ERNOP 2025, Heidelberg · Parallel Session 5-A
In a lively morning session at ERNOP 2025 in Heidelberg, scholars from four continents dug deep into the psychology of giving. Moderated by Johan Vamstad (Marie Cederschiöld University), the panel asked: what really shapes how donors perceive, decide, and act?
Rounding Up Pennies with Purpose
Cleopatra Charles, (Rutgers University – Newark) presented early-stage findings on round-up campaigns (aka „Aufrunden“). These micro-gifts at checkout lanes add up to nearly $1 billion annually in the US, but their psychology is still poorly understood.
The authors tested public vs. private checkout and local vs. national charity framing. With a small N, they found no significant effects, but qualitative answers spoke volumes: trust, transparency, and corporate responsibility matter most. Donors dislike the sense of companies “outsourcing” philanthropy but appreciate the ease of donating small sums.
Takeaway: Round-ups succeed not through framing tricks but through credibility. Clear communication that money adds to, not replaces, corporate giving is essential.
Which Shared Identities Matter?
Cassandra Chapman (University of Queensland) and Hanna Zagefka (Royal Holloway, University of London) combined social identity theory with the Charitable Triad Theory to study donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers together.
Charitable Triad Theory (Chapman, Louis, Masser & Thomas, 2022, Psychology & Marketing) highlights that charitable giving is best understood as a triadic process:
Donor – beneficiary – fundraiser interactions matter more than dyadic ties. It is not enough that one actor has “good” qualities — it is the alignment across the triad that shapes giving. Outcomes depend on relational interactions: shared or misaligned identities, perceived norms, and mutual trust.
Building on this, Chapman & Zagefka are experimenting with 2×2 matrices of in-group vs. out-group relations on the beneficiary side and on the fundraiser side (with the donor identity as reference point). Their first results show that this is indeed relevant: shared identities in both corners of the triangle strongly influence giving.
Takeaway: Donor psychology is not dyadic but triadic. Successful fundraising recognises the fundraiser’s role as a carrier of identity and trust — not just as a neutral messenger.
Mental Accounting Among Brazilian Philanthropists
Marcos de Lucca-Silveira & João Haddad (Fundação José Luiz Egydio Setúbal) explored how Brazilian high-net-worth individuals organise their giving. Using Bourdieusian field theory and 25 ethnographic interviews, they analysed how elites view philanthropy as part of their world-making.
Patterns emerge around biographies, identities, and calculative practices. Some families have generations of giving; others are “new money” experimenting with philanthropy as a social role.
Takeaway: Elite philanthropy is not just about amounts — it is about how donors see themselves and position their giving within intra-elite dynamics.
Diaspora Giving: The Romanian Case
Lev Fejes (Civil Society Research Centre), Bogdan Rihai Radu & Szilárd Bartók (Babeș-Bolyai University) compared Romanian diaspora communities in the US, UK, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Spain.
Findings challenge a “romanticised” view of diasporas as progressive donors: mainstream causes like health and education dominate, while progressive causes (environment, democracy, rights) reach only 10–20%. Most donations (79%) stay in the adoptive country, and longer residence abroad reduces ties to Romania (except in the US).
Motivations: trust, efficacy, and compassion. Strikingly, trust outweighs income in predicting gifts.
Takeaway: Diaspora giving is pragmatic, mainstream, and trust-driven. Sentiment matters, but practical proximity and credible institutions matter more.
Session Reflection
Together, the four talks show the layered psychology of donors: situational trust in round-up campaigns, identity in triadic relations, worldview among elites, and cross-national pragmatism in diasporas. Donors are never “neutral calculators”; they are people with biographies, identities, and contexts.
In the spirit of ERNOP’s motto “For the People, By the People”, the donor’s mind is a co-authored space — shaped by researchers, fundraisers, and communities alike.
Diss-Tance 