Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-qnbt5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-11T18:13:44.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Donor Misreporting: Conceptualizing Social Desirability Bias in Giving Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Zoe Lee  and
Lucy Woodliffe
Zoe Lee*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK
Lucy Woodliffe*
Affiliation:
Department of Marketing, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
*
e-mail: Z.Lee@bath.ac.uk
e-mail: Lucy.Woodliffe@uwe.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although survey research is one of the most frequently used methods for studying charitable giving, the quality of the data is seldom stated or known. In particular, social desirability bias (SDB) has been found to distort data validity where respondents tend to over-report what is socially desirable and vice versa. We argue that this phenomenon has not been fully understood in the nonprofit context as existing social desirability scales are not appropriate to be used in giving surveys. Thus, this paper is the first to extend understanding of SDB to the nonprofit context and to explore its motivating factors. Based on a multidisciplinary literature review and qualitative interviews with various senior practitioners from the fundraising and marketing research sectors, it is suggested that SDB is a multidimensional construct yielding five dimensions, namely, impression management, self-deception, level of involvement, perceived benefits and social norms. The paper then discusses the implications for nonprofit researchers and concludes with directions for future research.

Résumé

Résumé

Bien que les enquêtes soient l’une des méthodes les plus fréquemment utilisées pour l’étude des dons de bienfaisance, la qualité des données est rarement définie ni connue. En particulier, il a été constaté que le biais de désirabilité sociale faussait la validité des données lorsque les répondants avaient tendance à surévaluer ce qui est socialement souhaitable, et inversement. Nous montrons que ce phénomène n’a pas été totalement compris dans le secteur non lucratif, puisque les échelles actuelles de désirabilité sociale ne sont pas adaptées pour être utilisés dans les enquêtes sur les dons. Cette étude est donc la première à étendre la conception du biais de désirabilité sociale au contexte du secteur non lucratif et à en explorer les facteurs de motivation. Reposant sur une revue de la littérature multidisciplinaire et des entretiens qualitatifs menés auprès de différents spécialistes de haut niveau dans les secteurs de collecte de fonds et des études de marché, il y est suggéré que le biais de désirabilité sociale est un concept multidimensionnel qui produit cinq dimensions, à savoir la gestion des impressions, la tromperie, le niveau de participation, les avantages perçus et les normes sociales. Ce document examine ensuite les conséquences pour les chercheurs du secteur non lucratif et se termine par des orientations pour la recherche future.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Obgleich die Umfrageforschung eine der am häufigsten verwendeten Methoden zur Studie von wohltätigem Spendenverhalten ist, werden nur selten Angaben zur Datenqualität gemacht bzw. die Datenqualität ist oftmals gänzlich unbekannt. Insbesondere das sozial erwünschte Antwortverhalten (zu englisch: Social Desirability Bias (SDB)) verzerrt die Datengültigkeit in Fällen, in denen die Befragten dazu neigen, ihre Antworten übermäßig auf das, was sozial erwünscht bzw. unerwünscht ist, abzustimmen. Wir glauben, dass dieses Phänomen im Nonprofit-Kontext nicht vollständig verstanden wird; denn die existierenden Skalen zur Messung der sozialen Erwünschtheit sind für die Verwendung in Befragungen zum Spendenverhalten unangemessen. Somit ist dies der erste Beitrag, der das Verständnis des sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens auf den Nonprofit-Bereich ausweitet und die Motivationsfaktoren ergründet. Die Ergebnisse einer multidisziplinären Literaturrecherche und qualitativer Befragungen verschiedener führender Fachleute aus den Bereichen der Mittelbeschaffung und Marktforschung deuten darauf hin, dass das sozial erwünschte Antwortverhalten ein multidimensionales Konstrukt ist, das aus fünf Dimensionen besteht, nämlich dem Impressionsmanagement, der Selbsttäuschung, dem Involvierungsgrad, dem wahrgenommenen Nutzen und den gesellschaftlichen Normen. In dem Beitrag werden des Weiteren die Implikationen für Forscher im Nonprofit-Bereich erörtert und abschließend Hilfestellungen für zukünftige Forschungen bereitgestellt.

Resumen

Resumen

Aunque los estudios de mercado son uno de los métodos más utilizados para conocer las donaciones benéficas, la calidad de los datos rara vez se menciona o se conoce. En concreto, se ha descubierto que el SDB (social desirability bias, predisposición a la conveniencia social) distorsiona la validez de los datos, ya que los encuestados tienden a exagerar lo que es socialmente deseable o viceversa. Lo que argumentamos es que este fenómeno no ha sido entendido del todo en el entorno sin ánimo de lucro, ya que las escalas de la conveniencia social existentes no son aptas para su uso en estudios de donaciones. Así, este trabajo es el primero en extender la comprensión del SDB al entorno sin ánimo de lucro y en explorar los factores de motivación. Basándonos en un repaso literario multidisciplinar y en entrevistas cualitativas con varios profesionales veteranos de los sectores de estudios de marketing y de recaudación de fondos, sugerimos que el SDB es un una estructura multidimensional con cinco dimensiones: gestión de impresiones, autoengaño, nivel de compromiso, ventajas percibidas y normas sociales. En este trabajo se tratan las implicaciones para los investigadores sin ánimo de lucro y para concluir, se ofrecen directrices para las futuras investigaciones.

摘要

摘要

虽然调查研究是学习慈善捐赠最常用的方法之一,但却很少规定或明确数据的质量。特别是,已发现社会称许性偏见(SDB),歪曲数据的有效性,受访者往往会过度报告什么是社会称许的,反之亦然。我们认为,在非营利机构这种现象尚未得到充分理解,因为现有的社会称许性量表不适合用于捐赠调查。因此,本文首次将对SDB的理解延伸到非营利机构,探讨其动机因素。 基于多学科的文献综述和对筹款和市场营销研究部门的各类高级从业人员的定性访谈,建议SDB是一个多层面构建,提供五个方面,即,印象管理、自我欺骗、参与程度、感知利益和社会规范。然后,本文讨论了对非营利研究人员的影响,并总结了未来的研究方向。

要約

要約

調査研究は慈善事業への寄付を研究するために最も使用される方法の1つだが、データの質が明らかにされることも、周知されることもない。特に、社会的望ましさによるバイアス(SDB)においては、回答者が、社会的に望まれること、もしくは望まれないことを報告し過ぎる傾向があり、データの正確性を歪曲していることが明らかになった。社会的に望ましいスケールが調査の中で適切に使用されない場合においては、非営利団体が完全に理解されることはないと主張する。従って、本論文ではまずSDBへの理解を非営利団体の場合にも拡大して、意欲を高めるような要因を考察する。 SDBにおいては、調査セクターにおける資金提供とマーケティングから年輩の経験者への定性面接と複合的な文献のレビューに基づいて、印象的な経営、自己欺瞞、関与のレベル、認知されるメリット、社会規範の5つの基準を用いた多次元的な構成概念を提案する。本論文では、非営利団体の研究者について議論し、今後の調査のための方向性を提示する。

ملخص

ملخص

على الرغم من أن الدراسة البحثية تعتبر أحد أكثر الأساليب المستخدمة لدراسة العطاء الخيري، نوعية البيانات نادراً ما تذكر أو تعرف. على وجه الخصوص، التحيز للإستحسان الإجتماعي(SDB) الذي وجد أنه يشوه صحة البيانات حيث المجيبين يميلون إلى المبالغة فيما هو مرغوب فيه إجتماعياً والعكس بالعكس. يمكننا القول أن هذه الظاهرة لم يتم فهمها تماماً في السياق الغير ربحي كما أن مقاييس الإستحسان الإجتماعي الحالي ليس مناسب لإستخدامه في الدراسات الإستقصائية للعطاء. هكذا، هذا البحث يعتبر الأول ليوسع الفهم للتحيز للإستحسان الإجتماعي (SDB) للسياق الغير ربحي و إستكشاف العوامل المحركة له. إستناداً إلى إستعراض الكتابات المتعددة التخصصات والمقابلات النوعية مع مختلف الممارسين الكبار من قطاعات جمع الأموال و بحوث التسويق ، تم إقتراح أن التحيز للإستحسان الإجتماعي(SDB) هو بناء متعدد الأبعاد يؤدي إلى خمسة أبعاد، هي:، إدارة الانطباع، خداع النفس، مستوى المشاركة، الفوائد المتصورة والقواعد الاجتماعية. ثم يناقش البحث الآثار المترتبة على الباحثين الغيرساعيين للربح، ويختتم بإتجاهات للبحث في المستقبل.

Keywords

Social desirabilityGiving surveysMeasurementMisreporting

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 569 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alpert, M. I. (1971). Identification of determinant attributes: A comparison of methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 184–191. doi: 10.2307/3149759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amos, O. M. (1982). Empirical analysis of motives underlying individual contributions to charity. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10, 45–52. doi: 10.1007/BF02300194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardwell, W. A., & Dimsdale, J. E. (2001). The impact of ethnicity and response bias on self report of negative affect. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 6(1), 27–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9861.2001.tb00105.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barger, S. D. (2002). The Marlowe-Crowne affair: Short forms, psychometric structure, and social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2), 286–305. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7902_11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Towards a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bekkers, R. (2007). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. Survey Research Method, 1(3), 139–144.Google Scholar
Belli, R. F., Trougott, M. L., Young, M., & McGonagle, K. A. (1999). Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure and source monitoring. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 90–108. doi: 10.1086/297704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). Reliability generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 570–589. doi: 10.1177/0013164402062004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, A. J. (2004). Can we talk? Self-presentation and survey response. Political Psychology, 25(4), 643–659. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00391.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Brown, E., & Burlingame, D. (2001). Symposium: Methodology in surveying giving and volunteering behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 480–482. doi: 10.1177/0899764001303005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, R. G. (1982). Field research: A source book and field manual. London: Allen & Unwin doi: 10.4324/9780203379998.Google Scholar
Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 291–302. doi: 10.1023/A:1023648703356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, J. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 749–759. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2003). Social exchange theory. In Delamater, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 53–76). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi: 10.1037/h0047358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillman, D. A., Singer, E., Clark, J. R., & Treat, J. B. (1996). Effects of benefits appeals and variations in statements of confidentiality on completion rates for census questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(3), 376–389. Fall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47(6), 615–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking?. Human Performance, 16(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501–1511. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00800.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the marlowe-crowne social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 417–424. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053002011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315. doi: 10.1086/209351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. J. (2000). The future of social-desirability bias research in marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 73–77. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<73::AID-MAR1>3.0.CO;2-L.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fultz, J., Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Empathy, sadness and distress: Three related but distinct vicarious affective responses to another’s sadness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 312–325. doi: 10.1177/0146167288142009.Google ScholarPubMed
Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 213–331. doi: 10.2307/255979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geotz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntac and semantics 3: Speech act (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hager, M. A., Wilson, S., Pollak, T. H., & Rooney, P. M. (2003). Response rates for mail surveys of nonprofit organizations: A review and empirical test. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 252–267. doi: 10.1177/0899764003032002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. H. (2001). Measurement issues in surveys of giving and volunteering and strategies applied in the design of Canada’s national survey of giving, volunteering and participating. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 515–526. doi: 10.1177/0899764001303009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelfarb, S., & Lickteig, C. (1982). Social Desirability and the randomised response technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 710–717. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.4.710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, V. A., Weitzman, M. S., Noga, S. M., & Gorski, H. A. (1992). Volunteering and giving among American teenagers 12 to 17 years of age. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T., Eck, J., & Lasky, B. (1997). Face management, question wording and social desirability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(18), 1650–1671. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01618.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnettee, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349–364. doi: 10.1037/h0031617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keillor, B., Owens, D., & Pettijohn, C. (2001). A cross-cultural/cross-national study of influencing factors and socially desirable response biases. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 79–103. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR and Web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847–865. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C-Y (2009). Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 870–882. doi: 10.1037/a0014622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, N., Halfpenny, P., Jones, A., & Elliot, H. (1995). Data sources and estimates of charitable giving in Britain. Voluntas, 6(1), 39–66. doi: 10.1007/BF02353974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E., Hu, M. Y., & Toh, R. S. (2000). Are consumer survey results distorted? Systematic impact of behavioural frequency and duration on survey response errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 125–133. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.1.125.18724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leite, W. L., & Beretvas, S. N. (2005). Validation of scores on the Marlowe Crowne social desirability scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(1), 140–154. doi: 10.1177/0013164404267285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, J., & Montag, I. (1987). The effect of testing instructions for handling social desirability on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 163–167. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(87)90170-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccoby, E. E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. In Lindzey, G. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 449–487). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
MacQuillin, I. (2005, November). Where research goes wrong? Professional Fundraising, 19.Google Scholar
McCracken, G. (1990). The long interview. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 552–566. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.51.6.882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 106–119. doi: 10.1086/209470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Researching people (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 599–609. doi: 10.2307/3150629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nancarrow, C., Brace, I., & Wright, L. T. (2001). “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies”: Dealing with socially desirable responses in market research. The Marketing Review, 2, 55–69. doi: 10.1362/1469347012569427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110. doi: 10.1086/208685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Shaver, P. R. & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In Braun, H. I., Jackson, D. N., & Wiley, D. E. (Eds.), The role of construct in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-presentation: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1023–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Jones, W. H. (2006). Giving to others during national tragedy: The effects of altruistic and egoistic motivations on long-term giving. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 171–184. doi: 10.1177/0265407506060185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 897–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potter, C. L. (2005). Can celebrity endorsement save the planet?. Newstateman, 28, 5–7.Google Scholar
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805–817. doi: 10.1007/BF00383696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingen, P. H. (1978). On inducing compliance with request. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 96–102. doi: 10.1086/208720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, W. J., & Sherlock, J. J. (2009). Adapting surveys for nonprofit research. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(3), 387–403. doi: 10.1002/nml.225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(4), 275–307. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1988). The economics of empathic helping: Support for a mood management motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 163–181. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(88)90019-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shang, J., Reed, A., & Croson, R. (2008). Identity-based gender congruency effect on donations. Journal of Marketing Research, XLV, 1–10.Google Scholar
Shervish, P. G., & Ostrander, S. A. (1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as social relation. Critical issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening theory and practice (pp. 67–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Simon, J., & Simon, J. (1975). The effects of money incentives on family size: A hypothetical question study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 585–595. doi: 10.1086/268185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, E., Hippler, H., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Confidentiality assurances in surveys: Reassurance of threat?. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4(3), 256–268. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/4.3.256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slack, B. (2008, June). Dispute over findings of giving surveys. Professional Fundraising, 2.Google Scholar
Sprinkel-Grace, K. (2005). Beyond fundraising: New strategies for nonprofit innovation and investment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, J. E. M., Martihn, G. D., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable responses tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 199–214. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.2.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Taylor, H., Crane, D., & Thomas, R. K. (2005). How does social desirability affect responses? Differences in telephone and online. Public Opinion Pros, February.Google Scholar
Toh, R. S., Eunkyu, L., & Hu, M. Y. (2006). Social desirability bias in diary panels is evident in panelists’ behavioral frequency. Psychological Reports, 99(2), 322–334. doi: 10.2466/pr0.99.2.322-334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, Y. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomised response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69. doi: 10.2307/2283137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westfall, R. L., Harper, W. B., & Donald, T. C. (1957). The use of structured techniques in motivation research. Journal of Marketing, 22, 134–139. doi: 10.2307/1247209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. K., Hamil, L. S., & Tippins, N. T. (1996). Warnings against candidate misrepresentations: Do they work? Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, M. O. (2007). The quality and comparability of survey data on charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 65–84. doi: 10.1177/0899764006293177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (2002). Respondent inaccuracy. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(6), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar