation.
There are nine significant paths from the control (nonrelatlonship-
inducing) factors to supportive behaviors. Two of the nonrelationship-lnducing
factors. Income and Family Size, each had one significant path to Donating. The
paths from Religiosity to Donating and to Promotion are significant and the paths
from Perception of Financial Need to all three supportive behaviors were
significant.
A significant amount of variance in the dependent constructs is explained
by the corresponding structural equations implied by the Figure 4.1 model (see
Table 4.6). Forty-one percent of the variance in one's identification with the
nonprofit, 21 % of donating, 20% of function attendance, and 55% of promotion is
81
Table 4.5 Proposed Structural Model Parameter Estimates
GFI = 0.92 RMSEA = 0.088 PNFI = 0.46 2 (85) CFI = 0.85 RMR =0.047 X as = 379.87
Path Estimate t-value
Identification to Supportive Behaviors:
Identification-> Donating 0.18" 4.58
Identification - > Function attendance 0.34" 7.99
Identification ~> Promotion 0.68" 21.13
Relationsliip-lnducing Factors to Identification:
Achievement level ~> Identification
Time with organization ~> Identification
Involvement level - > Identification
Family members' affiliation - > Identification
Respect for org's leaders - > Identification
Satisfaction with organization ~> Identification
Felt reciprocity - > Identification
Nonrelationship-lnducing Factors to Supportive Behaviors:
Religiosity - > Donating
Religiosity - > Promotion
Perceived need ~> Donating
Perceived need - > Function attendance
Perceived need ~> Promotion
Gender ~> Donating
Gender - > Function attendance
Income - > Donating
Family Size - > Donating
»significant at the .05 level "significant at the .01 level
82
-0.10"
0.12"
0.08*
0.06
0.19"
0.41"
0.12"
-0.13"
0.12"
0.29"
0.21"
0.15"
-0.16"
-0.15"
0.12"
-0.13"
-2.42
2.94
2.29
1.59
4.19
9.25
2.54
-2.96
3.66
6.75
4.95
4.74
-3.72
-3.54
2.86
-2.98
> a
Q.
(O UJ
m
c o O
8 c CO
" D c 0
"cS c o t3
c o o E o
(O
UJ
o
< Q UJ
O I -
u.
z o
— (0
UJ
en
* -1' ,
^ 0)
T3 C o Oi
CM ' - » . ,
0)
F o
inc
.«o
-vi
a> N (/) >%
fam
il
CM "^
Figu
re
£ (O O 0 ^ «» .2 E 8" iH UJ .*-• i _
C 0 2 | •5 2 8<2! C — <1> £ «i S
diat
ing
In
ith S
igni
f
| 5 </)
0 k x: .g *- >
^ I TJ CD O 0 2 > •n "t 0 9 -^ 9-•2§-
CO
83
ons
ris
CO Q. E o O
" 0
2
S0^
CO
2 1
• *
?°-c 1< 0
8^ c < CO Q
CO >
««r O Q
^ -
1 ^ ^
u. z Q.
LE 0
LE 0
(t
SEA
S tL
•
O" tfl
• M B
J2 0
M^
• 0
"S T3 0 E
«n CJ) d
O)
d
.90
0
.034
0
.049
0
CO • r -
co CJ)
00
?
c 0 E p (0 (0 0 E
m d
0 CM
d
CM d
T ~
' ^
d
CD ' ^
d
i n 00
d CM CJ)
d
.047
0
.088
0
O) CJ) h*. CO
i n 00
"O 0 (0 0 a 2 a
0 CO
d
N-
0.2
CO CM d
^ ' ^
d
CJ) CO
d
00 CO
d
CO CJ)
d
042
0
980
0
m CO 0 CO
0 1 ^
•(5 ^ ^ 1 > "C 1
00 CO d
^
0.2
CM d
^_ "^
d
O) "^ d
s d
$
d
036
d
055
0
CJ) CM CJ)
CM 00
tf)
1 (0
p • 5 1 S. CO
s c CO c
c 0
•.S CO c
S Q u. 0.
II II II II
84
accounted for by the relationships between these constructs and the
hypothesized relationship-inducing factors and nonrelationship-lnducing factors.
Not only does the measurement model show that the conceptualization of
the constructs Is supported empirically, structural model analysis supports all but
one of the hypothesized relationship pertaining to this dissertation's theory -
that Identification Is a key mediator of relational exchange.
Proposed Model - Rival Model Comparison
As has been demonstrated, the proposed model (Figure 4.1)
approximates the measurement model that, because all paths between
constructs are free, is theoretically as good as the model could possibly be given
the hypothesized constructs. However, this research seeks further support of
the hypothesis that one's identification with a nonprofit organization mediates the
potential exchange relationship between a person and a nonprofit organization.
Consensus is emerging in structural equations modeling that, in addition to
testing a hypothesized model, the model should be compared with a rival (Bollen
and Long 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994). What would be a rival to the model
proposed by this dissertation? The model depicted in Figure 4.1 Is
parsimonious in that seven individual and institutional variables - relationship-
Inducing factors - are hypothesized to influence behavior only through the
mediating factor of Identification. Because no paths are permitted from the
85
relationship-inducing factors to supportive behaviors, identification is implied to
be key In mediating the relationships.
A riva* model would be one that posits direct paths from the
relationship-inducing factors to supportive behaviors as well as from the
nonrelationship-lnducing factors to supportive behaviors - one in which there is
no mediating relational variable. In this model. Identification would be just one
more interesting dependent variable. The rival model (see Figure 4.3),
therefore, allows no indirect effects and is a fair representation of the research
involving supportive behavior to date. As indicated by the fit Indices listed in
Tables 4.5 and 4.6, the proposed model supports the theory of relational
exchange proposed by this dissertation. For the rival model to "win out" over the
proposed model, it must be shown that the rival model better explains relational
exchange between people and nonprofit organizations than does the proposed
model.
Results of the test of the proposed model were discussed in the previous
section. Analysis of the rival model (Figure 4.3) was also conducted using the
LISREL 8 software package. The results of this test (Tables 4.6 and 4.7) were
that the rival moder, with a x (TO) of 303.47 (p = 0.000), exhibits slightly better fit
indices than the proposed model: GFI = .93 versus .92, CFI = .88 versus .85 ,
RMSEA = .086 versus .088, and RMR = .042 versus .047. Also, the rival model
explains slightly more variance in the supportive behaviors than does the
86
RELATIONSHIP-INDUCING
FACTORS: I. Individual Characteristics:
achievement level
time affiliated with organization
involvement level In organizational activities
family memt)ers' affiliation with organization
II. Institutional Characteristics:
respect for organization's leaders
satisfaction with organization
felt reciprocity
NONRELATIONSHIP-INDUCING
FACTORS:
tax incentive
religiosity
perception of organizational financial need
gender
income
family size
primary area of organizational invokemeni
IDENTIFICATION
SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIORS:
Donating
Function attendance
Promotion
Figure 4.3 Rival Model of Relational Exchange
87
Table 4.7 Rival Model Parameter Estimates
GFI = 0.93 RMSEA ».088 PNFI = 0.39 CFI s 0.8a RMR =.042 x'(7o> = 303.47
Path Estimate t-value
0.12"
0.08'
0.06
0.19** 0.41"
0.12"
-0.10* -0.09*
2.94 2.29
1.59
419 9.25 2.54
-2.12 -2.98
Relationship-Inducing Factors:
Achievement level -> Identification
Time with organization -> Identification
Involvement level ~> Identification
Family members' affiliation ~> Identification Respect for org's leaders ~> Identification Satisfaction with organization -> Identification Felt reciprocity ~> Identification
Achievement level ~> Function Attendance
Achievement level -> Promotion
Time with organization ~> Function Attendance 0.07" 1.65
Involvement Level ~> Donating
Involvement Level -> Function Attendance
Involvement Level -> Promotion
Family members' affiliation -> Function Attendance
Family members' affiliation -> Promotion
Respect for org's leaders -> Function Attendance
Respect for org.'s leaders -> Promotion
Satisfaction with organization ~> Function Attendance
Satisfaction with organization ~> Promotion
Felt Reciprocity - > Function Attendance
88
0.22" 0.24"
0.07"
0.10"
0.07«
0.32" 0.42"
-o.ir 0.36"
-0.10"
5.07 5.86
2.38
2.37
2.19
5.95
11.30
-2.25
9.92
-1.87
Table 4.7 Continued
Path Estimate t-value
Nonrelationship-lnducing Factors:
Religiosity - > Donating amount -0.10* -2.13 Religiosity-> Promotion 0.08" 2.43
Perceived need-> Donating amount 0.31" 7.38
Perceived need -> Involvement with the organization 0.20" 4.51
Perceived need ~> Promotion 0.13" 4.09
Gender ~> Donating amount -0.17" -3.94
Gender ~> Involvement with the organization -0.20* -4.46
Gender - > Promotion -0.10** -3.11
Income-> Donating amount 0.08" 1.97
Family Size-> Donating -0.17 -3.75
Family Size - > Involvement with the organization -0.11" -2.54
Primary area of involvement -> Involvement with the org. 0.08* 1.89
•significant at the .05 level ' significant at the .01 level
89
proposed model: 23% versus 21 % of donating, 27% versus 20% of function
attendance, and 60% versus 55% of promotion.
The proposed model has ten hypothesized paths to explain the role of
Identification in relational exchange. Seven of the paths are from the
relationship-inducing factors to Identification and three paths are from
Identification to supportive behaviors. Nine of the ten paths (90%) were
significant; the path from Family Members' Affiliation to Identification the only
path not supported.
The rival model of relational exchange has twenty-eight hypothesized
paths from the relationship-inducing factors to supportive behaviors (no indirect
effects) as well as seven more paths from the relationship-inducing factors to
Identification for a total of thirty-five paths. Only nineteen of the thirty-five paths
(54%) were supported (see Table 4.7). One would expect that, given the same
constructs, the GFI, CFI, and other fit indices would be much higher in a model
that has thirty-five paths compared with one that has ten (disregarding the
equally considered control factors). However, as related above, no fit index
improves by more than .03 (CFI from .85 to .88 - a 3.5% increase) even though
the number of paths Increased from ten to thirty-five (a 250% increase).
Moreover, little additional explanatory power is gained from the rival mcxiel's
additional twenty-five paths. In explaining 41% of the variance in Identification,
23% In Donating. 27% in Function Attendance, and 60% In Promotion (Table
90
4.6) the largest contribution by the rival model to explained variance is .07 (for
Function Attendance) and the mean increment is only .035.
Proposed Model Revision
The proposed model falls short in explaining as much total variance in
supportive behaviors as does the revised model, albeit the differences are small.
However, one more alternative model should be considered. It is reasonable to
assume that, although the proposed model fits well with the measurement
model, the difference between the two indicated by the slightly better
measurement model fit Indices suggests that the proposed model may be
misspecified or incomplete. Joreskog and Sorbom (1990) support
respecification of a hypothesized model when the data indicate the need for
such modification but only when those respecifications of the structural model
are supported by theory.
Modification indices provided by the LISREL 8 program suggest three
paths not in the proposed model that were consistent with underlying theory
(Table 4.8 and Figure 4.4). The first and second paths added to the proposed
model go directly from Involvement Level to Donated Amount and Function
Attendance. The original hypothesis was that as the number of additional
activities the person was involved in when active with the nonprofit organization
Increases, his or her identification with the nonprofit becomes stronger. Stronger
identification leads to larger donations, more frequent attendance at functions
91
Table 4.8 Revised Structural Model - Significant Paths GFI = 0.9a RMSEA = 0.055 PNFI = 0.49 CFI = 0.94 RMR =0.036 x'(82) = 192.94
Path Estimate t-value
Identification to Supportive Behaviors:
Identification -> Donating 0.15" 3.60 Identification -> Function attendance 0.31" 7.43 Identification -> Promotion 0.51" 16.71
Relationship Inducing Factors to Identication: (italicized lat)els denote additional paths)
Achievement level ~> Identification
Time with the organization ~> Identification
Involvement Level -> Identification
Involvement Level -> Donating
Involvement Level -> Function
Respect for org's leaders ~> Identification
Respect for org. 's leaders ~> Promotion
Satisfaction with organization -> Identification
Felt reciprocity -> Identification
Nonrelationship-lnducing Factors to Supportive Behaviors:
Religiosity -> Donating
Religiosity -> Promotion
Perceived need -> Donating
Perc:eived need ~> Function attendance
Gender -> Donating
Gender-> Function attendance
Income -> Donating
Family size -> Donating
0.10"
0.12"
0.08'
0.19"
0.21"
0.19"
0 4 1 "
0.41"
0.12'
-2.42
2.94
2.29
4.49
495
4.19
12.71
9.25
2.54
-0.13"
0.09"
0.29"
0.21"
-0.18"
-0.15"
-2.55
2.46
6.31
459
-4.03
-3.53
0.10" 2.40
-0.16" -3.62
* significant at the .05 level "significant at the .01 level
92
8 C (0
• a
c 0)
natt
o • MSB ts c 3 u.
c o
mot
o Q.
c o c o ^^
fica
'.^ c
Ide
•fe o 8 c 0
4.4
Infiu
Ui 0 ^^ 0 E
Est
k .
0
met
(0 SI: 0 CL • ^
c s 0 O CJ) D .C .S^ro
0
2 0 ^ r f
O
del
o 2 TJ 0
>
C/)
sW
it
o > 0
0 CQ 0 >
port
Q. D
CO
93
sponsored by the nonprofit, and a stronger tendency to promote the organization
to others. In surrr. Involvement Level indirectly influences supportive behaviors.
The data suggests that being involved In additional activities also directly
influences supportive behaviors, particularly Donated Amount and Function
Attendance. In retrospect, it is probable that for this sample of respondents,
being involved in student government, intramurals, and other university
sponsored organizations may have been enjoyable or satisfying to the point that
their supportive behavior is not exclusively dependent on the sense of belonging
that identification denotes. These respondents may have enjoyed the S(}cial
interac:tion made possible by these activities and their supportive behavior is
driven by the desire to make possible the same opportunities for others.
The third additional path called for by LISREL modification Indices goes
from Respect for the organization's leaders directly to Promotion. Again, it is
understandable that people who have been a part of a nonprofit organization
and respect the organization's leaders would not necessarily have to identify
with (feel a sense of belonging to) the organization in order to promote the
organization to others. In the case of the alumni sampled in this research, many
of these people seem to recommend the university to others because of feelings
of respect, but may not really feel that being a Texas Tech alumnus is a part of
who they are.
The addition of three paths In the revised model. Involvement Level - >
Donating, Involvement Level - > Function Attendance and Respect for the
94
organization's leaders - > Promotion, increases the goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
to .96, CFI to .94, decreases RMSEA to .055, RMR to .036 and the x (82)'«
192.94 (a significant decrease in chl-square). Compared with the proposed
model, the revised model is a closer approximation of the measurement model
(GFI of .90, CFI = .95, RMSEA of 0.049 and RMR of 0.034 a x%44«) of 931.32, p
= 0.000). The revised model explains more variance in supportive behaviors
than does the proposed model ~ 24% versus 21% of donated amount, 24%
versus 20% of function attendance, and 68% versus 55% of promotion (Table
4.6). Also, the revised model explains greater variance than the rival model In
Donating (1% more) and in Promotion (8% more). Only in explaining 3% more
variance in Function Attendance does the rival model slightly outperform the
revised model. The six exogenous factors directly affec:t Identification and
indirectly influence supportive behaviors. Table 4.9 lists the total effects of
antecedent constructs on dependent factors for the revised model.
The rival model explains variance in one supportive behavior - Function
Attendance - slightly better than does the revised model. However, the trade-off
is a loss of explanatory power regarding other relationships posited by the
proposed/revised model. Refemng to Table 4.7, in the rival model only one of
the three paths from Time With the Organization to supportive behaviors and
from Reciprocity to supportive behaviors Is significant and the parameter
estimates for these paths are small (.07 and -.10, respectively). In the revised
95
Table 4.9 Total Effects (Revised Model)
Affected Construct Identiflcation
Identiflcation
Relationship-inducing factors: Achievement level Time with the org. Involvement level Family members' aff. Respect Satisfaction Felt reciprocity
Nonrelationship-lnducing factors:
-O.W
0.12" 0.08-0.06 0.19" 0.41" 0.12"
(paths that are sig. at <.01 level)
Tax incentive
Religiosity Perc:eived financial need
Gender
Income
Family size
Primary area of involvement
Donating
0.15"
-0.01* 0.02* 0.20" 0.01 0.03" 0.06" 0.02-
-0.13
0.27 -0.16 0.10
-0.16
Function Attendance
0.31"
-0.03" 0.04" 0.23" 0.02 0.06" 0.13" 0.04"
0.19 -0.15
Promotion
0.51"
-0.05" 0.06" 0.04" 0.03 0.51" 0.21" 0.06"
0.08
• significant at the .05 leve* "significant at the .Ot leve*
96
model,, these factors with the four other relationship inducing factors -
Achievement Level, Involvement Level, Respect for Leaders, and Satisfaction
with Services - combine to explain 41 % of the variance in one's identification
with the organization. The addition of the three paths in the revised model
retains the explanatory power of the proposed model regarding relationship
inducing factors. The three additional paths also significantly increase the
amount of explained variance in supportive behaviors, surpassing the amounts
of variance explained by the rival model in two of the three supportive behaviors.
The revised model makes a stronger case for a mediating role for the
Identification construct by exhibiting better goodness-of-fit and, in general,
explaining more variance than does the rival model.
There Is clearly a difference in parsimony between the rival model (35
hypothesized paths excluding control factors) and the proposed and revised
models (10 and 13 paths, respectively, excluding control factors). Given the
same number of constructs In the two models (rival and proposed/revised), one
would expect that the model with the larger number of paths would significantly
outperform the other model in terms of both goodness-of-fit and variance
explained in the dependent variables. However, this is clearly not the case. As
shown earlier, the goodness-of-fit and variance-explained statistics for the rival
model are not significantly better than the proposed model's statistics. When the
proposed model is slightly revised with the addition of three paths, the
proposed/revised model significantly outperforms the rival model.
97
Because CFI and GFI do not account for parsimony differences, PNFI is
employed in this analysis to compare the models in terms of parsimony. PNFI is
informed by both the goodness-of-fit of the model and the model's parsimony.
Thus, goodness-of-fit indices typically translate to parsimony fit indices of less
than .60 (Mulaik et al. 1989). The proposed model's PNFI of .46 and the revised
model's PNFI of .49 significantly exceed the rival's .39. On the bases of
goodness-of-fit, variance in dependent variables explained, and parsimony, the
model proposed by this dissertation, revised slightly, best represents relational
exchange in the nonprofit context.
98
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Relational factors such as tmst and commitment are considered to be key
mediating factors in for-profit exchange contexts (Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer
1995; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Ganesan 1994; Heide 1994; Dwyer, Schurr, and
Oh 1987). Traditional research in the nonprofit context, particulariy in the area
of donating, focuses primarily on demographic variables as precursors to
donating. However, extant research regarding supportive behavior suggests
that there is a much richer explanation regarding the nonprofit-supporter
exchange relationship. "Identification," found in social psychology and
organizational behavior literature, is proposed by this study to be key in
mediating the supporter-nonprofit organization relationship.
This study developed a model of relational exchange with identification as
the key mediator between relationship inducing factors and supportive behavior.
Relationship inducing factors tested were the individual's: (1) Achievement
Level while a member of the organization, (2) Time Affiliated with the
organization, (3) Involvement Level as a result of affiliation with the organization,
(4) Family Members' Affiliation with the organization, (5) Respect for the
organization's leaders, (6) Satisfaction with the organization in general, and (7)
Felt Reciprocity. In developing the model of relational exchange, this study
addressed questions such as: If a person strongly identifies with a nonprofit
99
organization of which he or she is a member, does identification lead to
supportive behaviors such as donating, attending the nonprofit organization's
functions, or promoting the nonprofit to others? Is a person's identification with
the nonprofit organization induced and influenced by factors typically
hypothesized to be antecedents of supportive behavior such as donating?
Regarding these questions, the following highlights key findings of this research
and compares the proposed, rival, and revised models.
A Kev Mediator of Relational Exchange-Identification
Prior studies have used correlation and regression analyses in exploring
the role of identification In a process of relational exchange. This research
provides a stronger test of the mediating role of identification than has been
previously conducted (cf. Mael and Ashforth 1992) by using structural equations
modeling software (LISREL 8) to test the antecedents, mediator, and outcomes
simultaneously, thereby building suppport for the role of identification as
mediator. The key finding in this research is that while the revised model
suggests that identification does not completely mediate the prcx:ess of relational
exchange, identification does play a significant role mediating the
relationship-indudng factors-to-supportive behavior process; idenfitication is
more than just another interesting dependent variable. The findings of this
research suggest that nonprofit organizations should develop and encourage
100
programs through which identification may be strengthened, thereby increasing
the likelihood of greater support.
Encouraging and Developing Identification
Length of Timft
The data support the hypothesis that long-term membership builds
identification. People tend to desire to be a part of organizations in which others
spend significant amounts of time. For example, prestigious golf clubs are well
known for their low turn-over in membership. Long-term membership denotes
exclusivity, even though other factors (e.g., limited facilities) may be the real
reason for limited membership. Limited membership and low turn-over make it
difficult for others to join, thereby creating demand for memberships, which, in
turn, translates into membership being a valued commodity.
it is often not feasible or even possible to limit membership in an
organization. For example, membership in an alumni association is perceived to
be far less exclusive than membership in a golf club because everyone who
graduates from a university is considered to be an alumnus. This type of
membership may not have as much power to create and strengthen identification
as might a limited membership situation unless levels of achievement are
recognized within the general membership. Some universities have "clubs" in
which membership denotes specific levels of funds given since graduation or
101
certain amountaof time volunteered to various projects. Membership in these
clubs can be limited due to the funds or volunteer time required for recognition.
Involvement Level
Other types of involvement in the organization while being a member may
positively influence identification. The data support the position that the more
university students are involved in extra-curricular activities such as intramural
sports and fratemities/sororities the greater their identification with the university
as alumni. More involvement in activities entails more direc:t contact with the
nonprofit organization. The implication is that the length of time the person
spends with the organization while a member and the amount of time spent in
organization sponsored activities combine to strengthen identification with the
organization.
Though not a direct finding, this researcti implies that there may be a
feedback loop in the relational exchange model from function attendance back to
identification. Involving members in tangible activities such as being members
of advisory boards, putting on fund-raising dinners, recruiting others to become
members may also play a significant role in building identification with the
organization as well as in encouraging their inclination to exhibit tangible
support.
102
Family Members' Affiliatinn
The path from Family Members' Affiliation to Identification was not
signficant in the proposed and revised models. Family Members' Affiliation was
measured by asking the respondent to indicate the number of each type of family
member that attended the university. The lack of influence this variable had on
Identification in the data analysis indicates that the respondents' identification
was not significantly influenced by the nt/mtoer of family members that attended
the university. Measuring this constnjct in terms of the number of family
members may be just the first step. Once it is known that a person's family
member was affiliated with the nonprofit organization, further questioning
concerning the strength of this person's influence on the respondent may
uncover a relationship between Family Members' Affiliation and Identification.
Respect for Leaders
Data analysis strongly indicates the importance of organizational
leadership. The model of relational exchange proposed by this research is
consistent with the literature concerning symbolic management and
transformatlonaileadership (e.g., Bass 1985; Griffin, Skivington & Moorhead
1987), Respected leaders are able to "make the individual's membership salient
and provide compelling images of what the . . . organization represents"
(Ashforth & Mael 1989, p. 28). In other words, leaders that are respected create
an atmosphere - culture - that enables the organization's constituency to feel
103
important thereby increasing their identification. The data indicate that the
organization should see increased supportive behavior (through increased
identification) that is influenced by respected leadership.
Satisfaction
A strong influence on the individual's identification was found to be his or
her satisfaction with the organization. Satisfaction with a job, a much
researched area in the management and organizational behavior literature, is
generally believed to influence employee behavior. However, there is
disagreement regarding whether the relationship between job satisfaction and
behavior is direct or is mediated by the person's commitment to the organization.
This study also reports mixed findings. The paths from satisfaction with the
nonprofit organization to identification with the organization, and from
identification to supportive behavior, are supported by the data. However, as
reflected in the revised model, the data suggest an additional path from
satisfaction directly to one of the supportive behaviors - promotion. Thus, the
findings in this study, that both a direct as well as an indirect path exists from
Satisfaction to supportive behavior, parallel the management and organizational
behavior literature findings.
104
Reciprocity
The data support the hypothesis that once membership is achieved,
reciprocal actions by the organization toward a member increases the person's
identification with the organization. The organization should have a system
whereby the members' supportive behavior is reciprocated with public
recognition, thank-you letters, plaques, and other tangible forms of recognition.
Some organizations even give active members a voice in various levels of
decision-making through advisory boards, committees, and other, small groups
within the larger group organizations.
Reciprocity, Respect for leaders, and Satisfaction with the organization
are all highly correlated (r > .50). This suggests that Instead of each of these
three constructs independently representing means of building identification with
the organization, each of the three influences the other two. Although
correlation does not imply causation, and no direction of influence was
hypothesized in this research, it Is possible that Satisfaction influenc es Respect
and both are influenced by the perception of reciprocity on the part of the
organization - a topic for later research.
Achievement Levei
Establishing programs whereby people can become members of a
subgroup within the nonprofit organization is important in encouraging and
nurturing a person's sense of belonging to the organization (Ashforth and Mael
105
1989, Mael and Ashforth 1992, Bhattacharya et. al. 1995). Contrary to the
hypothesis that the relationship between Achievement Level and Identification is
positive, the data analysis revealed that Achievement Level negatively
influences Identification. Alumni with bachelor's degrees were more likely to
regard their alumnus identity as more important to them than did those with
advanced degrees. This may be due to the tendency of those who are seeking
advanc^ed degrees to not be involved in areas of the university where
undergraduates spend much of their time such as intramural sports or
fraternities/sororities. The correlation between level of achievement and
additional activities (-.17, p > .01) supports this explanation.
In other nonprofit contexts the relationship between Achievement Level
and Identification should prove to be positive. For example, members of
Boy/GIri Scouts should exhibit a significant and positive relationship between
advancement in rank within the Scouting organizafion and their identification as
Scouts because advancement in rank typically denotes that the member's
involvement with scouting has grown. In the case of university alumni, the
higher degrees imply that the person's involvement with the university in general
has diminished.
In summary, this research suggests that there are factors that induce and
influence identification with the nonprofit. Building membership by employing
the power of identification can be effective in garnering support for the
organization.
106
EnCQuraoinn and Developing Supportive Behaviors: Donating
Initiating programs to influence people to become members of a nonprofit
organization, as well as developing programs to increase the likelihood that they
identify with the organization, become more important to the organization if the
effort leads to increased supportive behavior. The results of this research
strongly suggest that the effort would be worthwhile. Seven factors with direct
paths to donating explain 25% of the variance In the amounts donated by the
respondents to their university: Identification, Involvement Level, Religiosity,
Perception of the Organization Being in Financial Need. Gender. Income, and
Family Size (Tables 4.5 and 4.9).
Some of the factors that explain supportive behavior are within the control
of the nonprofit and some are more difficult, if not impossible, to control.
Knowledge on the part of the nonprofit that religiosity, gender, income, and
family size explain a significant amount of variance in donating behavior is
useful for developing strategies to target groups of people who are most likely to
support the organization. Acx:ording to this research, an important segment to
target for donations appears to be males with higher incomes, smaller families,
and who do not perceive themselves to be particulariy religious.
The respondents' interest in specific programs, it could be argued, might
be influenced by the nonprofit. Attempts could be made to interest a university
alumnus in supporting the music department even though most of his or her time
as a student was spent in the psychology area. Similarly, one could encourage
107
a church member interested In foreign mission wori< to volunteer for a committee
to wori< with the church's youth group. However, attempting to change what a
person perceives to be important is difficult and often counterproductive. In
attempting to change the person's perception, he or she may become offended
because they have been, in essence, told that they do not know what is really
important. For this reason, it Is more useful to view a person's interest in
specific programs in much the same manner as demographic variables.
Constituents' interest in specific programs within the nonprofit organization may
be used as an additional means of segmenting the martlet of potential
supporters of the nonprofit.
The data analysis supports three factors that are potentially controllable
by the organization: identification, involvement level, and perception of the
organization being in financial need. Identification was discussed eariier in
terms of the relationship-inducing factors that serve to directly increase
identification and, through identification, increase donating. Of the relationship-
inducing factors that are potentially manageable by the nonprofit. Involvement
Level exerts dire<:t as well as indirect influence on donating.
The remaining variable with the potential to be influenced by the nonprofit
organization to increase supportive behavior is Perception of the Institution
Being in Financial Need. The significance of this variable in explaining donating
does not mean that the institution should communicate serious financial
problems in the hope that alumni respond with donations. This construct was
108
measured by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement with three
items that generally stated that Texas Tech needed, and would need in the
future, strong financial support from its alumni. This construct indicates that a
perception by alumni of a need on the part of the university for their help
positively influences donated amounts. The needs might include funds for
student scholarships, construction, instructional equipment, academic research,
athletic equipment and scholarships, and extra-curricular programs. Nonprofits
should communicate needs in a positive manner while striving to stay away from
communicating a perception of desperation.
Encouraging and Developing Supportive Behaviors: Function Attendance
Referring again to Tables 4.5 and 4.9, 26% of the variance in function
attendance is explained by four factors: Identification, Involvement Level,
Perception of the Organization Being in Financial Need and Gender. Knowing
that a perception of financial need significantly influences people to attend
nonproflt organization-sponsored functions underscores the importance of
effective communication with the target audience regarding the needs of the
organization. Nonprofits such as universities and churches should sponsor
events that will bring to the target audience's attention specific areas of the
organization that require their help. Instead of sponsoring an event to raise
money for the university or church in general, this research suggests that the
university or church should focus the purpose of the event on something
109
specifia For example, the church could sponsor an event to raise money to buy
equipment for the children's classrooms In the church building. The university
might initiate an event to solicit funds for research addressing a specific scxietal
problem.
The data indicate that men are more likely to attend nonprofit organization
sponsored functions than are women. Refenring to Table 3.4, a larger
percentage of the respondents were men (56.5% vs. 42.2%). Function
Attendance is measured by a single indicant that is the sum of two Items: (1) the
number of time the alumnus had been back to campus for homecoming, sporting
events, etc., and (2) the number of times the alumnus has participated in an
off-campus activity such as an alumni meeting, recruiting event, etc. Responses
to these two items reveals that men have returned to campus on average 6.4
times since graduation and women 5.6 times. Also, men have participated in
off-c:ampus activities on average 2.0 times since graduation and women 1.4
times. The male respondents have returned to campus more often than have
women and have participated in more off-campus alumni activities. Knowing
that males tend to attend nonprofit organization sponsored functions more often
than women may aid the organization in targeting invitees to the functions.
Encouraging and Developing Supportive Behaviors: Promotion
Seventy percent of the variance in a person's tendency to promote the
organization to others is explained by five factors: Identification, Respect for
110
leaders; Satisfaction with the organization, Religiosity, and a Perception of
Financial-Need Promotion of the organization is not often considered in studies
of donating and other supportive behavior. Nonprofits tend to think of funds
donations as being more important in strengthening the position of the nonprofit
organization in relation to competitors and stakeholders than other supportive
behavior.
However, many nonprofit organizations are not as dependent on donated
funds as they are dependent on membership. For example, Boy/GIri Scouts is
primarily comprised of volunteers who work to serve young people who are
members of the organization. For the Scouting organization to grow, both
members and volunteers must recruit other members and volunteers; Scouts
must be willing to "talk up" the organization to others. Universities depend on
their students to promote the university to their friends and family. Churches rely
on their members to bring others to the church, thereby increasing membership.
A membership that is willing to promote the organization to others can make the
difference between a thriving nonprofit organization and one that struggles to
exist.
In this research the proposed model posits that the stronger the person's
identification with the organization the more he or she "talks up" the organization
to others. The revised model suggests that two of the relationship inducing
factors that indirectly infiuence promotion through identification also exert a
direct influence on promotion. Respect for leaders and Satisfaction with the
111
organization's services are both significant influences on the person's actions
regarding promoting the nonprofit.
The significance of these two variables parallels the marketing literature
regarding the importance of brand image to a company as well as the
satisfaction consumers may feel concerning the products or services associated
with the brand. Dacin and Smith (1994) argue that one of the fimi's more
valuable resources is the reputation of its brands; so valuable that firnis often
attempt to leverage this asset by extending their brands into multiple product
categories. The success of this strategy depends on the strength of consumers'
positive feelings (e.g., satisfaction) toward the brand.
Similarly, an organization's president who has a well-known, positive
reputation can extend that positive feeling. As a result of this extension,
members, employees, or other constituencies should feel a closer identification
with the organization, and those influenced by the extension of reputation will
becxDme more inclined to promote the organization to those around them. Much
as a consumer would tell others about a product or service that they have yet to
adopt, but are inclined to promote on the basis of the brand's reputation, so may
respect for an organization's leaders and satisfaction with an organization's
services influence a person to promote the organization to others.
Satisfaction with an organization and Respect for the organization's
leaders are positively correlated (r = 0.52). The close relationship between
these two fac:tors underscores the difficulty members might experience in
112
promoting an organization that has a respected leader but is perceived to be
poor in delivering services or to promote an organization with great service but a
leader or leaders that gamer little respect. It seems that an organization wishing
to influence members to support the organization by promoting it to others
should insist on a leadership with known, positive reputation and delivering
service that satisfies its constituency.
The alumni responding to this researcti who are inclined to promote their
university are Interested in both athletics and instmctlonal equipment. This
makes sense in that fans of various university athletic teams often discxiss the
teams' latest contests with those around them, and in their discussions make
other comments regarding the university as seen through the athletic
department. Also, the data revealed that the stronger the alumnus' opinion that
the area of instructional equipment is deserving of support the more he or she
promotes the university. Perhaps this is due to a growing realization that
businesses and nonprofit organizations require new technology to keep pace
with competition and part of their willingness to promote the university stems
from their desire to influence others to support the university through gifts toward
newer technology.
Limitations and Future Research
Three limitations of this research are noteworthy. The first, a limitation of
most research that has the objective of developing and testing new theories, is
113
the lack of generalizability of the findings. In testing a theory one can claim
further support for the theory with each successive test of the theory on different
populations. A direction for future research regarding the model of relational
exchange developed and tested in this study is to obtain samples from the
membership of other nonprofit organizations such as Boy/GIri Scouts, churches,
and other educational Institutions. As long as the "testing" purpose of this
research is kept in mind, the generalizability of the findings of this data analysis
Is not a significant limitation but is, rather, one step in a series of steps toward a
model of relational exchange that is generalizeable to many areas relating to
nonprofit organizations.
The second limitation of this research is that It is a cross-sec tional study.
It is possible that the nonprofit's constituencies perceptions regarding the
organization may change due to changes in the organization over time. Quality
of the services provided by the organization may be perceived to have
decreased or Increased. Changing leadership within the organization is very
likely to influence perceptions of the organization. A second direction for future
research would be to study several nonprofit organizations over a period of time.
A longitudinal study would enable the researcher to see if members' attitudes
and feelings change with the passage of time and well as with changes in the
nonprofit organizations.
A third limitation of this study is that the list of relationship-inducing
factors and control variables was limited to those examined in prior research. As
114
evidenced by the percentage of variance explained in identiflcation and
supportive behavior, these antecedents do not exhaust the domain of plausible
causes of these dependent variables. Future studies could expand the list of
possible ante<:edents to befter model relational exchange In a nonprofit setting.
115
REFERENCES
Allen, N. and J. Meyer (1990), "The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment," Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural Modeling in Practice: A REview and Recommeded Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-23.
Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (1990), "A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships," Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 42-58.
Arndt, Johan (1983), "The Political Economy Paradigm: Foundation for Theory Building in Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 44-54.
Ashforth, Blake E. (1990), "Petty Tyranny in Organizations: A Preliminary Examination of Antecedents and Consequences," Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Ashforth, Blake E. and Fred Mael (1989), "Social Identity Theory and the Organization," Academy of A//a/7agen7e/?fRev/ew, 14 (1), 20-39.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1995), "Reflections on Relationship Marketing In Consumer Markets," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 272-7.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Y. Yi (1989), "On the Use of Structural Equation Models in Experimental Designs," Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271-84.
Bakal, C. (1979), Charity USA: An Investigation into the Hidden Woridofthe Multi-Billion Dollar Industry, New York: Times Books.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York: Free Press.
Batson, C. Daniel (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Beeler, Kari J. (1982), "A Study of Predictors of Alumni Philanthropy in Private Universities," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
116
Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra N. Singh, and Venkat Bendapudi (1996), "Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning," Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 33-49.
Berry, Leonard L. and A. Parasuraman (1991), Marketing Services. New Yori<: The Free Press.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), "Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of its Correlates Among Art Museum Members," Journal of Marketing, 46 (Oct.), 46-57.
Blakely, Bernard E. (1974), "Historical and Contemporaneous Predictors of Alumni Involvement," Unpublished Dissertation, Purdue University, Hammond.
Blumenfeld, W. S. and P. L. Sartain (1974), "Predicting Alumni Financial Donation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (4), 522-23.
Blumenstyk, Goldie and Mary C. Cage (1991), "Dire State Economies Force Tough Choices on Many Universities," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 37(39), pp. 1.16.
Bollen, Kenneth and J. Scott Long (1992), "Tests for Structural Equation Models: Introduction," Sociologicial Methods and Research, 21 (Nov.), 123-31.
Bragg, Charies M. (1971), "A study of the Relationships of Selected Variables and the Financial Support Provided to a University by the Graduates," Unpublished Dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Broce, Thomas E. (1991), Fundraising: The Guide to Raising Money From Private Sources. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bucklin, Louis P. and Sanjit Sengupta (1993), "Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances," Journal of Marketing, 57 (April), 32-46.
Bullock, R. P. (1952), Social Factors Related to Job Satisfaction: A Technique for the Measurement of Job Satisfaction, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Burgess-Getts, Linda F. (1992), "Alumni as Givers: An Analysis of Donor-Nondonor Behavior at a Comprehensive I Institution," Unpublished Dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
117
Burke, Kenneth (1950), A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.
Burke, Peter J. and Donald C. Reitzes (1991), "An Identity Theory Approach to Commitment," Social Psychology Quarterly, 54 (3), 239-51.
Callero, Peter L. (1985), "Role-Identity Salience," Social Psychology Quarteriy, 48(3), 203-15.
Cameron, K. S. and D. 0. Ulrich (1986), "Transformational Leadership in Colleges and Universities," In Smart, J. C. (ed.). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 2, New York: Agathon Press.
Caruthers, Flora A. (1973), "A Study of Certain Characteristics of Alumni Who Provide No Financial Support For Their Alma Mater," Unpublished Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Critz, D. (1980), "Women as Givers and Getters," CASE Currents, 6 (7), 16-19.
Dacin, Peter A. and Daniel C. Smith, Daniel C. (1994, "The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (2), 229-42.
Day, George S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Day, George S. (1994), "The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations," Journal of Marketing, 58(4), pp. 37-52.
Deel, William S. (1971), "Characteristics of University Graduates Who Are Members or Non-members of an Alumni Association," Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University, South Bend.
Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh (1987), "Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 51,11-27.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and V. Davis-LaMastro (1990), "Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovaiion," Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, and D. Sowa (1986), "Perceived Organizational Support,''Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Foote, Nelson N. (1951), "Identification as a Basis for a Theory of Motivation," American Sociological Review, 16,14-21.
118
Frey, J. H. (1981), "Alumni Love Athletics: Myth or Reality," CASE Currents, 7(11). 46.
Ganesan, Shankar (1994), "Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 1-19.
Gardner, P. M. (1975), "A Study of the Attitudes of Harding College Alumni With An Emphasis on Donor and Non-Donor Characteristics," Unpublished Dissertation, Ohio University, Athens.
Glaser, John S. (1994), The United Way Scandal: An Insider's Account of What Went Wrong. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Gibbons, Leroy (1992), "Philanthropy in Higher Education: Motivations of Major Donors to Two Utah Universities," Unpublished Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo.
Greenwood, John D. (1994), Realism, Identity, and Emotion. London: Sage Publications.
Griffin, R. W., K. D. Skivington, and G. Moorhead (1987), "Symbolic and International [sic] Perspectives on Leadership: An Integrative Framework," Human Relations, (40), 199-218.
Grill, A. J. (1988), "An Analysis of the Relationship of Selected Variables to Financial Support Provided by Alumni of a Public University," Unpublished Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Middletown.
Grunig, Stephen D. (1993), "A Model of Donor Behavior for Law School Alumni," Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Gundlach, Gregory T., Ravi S. Achrol, and John T. Mentzer (1995), "The Structure of Commitment in Exchange," Journal of Marketing, 59 (Jan.), pp. 78-92.
Haddad, Freddie D. (1986), "An Analysis of the Characteristics of Alumni Donors and Non-Donors at Butler University," Unpublished Dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Hall, Douglas T. and Benjamin Schneider (1972), "Correlates of Organizational Identification as a Function of Career Pattern and Organizational Type," Administrative Science Quarteriy, 17 (34), 340-50.
119
Hall, Holly (1996), "Planning Ahead For Survival," The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 8(6), 22-24.
Harvey, James W. (1990), "Benefit Segmentation for Fund Raisers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (1), pp. 77-86.
Hattie, J. (1985), "Methodology Review: Assessing Unidimensionality of Tests and Wems,'' Applied Psychological Measurement, (9), 139-64.
Heide, Jan (1994), "Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels," Journal of Marketing, 58 (Jan.), pp. 71-85.
Hodgkinson, Virginia (1985), "Positioning Ourselves as a Sector: Research and Public Policy," Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 14 (Apr-Sept), 17-24.
Hodgkinson, Virginia (1988), Dimensions of the Independent Sector: A Statistical Profile. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector, 1984, 1986.
Hodgkinson, Virginia and Murray S. Weitzmen (1989), Dimensions of the Independent Sector: A Statistical Profile, 3r6 Edition. Washington, D.C.: The Independent Sector.
Hoelter, Jon W. (1983), "The Effects of Role Evaluation and Commitment on Identity Salience," Social Psychology Quarteriy, 46 (2), 140-147.
House, Michael L. (1987), "Annual Fund Raising in Public Higher Education: The Development and Validation of a Prediction Equation," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1976), "The Nature and Scope of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 40 (July), pp. 17-28.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1996), "Competing Through Relationships: Grounding Relationship Marketing in Resource-Advantage Theory," paper presented at The Fourth International Colloquium on Relationship Marketing, Helsinki, Finland, Sept.
Hunt. Shelby D., and Robert M. Morgan (1995), "The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition," Journal of Marketing, 59,1 -15.
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1990), "Model Search with TETRAD II and LISREL," Sociological Methods and Research, 19 (Aug.), 93-106.
120
Joreskog. K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: A Guide To The Program And Applications, Chicago: SPSS.
Kalwani, Manohar U. and Narakesari Narayandas (1995), "Long-Term Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: Do They Pay Off for Supplier Firms?" Journal of Marketing, 59 (1), 1-16.
Keegan, Warren J., Sandra E. Moriarty, and Thomas Duncan (1995), Marketing, 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HaN.
Keller, J. C. (1982), "An Analysis of Alumni Donor and Nondonor Characteristics at the University of Montevallo," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Kihistrom, J. F. and N. Cantor (1984), "Mental Representations of the Self," pp. 1-47 in L. Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17. New York: Academic Press.
Koole, R. S. (1981), "A Study of Financially Supportive and Financially Non-supportive Alumni of Los Angeles Baptist College," Unpublished Dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Kotler, Philip (1972), "A Generic Concept of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 36 (April), 49-56.
Kotler, Philip (1979), "Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Nonprofit Organizations," Journal of Marketing, 43 (Jan.), pp. 37-44.
Kotler, Philip (1994), Marketing Management, 8th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, Philip and Alan Andreasen (1991), Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, Philip and Sidney J. Levy (1969), "Broadening the Concept of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 33 (Jan.), pp. 10-15.
Laverie, Debra A. (1995), "The Influences of Identity Related Consumption, Appraisals, and Emotions on Identity Salience: A Multi-Method Approach," Unpublished Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Laverie, Debra A., Robert E. Kleine III, and Susan Kleine (1996), "Social Evolution of Identity-Related Products and Performance," Unpublished Working Paper
121
Lawson, Douglas M. (1991), Give to Live: How Giving Can Change Your Life, La Jolla, CA: ALTI Publishing.
Lovelock, Christopher H. and Charies B. Wineberg (1984), Marketing for Public and Nonprofit Managers, New York: John Wiley.
Lucas, Allison (1995), "A United Way to Overcome a Bad Image," Sales and Marketing Management,'' (September), p. 15.
Lusch, Robert F. and James R. Brown (1996), "Interdependency, Contracting, and Relational Behavior in Marketing Channels," Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), pp. 19-38.
MacNeil, Ian R. (1980), The New Social Contract, An Inquiry Into Modern Contractual Relations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mael, Fred (1986), "Latitude for Lieutenancy: The Exchange Component of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership," Unpublished master's thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit.
Mael, Fred (1988), "Organizational Identification: Construct Redefinition and a Field Application With Organizational Alumni," Unpublished Dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit.
Mael, Fred and Blake E. Ashforth (1992), "Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification," Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-23.
McKee, D. F. (1975), "An Analysis of Factors Which Affect Alumni Participation and Support," Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University, South Bend.
McNulty, J. W. (1977), "Alumni and Giving: A Study of Student Personnel Servic:es and Alumni Philanthropy," Unpublished Dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.
Miracle, W. D. (1977). "Differences Between Givers and Non-givers to the University of Georgia Annual Fund," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Mohr, Jakki J., Robert J. Fisher, and John R. Nevin (1996), "Collaborative Communication in Interfirm Relationships: Moderating Effects of Integration and Control," Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), pp. 103-15.
122
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), 'The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 20-38.
Morris, D. A. (1970), "An Analysis of Donors of $10,000 or more to the $55 Million Program at the University of Michigan," Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers,, and L. W. Porter (1979), 'The Measurement of Organizational Commitment," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Mulaik, Stanley A., Larry R. James, Judith Avan Asltine, Nathan Bennett, Sherri Lind, and C. Dean Stillwell (1989), "Evaluation of Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Equations Models," Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-45.
Nelson, W. T. (1984), "A Comparison of Selected Undergraduate Experiences of Alumni Who Financially Support Their Alma Mater," Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University, South Bend.
Oglesby, Rodney A. (1991), "Age, Student Involvement, and Other Characteristics of Alumni Donors and Alumni Non-Donors of Southwest Baptist University," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Oliver, Richard L. and John E. Swan, "Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 21-35.
Panas, Jerold (1984), Megagifts: Who Gives Them, Who Gets Them. Chicago, IL: Pluribus Press.
Reichley, R. A. (1977), 'Volunteers: Who Are They?" In Rowland, A. W. (Ed.) Handbook of Institutional Advancement, Isted., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reid. Russ (1989), "Jim Bakker and PTL: What Can it Teach Us?" Fund Raising Managment, 20(9), 43-47.
Rosenberg, Morris (1979), CoA7ce/v//7gf/)eSe/f. New York: Basic Books.
Santee, Richard and Susan Jackson, "Commitment to Self-Identification: A Sociopsychological Approach to Personality," Human Relations, 32, 141-58.
123
Serpe, Richard T. (1987), "Stability and Change in Self: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Explanation," Social Psychology Quarteriy, 50, 44-55.
Shapiro, Benson P. (1988), "What the Hell is 'Market Oriented?" Harvard Business Review, (Nov.-Dec), pp. 119-125.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and AtuI Parvatiyar (1995), "Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 255-71.
SInatra-Ostlund, C. J. (1984), "A Study of Predictors of Alumni Donors and Non-donors to Intercollegieate Athletics at the University of Missouri," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver (1995), "Market Orientation and the Learning Organization," Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), pp. 63-74.
Smith, J. Brock and Donald W. Barclay (1997), "The Effects of Organzational Differenc^es and Trust on the Effectiveness of Selling Partner Relationships," Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), p. 3-21.
Smith, Scott M. (1980), "Giving to Charitable Organizations: A Behavioral Review and Framework for Increasing Commitment." Found in (Jerry C. Olson, ed.) Advances in Consumer Research 7. Ann Arbor, Ml: The Association for Consumer Research. 753-56.
Smith, Scott M. and Leiand L. Beik (1982), "Market Segmentation for Fund Raisers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 10 (3), 208-16.
Spaeth, J. L. and A. M. Greely (1970), Recent Alumni and Higher Education: A Survey of College Graduates. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Spiegler, Marc (1996), "Scouting for Souls," American Demographics, March, 42-49.
Stryker, Sheldon (1968), Identity Salience ad Role Perfomiance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research," Journal of Marriage and Family, 558-64.
Stryker, Sheldon (1980), Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Palo Alto: Benjamin/Cummings.
124
stryker, Sheldon and Richard Serpe (1982), "Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory and Research Example," pp. 199-216 in William Ickes and Eric S. Knowles (eds.). Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stryker, Sheldon and Richard Serpe (1983), 'Toward the Theory of Family Influence in the Socialization of Children," pp. 47-74 in A. Kerchoff (ed.). Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization, Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thompson, Tomas M. (1994), "Who Gives? A Study of Variables at Graduation and Their Predictive Value for Alumni Fund Raisers," Unpublished Dissertation, University of Missouri, Kansas City.
TIdwell, Gary L. (1994), 'The Anatomy of a Fraud," Fund Raising Management, 24(3), 58-62.
Turner, J. C. (1985), "Social Categorization and the Self-concept," In Lawler, E. J. (ed.) Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Varadarajan, P. and Daniel Rajaratnam (1986), "Symbiotic Marketing Revisited," Journal of Marketing, 50 (January), 7-17.
Walker, Jr., Orville C, Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and Neil M. Ford (1977), "Motivation and Performance in Industrial Selling: Present Knowledge and Needed Research," Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 156-68.
Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1981), "Developing Better Measures of Consumer Satisfaction: Some Preliminary Results," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Kent B. Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor, Ml: Association for Consumer Research, 94-1.
Wilkes, Robert E., John J. Burnett and Roy D. Howell (1986), "On the Meaning and Measurement of Religiosity in Consumer Research," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(1) 47-56.
125
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
126
Dear :
Enclosed is a questionnaire that explores the relationship between Texas Tech University and Texas Tech alumni. Although university alumni are often asked to provide information about themselves to their universities, surprisingly little is known about which specific university experiences and other factors influence the closeness of the relationship between alumni and their university. Our research investigates these issues. A summary of the results of this research (but no individual responses) will be made available to Texas Tech University officials for planning purposes.
Would you please assist us by completing this questionnaire and returning it in the postage-paid return envelope? It should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Some of the questions may seem repetitive, and others even a little strange, but they all have a purpose. For the questionnaire results to be meaningful, it is of great importance that each alumnus surveyed participate.
All answers are anonymous and strictly confidential. You will not be solicited by us or anyone else as a result of participating in this research. If you have any questions or comments, please call us at (806) 742-3162 and ask for Steve German. Thank you very much!
Steven D. German Shelby D. Hunt, Ph.D. Project Director J. B. Hoskins and P. W. Horn Texas Tech University Professor of Marketing
Texas Tech University
127
Texas Tech University Alumni Survey
I. Please express your degree of agreement or disagreement with each of the following t>y circling the appropriate number
A. B9ing a Texas Tec/i Unlvrstty gnduatn... 1. . . . is an important part of who I am 2. . . . is something about which I have no dear feelings,
means more to me than just having a degree. . . . . is something I rarely think about
strongly
Disagra*
2 2 2 2
strongly
B. 1. 2; 3.
5. 6.
C. 1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6.
Texas Tec/i Unh/wslty... . . . values my contribution to its well-being . . . appreciates any extra effort from me . . . listens to any complaints I might have conceming
the university . . . would notice if I did something that benefited the
unh ersity . . . shows concern for me . . . takes pride in my accomplishments
/ am satisHwi with... . . . the education I received while a student at Texas Tech. . . . the facilities at Texas Tech when I was a student . . . the manner in which I was treated as a student at
Texas Tech . . . how Texas Tech prepared me for a career. . . . my choice to attend Texas Tech . . . Texas Tech in general
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3 3 3
5 5 5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6
6 6
6
6 6 6
6 6
6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7
7 7
7 7 7 7
H. Please express how you feel regarding each of the following statements;
When others become aware that I am Texas Tech Unlvwsity graduate^ I feel.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6. 7. 8. 9.
proud embarrassed confident... good humiliated . .
disgusted.. inadequate happy.. . . ashamed..
Notatal 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
Vvymuchto 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6
III. 1. Since graduation, how many times have y o u . . .
(a) .
(b)
hften hack to the Texas TerJi camous for a visit, such as a homecoming, a class reunion, a sporting event, etc.? (please circle the number of times)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 times
participated in an nff-raimpus alumni activitY such as an alumni meeting, phonathon, recruiting event, volunteer work, etc.?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 times
2. Approximately how far from Lubbock do you live? miles.
(If you live In Lubbock, check here )
128
JY. PIMM exPfggg vpur degree of agreement or diMffm^rn^nt wtti , ^1 ftf the foiiowino;
strongly DisagrM
1. Texas Tech's need for financial support from Its alumni will be even greater In the future ^
2. I am interested in what others think about TTU 1 3. TTU's successes are my successes 1
5. 6.
When I have the opportunity. I advise potential students that they should attend Texas Tech University People I know think highly of Texas Tech University. I have positive feelings about Texas Tech's chief administrators
7. 8.
9.
Most people are proud when their chlWren attend Texas Tech . 1 In conversations I have with friends and acquaintances, I bring up Texas Tech In a positive way ' i When someone criticizes TTU, It feels like a personiai irvsuit... 1
10. The administration of Texas Tech, on the whole. Is good 1 11. It is prestigious to be an alumnus of Texas Tech Unh/ersity... 1 12. I go to church regulariy 1
13. I encourage those who are consklering attending college to go to Texas Tech 1
14. People I know look down on Texas Tech University l 15. In social situations, I often speak favorably about Texas Tech. 1
16. People seeking to advance their careers shoukJ downplay their association with Texas Tech University i
17. Spiritual values are more important than material things 1 18. I lalk-up" Texas Tech to people I know 1
19. When I meet high school students and the topic arises, I usually advise them to attend Texas Tech University 1
20. When I talk about TTU, I usually say \te' rather than "Ihey"... 1 21. If people were more religious, this woukl be a better
country 1
22. state universities need the financial support of their alumni just as much as private universities 1
23. Those leading Texas Tech are not doing a good job 1 24. i am a religious person 1
25. I think the people leading Texas Tech are fulfilling their responsibilities well
26. Texas Tech University presently needs strong financial support from Its alumni
27. For me, if someone praises TTU, it is the same as a personal compliment 1
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2
3 3 3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
v. Did any of your family members attend Texas Tech? (circle the ones that appi how many of each attended Texas Tech):
5 5 5
5 5
5
5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
strongly AgrM
6 6 6
6 6
6
6
6 6
6 6 6
6 .6 6
6 6 6
6 6
6
5 5 5
5
5
5
6 6 6
6
6
6
and indicate
1. Grandparent(s) 2. Parent(s) 3. Brother(s) and Sister(s) 4. Aunt(s) and Uncle(s)
5. Spouse 6. Chikl (ChlMren) 7. GrandchlM (GrandchikJren) 8. Other
129
VI. P I — f expf f your degree of agreement or disagreement with the following:
How deserving of financial support by Texas Tech alumni is each of the following: Notdaaarving ataN
1. Student scholarships 1 2 3 4 2. Library " l 2 3 4 3. University athletics (football, basketball, tennis, etc.) 1 2 3 4 4. The unrestricted fund (money that can be used in
any area of the university) 1 2 3 4 5. Research 1 2 3 4 8. Endowed faculty chairs or professorships 1 2 3 4 7. Instructional equipment 1 2 3 4
8. A specific academic area or department. Please list: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
9. Other specific areas you feel deserving of support not listed above:
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5 5
Vary Daaarvlng 6 6 6
6 6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
7 7 7
7 7 7 7
7 7 7
7 7 7
Vil. In answering the following please remember that your answers are anonymous.
1. Please circle the item that best describes the importance you give to donating to Texas Tech:
Contributing to TTU is not important at all
1 2 3
Contributing to TTU is very important
6 7
2. I plan to donate to Texas Tech University...
Never Seldom 0 1 2 3
Often 6
VIII. How important are (or would be) the following factors in your decision to donate to Texas Tech?
1. The tax deductibility of the gift 2. Being loyal to Texas Tech 3. Feeling good about helping Texas Tech 4. The ability to restrict (direct) my gift to a particular area
5 Improving the quality of Texas Tech 6. A matching gift from my employer 7. My belief in the need to support public higher education 8. To "repay" financial assistance received as a student (meaning
grants and scholarships - not student loans)
9. Texas Tech was good to me. now I'll be good to Texas Tech . 10. The present excellence of Texas Tech 11. Other . •
Not hnportant ataN 1 2 3 i 1 2 3 i 1 2 3 i 1 2 3 i
CM
CM
CM
1 2
CM
CM
C
M
3 i 3 * 3 i
3 i
3 ' 3 * 3 *
\ 5 1 5 1 5 ( 5
I 5 1 5 1 5
1 5
1 5 1 5 1 5
Vary Important 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7
6 7 8 7 6 7
130
IX. Please list the dittmemm extra-cunicular activities or organizations that you participated in while at Texas Tech (for example, student government, fratemities/sororities, music, drama, service organizations, athletics, intramurals) and how actively you participated:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. 8.
' waa not acrtiv* very at all "ctlve
2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
X. Please tell us a little about yourself. Once again, your answers are anonymous and confidential.
A. Gender (please circle): Male Female
B. How many people are In your househoM? (count yourself, spouse, chiklren, and other dependents):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MORE THAN 7
C. Which degree(s) dkl you receive from Texas Tech?
Mqjor Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Other (specify bek>w)
D. What years dW you attend Texas Tech? How many of each of the following types of semesters dW you attend Texas Tech? Regular semesters (fall/spring) Summer tenns (count each session as "one-O
F For categorization purposes only, wouW you please check the box that contains the approximate amount you donate annually to Texas Tech (even if you have donated only during the past few years).
iO $100 to $149 $300 to $399 $600 to $799 $1250 to $2499
^$1to$49 $150 to $199 $400 to $499 $800 to $999 $2500 to $9,999
$50 to $99 $200 to $299 $500 to $599 $1000 to $1249 $10,000 or more
or It may be easier for you to approximate the total amount you have donated to Texas Tech since you were a student. If so. approximately what is the lolal amount you have donated to TTU? $
E. Again for categorization purposes only. wouW you please check the box that contains your approximate annual househoM income?
less than $25,000 $75,000 to $99,999 $150,000 to $174,999 $250,000 to $499,999
$25,000 to $49.999 $100,000 to $124,999 $175,000 to $199,999 $500,000 or more
^$50,000 to $74.999 $125,000 to $149,999 $200,000 to $249,999
F. Any comments?
fhanif you for completing this survey! Please mail it in tne enclosed postage-paid envelope.
131
APPENDIX B
FINAL MEASUREMENT ITEMS
132
FINAL MEASUREMENT ITEMS
Identification
Consider your status as a Texas Tech University alumnus.
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
Being a Texas Tech University graduate...
ID1 . . . is an important part of who I am. ID2 . . . is something about which I have no clear feelings. (R) ID3 . . . means more to me than just having a degree. ID4 . . . is something I rarely think about. (R)
Donating - measured with the levels of donating assigned to each member of the sample prior to mailing the questionnaires. To preserve the respondents' anonymity, each person in the sample received a questionnaire that was coded with one of five colors and one of four heading variations, allowing identification of 20 levels of donating.
Function Attendance
Since graduation, how many times have you . . .
PGM . . been back to the Texas Tech campus for a visit such as homecoming, a class reunion, sporting event, etc.? (please circle the number of times)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 times
PGI2 . . .participated in an off-campus alumni activity such as an alumni meeting, phonathon, recruiting event, volunteer work, etc.? (circle the number of times)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 times
133
Promotion
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
SR3 When I meet high school students, and the topic arises, I usually advise them to attend Texas Tech University.
PR01 I "talk-up" Texas Tech University to people I know. PR02 I bring up Texas Tech in a positive way in conversations I
have with friends and acquaintances. PR03 In social situations, I often speak favorably about Texas Tech.
Respect for the institution's leaders
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 - Strongly agree]
RES1 I have positive feelings about Texas Tech's administration. RES2 The administration of Texas Tech, on the whole, is good. RES4 I think the people leading Texas Tech are fulfilling their
responsibilities well.
Satisfaction with the organization
[1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree]
/ am satisfied with... SAT1 . . . the education I received while a student at Texas Tech. SAT3 . . . with the manner in which I was treated as a student at
Texas Tech. SAT6 . . . with Texas Tech in general.
Felt Reciprocitv
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
Texas Tech University... P0S1 . . . values my contribution to its well-being. P0S3 . . . listens to any complaints I might have concerning the
university. P0S4 would notice if I did something that benefited the university. P0S5 . . . shows concern for me. P0S6 . . . takes pride in my accomplishments.
134
Involvement I fivel in organizational activities
Please list the different extra-curricular activities or organizations that you participated in while a student at Texas Tech. (List those you actively participated in, such as student government, fratemities/sororities, music, drama, service organizations, athletics/intramurals, etc.):
Tax incentives
[1 = not important; 7 = very important]
How important is (or would be) the tax deductibility of the gift in your decision to donate to Texas Tech?
Religiositv
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree]
RELG2 Spiritual values are more important than material things RELG3 If people were more religious, this would be a better country RELG4 I am a religious person
Family Members' Affiliation
Did any family members listed below attend Texas Tech? (circle the numbers that apply and indicate how many of each attended Texas Tech):
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Grandparent(s) Parent(s) Brother(s) and Sister(s) Aunt(s) and Uncle(s) Spouse Child (children) Grandchild (grandchildren) Other
135
Perception of the institution being ig fjnanrial pftft
[1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree]
PFN1 Texas Tech's need for financial support from its alumni will be even greater in the future.
PFN2 State universities need the financial support of their alumni just as much as private universities.
PFN3 Texas Tech University presently needs strong financial from its alumni.
Familv < i7P
How many people are in your household? (count yourself, spouse, children, and other dependents):
^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 MORE THAN 7
• Primary Area of Involvement While in the Oraani atinn anH Level of Achievftmftnt
Your degrees? (check all that apply and please specify your major)
Major Bachelor's Master's Doctorate Other (specify below)
Length of Time Affiliated With the Organization
How many of each of the following types of semesters did you attend Texas Tech?
(SEM) Regular semesters (fall/spring) (SUM) Summer terms (count each session as "one")
136
Interest in specific programs
[1 = not deserving at all; 7 = very deserving]
/ think the following areas deserve financial support by Texas Tech alumni:
ISP1 Student scholarships ISP2 Library ISP3 University athletics (football, basketball, tennis, etc.) ISP4 The unrestricted fund (money that can be use in any area
of the university) ISP5 Research ISP6 Endowed faculty chairs or professorships ISP7 Instructional equipment
Other individual and situational variables were measured by single items: household income (INC), and gender (GEN).
137
APPENDIX C
INTEREST IN SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
138
An Additional Analysis - Interest in Specific Prngram.g
Interest in Specific Programs was hypothesized in the proposed model of
relational exchange to be a variable that is not mediated by identification, but
directly influences supportive behavior. To measure Interest in Specific
Programs, the sample of alumni were asked to rate the degree to which they felt
each of seven program areas of the university ~ scholarships, library, collegiate
athletics, unrestricted fund, research, endowed chairs, instructional equipment ~
deserved financial support by alumni. Three options regarding the method of
investigating this variable were considered.
The first option was to regard the specific program areas as a reflectively
measured construct and to purify the measure of items not reflective of an
overall feeling on the part of respondents that they support the university
through some specific program area. The second option considered was to treat
all seven items as a formative scale, meaning that the more the respondents felt
that these areas deserved alumni support, the higher the score they would
assign to the areas - those respondents ascribing higher scores would be
indicating that they were more supportive of the university, but again, only
through some specific program instead of the university as a whole.
The preceding options were discarded because they both assume one
overall construct that measures a person's interest in specific university
programs rather than an interest in the university entity. Viewing respondents'
interest in specific areas of the nonprofit as one construct is problematic
139
primarily because several respondents might have the same, overall interest
score but be interested in different areas. In other words, one score masks the
variation in respondents' choices regarding specific interests.
The third option, and the one employed in this research, was to consider
each item to be a single indicant of seven different constructs. The seven
constructs were then regarded as antecedents to the three supportive behaviors
in a multiple regression model.
Data analysis indicates that one's interest in a specific area of the
nonprofit organization, in this case a university, influences behavior supportive
of the organization. Referring to Table C.I, respondents' interest in collegiate
athletics, the unrestricted fund, and endowed chairs accounted for 16% of the
variance In donations. The respondent's interest In collegiate athletics and
research accounted for 25% of their attendance at university sponsored
functions. Also, 29% of the variance in respondents' promotion of the university
was explained by their interest in collegiate athletics, and instructional
equipment Interest in collegiate athletics was the dominant variable in all cases
with the exception of respondents' interest in endowed chairs wielding a
significantly larger weight in explaining variance in donations.
140
Table C.1 - Interest in Specific Programs: Parameter Estimates
Path
scholarships - > donating
scholarships - > function attendance
scholarships ~> promotion
library ~> donating
library - > function attendance
library ~> promotion
collegiate athletics - > donating
collegiate athletics ~> function attendance
collegiate athletics - > promotion
unrestricted fund ~> donating unrestricted fund ~> function attendance
unrestricted fund ~> promotion
research ~> donating
research - > function attendance
research - > promotion
endowed chairs ~> donating
endowed chairs ~> function attendance
endowed chairs ~> promotion
instructional equipment - > donating
instructional equipment - > function attendance
instructional equipment ~> promotion
Variance explained in : donating function attendance
promotion
Estimate
-0.04
0.14
0.14
-0.09
-0.11
-0.15
0.20"
0.43"
0.46"
0.17' 0.06
-0.02
-0.16
-0.22
0.07
0.31"
0.13
-0.11
-0.04
0.04
0.23"
= 16%
= 25%
= 29%
t-value
-0.34
1.37
1.52 -0.56
-0.72
-1.03
2.75
5.98
6.87
1.67 0.62
-0.25
-1.26
-1.79
0.59
2.99
1.30
-1.24
-0.42
0.42
2.47
•significant at the .05 level "significant at the .01 level
141
