| 01 |
Campaigns geographical amplitude |
Donors tend to donate more for national campaigns (Casale & Baumann, 2013; Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 02 |
Appearance of the donation beneficiary |
A beneficiary with a good image tends to be more likely to be considered worthy of donation (Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2007) |
| 03 |
Donor service |
Donor service is essential for maintaining the donation of money and/or goods (Mainardes et al., 2015) |
| 04 |
Beneficiaries seen as innocent |
Donor's perception of beneficiary being innocent increases donation propensity (Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 05 |
Catastrophe |
Individuals tend to donate in times of environmental catastrophes and public calamities (Smith and McSweeney, 2007) |
| 06 |
Climate conditions |
Individuals are more likely to donate money to charity when the weather is mild, neither too hot nor too cold (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007) |
| 07 |
Trust in the organization |
When the beneficiary organization inspires trust, individuals are more willing to make donations (Van Iwaarden et al., 2009) |
| 08 |
Trust in the organization's leadership |
The donor knowing the founder or director of the beneficiary organization can influence the donation process (Bowman, 2006) |
| 09 |
Contribution value |
Low, regular and fixed donation contribution tends to increase donation of money (Mainardes et al., 2015) |
| 10 |
Conditional cooperation |
Individuals donate more money when they have the information that other individuals also donate (Wiepking & Heijnen, 2011) |
| 11 |
Credibility of the organization |
The credibility of the beneficiary organization tends to influence the donation process (Kelly, 1995) |
| 12 |
Influential donors |
Releasing influential donor names can promote positive donor engagement (Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 13 |
Leadership effect |
Observing other individuals donating can influence donation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007) |
| 14 |
Seasonal effects |
Individuals tend to donate more in the fourth quarter of the year (Banks & Tanner, 1999) |
| 15 |
Efficiency and effectiveness of the organization |
The beneficiary organization being efficient and effective in using the resources and executed projects tends to obtain more donors (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011c; Scaife et al., 2012) |
| 16 |
Companion influence |
Individuals accompanied at the time of being invited to make the donation are more likely to donate (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b) |
| 17 |
Requestor's gender |
Male individuals tend to donate more when they receive requests from attractive women (Landry et al., 2005) |
| 18 |
Image of the organization |
The image that donors have in relation to the beneficiary organization contributes to the donation (Michel & Rieunier, 2012) |
| 19 |
Celebrity influence |
Using a celebrity as a spokesperson tends to increase donation (Michel & Rieunier, 2012) |
| 20 |
Economy influence |
Individuals tend to donate less in case of economic recession (Breeze & Morgan, 2009) |
| 21 |
Church influence |
Frequency of church attendance increases the amount donated (Schuyt et al., 2004) |
| 22 |
Acquaintances influence |
An individual can donate because their acquaintances actively support this behavior (Grace & Griffin, 2006) |
| 23 |
Influence of commemorative dates |
At commemorative dates, individuals tend to be more prone to donation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007) |
| 24 |
Employer influence |
When an individual is induced by an employer to make donations (Amos, 1982) |
| 25 |
Brand image of the organization |
The brand image of the beneficiary organization tends to influence donors (Michel & Rieunier, 2012) |
| 26 |
Mission of the organization |
Clarity about the mission of the beneficiary organization may favor donation (Bowman, 2006) |
| 27 |
Religious motivation |
Individuals tend to donate to religion in exchange for spiritual benefits or eternal salvation (Amos, 1982) |
| 28 |
Political motivation |
Individuals tend to donate to the beneficiary organization to build up a political image (Amos, 1982) |
| 29 |
Lack of public funding |
Individuals donate more money and/or goods when they realize that the beneficiary organization does not receive government aid (Mainardes et al., 2015) |
| 30 |
Tax benefit |
It refers to tax benefits when making donations (Wiepking, 2009) |
| 31 |
Participating in specific groups |
The individual who is part of a particular group (e.g., Association, Club) tends to increase the donation (Wiepking & Maas, 2009) |
| 32 |
Interest in sweepstakes |
Donate and win a ticket to participate in a prize draw (Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 33 |
Interest in future service |
Donor may require that organization in the future (Amos, 1982) |
| 34 |
Social pressure |
Individuals feeling pressured to donate tend to donate less (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007) |
| 35 |
Reciprocity |
The individual tends to donate for reciprocity, for example, when one receives an invitation from any organization for a dinner (DeHaven, 2010) |
| 36 |
Public acknowledgment |
Publicly acknowledging the donor's name tends to increase donation (DeHaven, 2010) |
| 37 |
Rules and regulations |
Beneficiary organizations being subject to well-defined donation rules and regulations tend to increase receiving donations (Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 38 |
Reputation of the organization |
The reputation of the beneficiary organization tends to interfere in the decision of the individual to make the donation (Guy & Patton, 1989) |
| 39 |
Receiving reward |
Benefits perceived by the individual when making donations. Ex: gifts, among others (Bendapudi et al., 1996) |
| 40 |
Consciousness of need |
When the donor becomes aware of the need to donate to that purpose (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007) |
| 41 |
Identification of the donor |
The individual uses some object to be identified as a donor (Grace & Griffin, 2009) |
| 42 |
Receiving gifts |
Individuals tend to donate more to obtain a present from the beneficiary of the donation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b) |
| 43 |
Being invited to donate |
The request/invitation tends to increase donors' donation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b) |
| 44 |
Donation request held personally |
The individual tends to accept the donation request when it is done personally (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b) |
| 45 |
Physical appearance of the requestor |
Individuals who are more physically attractive tend to get more donation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b) |
| 46 |
Type of organization |
The type of organization and the cause it advocates interfere with the decision to donate (Okten & Weisbrod, 2000) |
| 47 |
Transparency in accountability |
Transparency in accountability tends to be fundamental for maintaining the donation (Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 48 |
Use of media and technology |
Media use via technology tends to increase donation (Van Leeuwen & Wiepking, 2013) |
| 49 |
Use of the "love" concept |
Using the concept of "love" in campaigns can promote donation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011c) |