Charity Organization Donations–Model Questionnaire

Abstract

The Charity Organization Donations—Model Questionnaire (CODM), developed by D’Souza et al. (2023), is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the multidimensional psychological mechanisms governing individual giving behaviors toward faith-based nonprofit organizations. Built upon conceptual paradigms from relationship marketing, social psychology, and consumer brand equity, the instrument measures how donors’ cognitive perceptions and emotional states translate into tangible support. The model captures four key latent constructs: Commitment, Image, Trust, and Emotions across 16 refined items adapted from seminal scales in philanthropic and psychological literature (e.g., Furnham, 1995; Hibbert, 1996). Responses are recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Psychometric validation was established using a metropolitan field sample of adult donors attending a charity fundraising event in Melbourne, Australia. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated robust structural integrity and superior goodness-of-fit indices: χ² = 135.429 (df = 92, p = .002), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .97, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = .97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .97, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = .93, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .91, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .93, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .04. Construct reliability was confirmed via composite reliability (CR) coefficients ranging from .70 to .85 across subscales. Convergent validity satisfied standard thresholds, with average variance extracted (AVE) estimates approximating or exceeding .50, while discriminant validity was verified using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. The CODM provides a standardized, diagnostic measurement framework for scholars, nonprofit directors, and fundraising strategists seeking to model donor acquisition, retention, and brand fidelity.

Keywords

Nonprofit Organizations, Faith-Based Charities, Brand Image, Donor Trust, Anticipated Guilt, Donor Commitment, Charitable Giving, Philanthropy Measurement, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Structural Equation Modeling, Consumer Behavior

Authors

The Charity Organization Donations—Model Questionnaire was conceptualized and psychometrically operationalized by an international team of researchers specializing in marketing, behavioral economics, nonprofit management, and applied psychology:

• Clare D’Souza (Corresponding Author) — Yunus Social Business Centre, Department of Economics, Finance and Marketing, La Trobe Business School, College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Email: [email protected]
• Lorraine Valladares — Department of Psychology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
• Vanessa Ratten — Department of Management, Sport and Tourism, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
• Marthin Nanere — La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. ORCID: 0000-0002-0595-5848
• Tanvir Ahmed — Department of Economics, Finance and Marketing, La Trobe Business School, College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
• Ninh Nguyen — Marketing Discipline, Asia Pacific College of Business and Law, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. ORCID: 0000-0001-6050-2633
• Malliga Marimuthu — Department of Economics, Finance and Marketing, La Trobe Business School, College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Purpose

Nonprofit and faith-based charitable organizations operate in an increasingly competitive environment characterized by donor fatigue, regulatory scrutiny, and a proliferation of competing philanthropic causes. Within this context, maintaining financial viability requires a nuanced comprehension of the psychological mechanisms that drive both transactional donations (one-off contributions) and relational donations (enduring commitment). The overarching purpose of the Charity Organization Donations—Model Questionnaire (CODM) is to empirically measure the structural interactions among a charity’s perceived brand image, organizational trust, moral/emotional motivators, and prospective donation commitment.

From an applied research and managerial perspective, the CODM addresses a critical blind spot in philanthropic literature: the psychological distinction between general secular giving and giving directed toward faith-based organizations. While conventional fundraising models often prioritize purely economic utility or demographic determinants, the CODM models the donor as a relational stakeholder whose decision architecture is heavily mediated by perceived organizational virtues (e.g., compassion, efficacy, and ethical compliance) and internal emotional sanctions (such as anticipated guilt and self-concept preservation).

The scale serves multiple functions in both empirical inquiry and professional fundraising environments:

• Diagnostic Assessment of Brand Equity: Nonprofit managers can administer the instrument to diagnose specific organizational weaknesses. For instance, a charity may possess an exemplary public image regarding societal duty but suffer from an acute deficit in perceived operational transparency or emotional resonance, undermining total commitment.
• Hypothesis Testing in Prosocial Psychology: Academic researchers can utilize the CODM within complex structural equation modeling (SEM) designs to examine the mediating role of institutional trust between cognitive brand perceptions and future monetary pledges.
• Segmentation and Donor Retention Strategy: The tool facilitates the psychological segmentation of donor cohorts, differentiating between individuals motivated predominantly by social belonging and public recognition versus those driven by internalized moral accountability or existential commitment to the charity’s mission.

Psychological Construct

The CODM operationalizes four interrelated, latent psychological dimensions that collectively define the donor’s cognitive-affective evaluation of an organization:

1. Commitment

In relationship marketing and philanthropic behavior, commitment represents an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship with an organization (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Within the CODM, commitment encompasses both affective loyalty and behavioral intentions. It measures an individual’s psychological sense of belonging, long-term concern for organizational sustainability, pledge of future fiscal support, clarity regarding institutional operations, and responsiveness to donor recognition and giving opportunities. A high score on this subscale reflects deep relational attachment where the act of giving is internalized as an ongoing partnership rather than an isolated, transactional exchange.

2. Image

Organizational image reflects the aggregate cognitive representations, subjective impressions, and reputational perceptions held by external stakeholders regarding a charity’s core character. The CODM operationalizes brand image around central philanthropic competencies: active compassion, fulfillment of social responsibilities, perceived efficacy in assisting vulnerable or needy target populations, and overarching valence (positive overall perception). This dimension gauges whether donors view the charity as authentic, competent, and genuinely altruistic, directly influencing perceived credibility.

3. Trust

Trust in the philanthropic context constitutes the donor’s confidence that the organization will steward philanthropic resources faithfully, maintain stringent ethical standards, and act unswervingly in the best interest of the stated cause. Philanthropic contributions involve severe information asymmetry; donors relinquish capital with no direct material return and limited visibility over internal expenditures. Consequently, trust acts as an essential psychological risk-reduction mechanism. The CODM assesses trust across three core operational parameters: fiduciary responsibility (proper utilization of funds), ethical operations, and fidelity to the overarching mission.

4. Emotions

Philanthropic decision-making is inextricably linked to affective processing. Rather than evaluating generalized positive affect or empathy alone, the emotional dimension of the CODM explicitly captures the self-evaluative moral affect of anticipated guilt and negative self-appraisal associated with philanthropic inaction. Drawing on psychological frameworks of moral accountability, this construct quantifies the extent to which an individual gives to avert internal negative self-concept disruptions (e.g., feeling bad about oneself or experiencing self-directed moral reproach for failing to help). This affective leverage serves as a powerful motivator in prosocial reinforcement.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the CODM integrates paradigms from consumer relationship marketing, social cognitive theory, and behavioral economics:

The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing

The baseline conceptual foundation relies upon Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) Commitment-Trust Theory. In classic relational exchanges, trust and commitment are posited as pivotal mediating constructs between antecedent organizational attributes (such as shared values, communication, and image) and downstream relational outcomes (such as cooperative behavior and loyalty). Applied to the nonprofit sector by scholars such as Adrian Sargeant (1999), the model posits that a positive institutional image serves as an antecedent that fosters high institutional trust. This trust, in turn, mitigates the perceived vulnerability inherent in philanthropic transactions, culminating in psychological commitment and recurring monetary donation intentions.

Social Identity and Institutional Legitimacy

The inclusion of organizational image and donor belonging aligns directly with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Donors frequently define their self-concept through identification with organizations that embody their personal values and moral standards. In faith-based philanthropy, a charity’s demonstrated compassion and societal efficacy provide external validation for the donor’s personal and spiritual beliefs. By supporting an organization with an esteemed public and moral image, donors fulfill psychological needs for self-enhancement, social belonging, and institutional legitimacy.

Negative State Relief and Anticipated Guilt Theory

The emotional dimension is rooted in Robert Cialdini’s Negative State Relief Model and the psychological literature on anticipated guilt (e.g., Hibbert et al., 2007). Prosocial behavior is not solely initiated by pure altruism or “warm-glow” utility (Andreoni, 1990); it is frequently prompted by an individual’s desire to avert cognitive dissonance and self-reproach. When presented with humanitarian distress, individuals anticipate psychological discomfort if they fail to act in alignment with their internalized ethical or religious mandates. Donating operates as a self-regulatory behavioral mechanism that restores emotional equilibrium and preserves positive self-regard.

Validity

The structural validity of the CODM was established by D’Souza et al. (2023) through rigorous methodological testing on a metropolitan sample of adult donors in Melbourne, Australia. The authors evaluated content, convergent, and discriminant validity in accordance with established psychometric standards:

Content and Face Validity

The initial pool of items was developed by synthesizing established operationalizations of charitable behavior and donor attitudes from prior peer-reviewed research (e.g., Furnham, 1995; Hibbert, 1996; Sargeant, 1999). Academic experts in marketing, nonprofit administration, and psychometrics evaluated the items to confirm that each item adequately captured the theoretical domain of its respective latent variable without introducing extraneous or ambiguous terminology.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity demonstrates that the items assigned to a specific latent construct share a high proportion of common variance. In the validation study by D’Souza et al. (2023), convergent validity was evaluated via standardized factor loadings and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The AVE values for the constructs approached or exceeded the standard benchmark of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), indicating that the latent constructs explained more than half of the variance in their observable indicators. The overarching reputation/image parameters exhibited adequate convergent capture (AVE = 0.47, considered marginally acceptable given strong composite reliability and high, statistically significant factor loadings exceeding .65 across all manifest variables).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that each latent construct represents an empirically distinct psychological phenomenon rather than an artifact of shared measurement variance. D’Souza et al. (2023) established discriminant validity through the classical Fornell–Larcker criterion: for every pair of latent constructs, the square root of the AVE exceeded the inter-construct correlation coefficient (√AVE > r). This confirmed that Trust, Image, Emotions, and Commitment function as mathematically distinct conceptual entities within the broader donation model.

Reliability

To verify the internal consistency and measurement precision of the CODM, the authors evaluated both composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across all subscales:

• Composite Reliability (CR): Unlike traditional Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability does not assume tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items) and provides a more accurate estimate of construct reliability within structural equation modeling. The CR values across the four constructs ranged from .70 to .85, comfortably exceeding the widely accepted psychometric threshold of .70 (Hair et al., 2010).
• Subscale Consistency: Individual constructs exhibited strong internal consistency, with the Commitment (7 items) and Image (4 items) dimensions achieving the highest stability (CR ≥ .82), while the focused Trust (3 items) and Emotions (2 items) dimensions maintained robust parameter estimates (CR ≥ .70).
• Measurement Invariance & Error Variance: Standard errors for individual item loadings were minimal, confirming that item error variances did not compromise the overarching reliability of the subscales when administered within metropolitan fundraising contexts.

Factor Analysis

D’Souza et al. (2023) subjected the 16 survey items to extensive structural modeling utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with Maximum Likelihood estimation to verify the hypothesized four-factor dimensional structure.

Model Fit Parameters

The empirical assessment revealed superior goodness-of-fit indices, exceeding standard academic criteria for structural equation models:

• Chi-Square Statistic (χ²): 135.429 with 92 degrees of freedom (df), yielding a relative/normed chi-square (χ²/df) of 1.472, well below the conservative threshold of 2.0 to 3.0, indicating excellent fit.
• Significance Level: p = .002. (While significant due to sample size sensitivity, the ratio of χ² to degrees of freedom confirms model parsimony).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .97 (Benchmark > .95 indicates outstanding fit).
• Incremental Fit Index (IFI): .97 (Benchmark > .95).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .97 (Benchmark > .95).
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): .93 (Exceeds standard threshold of .90).
• Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI): .91 (Exceeds standard threshold of .90).
• Normed Fit Index (NFI): .93 (Exceeds standard threshold of .90).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .04 (Values ≤ .05 indicate close structural fit with 90% confidence intervals confirming model precision).

Factor Loadings

All 16 items loaded significantly (p < .001) onto their assigned latent constructs. The loadings across the Commitment subscale reflected both attitudinal loyalty (e.g., self-identification as a loyal supporter) and intentional behavioral outcomes (e.g., intent to increase donations next year). Similarly, the items measuring Image, Trust, and Emotions loaded with high standardized path coefficients, validating the four-factor representation of charity donation mechanics.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Charity Organization Donations—Model Questionnaire are detailed below:

• Test Type: Original psychometric inventory / self-report survey instrument.
• Constructs Assessed: Commitment to Donate, Perceived Charity Image, Organizational Trust, Anticipated Moral Emotions.
• Target Population: Adult donors, prospective benefactors, and supporters of philanthropic, charitable, and faith-based organizations (Ages 18 and older).
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based digital assessment, or field-intercept survey during fundraising events.
• Number of Items: 16 items categorized into four distinct subscales:
• Commitment (7 items)
• Image (4 items)
• Trust (3 items)
• Emotions (2 items)
• Authentic Response Scale: Likert scales, from strongly agree to strongly disagree on a 7-point scale, are used to measure participants’ responses.
• Scoring Procedures: Responses to each item are scored along a continuous 7-point continuum. While reverse scoring is not required for the standard wording, individual subscale scores can be calculated by averaging or summing item scores within each dimension. Higher scores reflect stronger brand equity perceptions, greater fiduciary trust, heightened moral emotional involvement, and stronger long-term donation commitment. In structural equation modeling contexts, items are evaluated as reflective indicators of their respective latent variables.
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 8 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Charity Organization Donations—Model Questionnaire was formally published in 2023 in the Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. The instrument was developed under institutional academic sponsorship at La Trobe University, Melbourne University, and Charles Darwin University.

• Commercial Status: Non-commercial. The questionnaire was developed solely for academic research, education, and institutional evaluation.
• Usage Fees: Free of charge for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical use, and nonprofit diagnostic applications.
• Permissions and Licensing: The intellectual copyright of the original research article belongs to Taylor & Francis and the authors. Researchers and practitioners seeking to utilize, reproduce, adapt, or deploy the instrument in published studies, corporate evaluations, or large-scale programmatic interventions should cite the foundational paper (D’Souza et al., 2023) and, where formal clearance is necessary, contact the corresponding author, Prof. Clare D’Souza ([email protected]), or the publisher’s rights clearance portal.

References

• Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
• D’Souza, C., Valladares, L., Ratten, V., Nanere, M., Ahmed, T., Nguyen, N., & Marimuthu, M. (2023). The effects of religious participation and brand image on commitment to donate to faith-based charities. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 35(1), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1953670
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Furnham, A. (1995). The affective and cognitive determinants of donation: The case of charity advertising. Human Relations, 48(4), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679504800406
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Hibbert, S. (1996). Donor loyalty: Identifying the characteristics of long-term supporters. In Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing (pp. 340–352). Strathclyde University.
• Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Yanso-on-Aragones, F. (2007). Guilt in advertising: An investigation of charitable appeals. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 720–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.001
• Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
• Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870351
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Items of the Scale