!
!
!
!
!
Tí ulo a ículo / Tí ol a icle:
Mo i a ional E ec s o he Pe cei ed Image o
Non-go e nmen al O ganisa ions
Au o es / Au o s
Pinazo Cala ayud, Daniel ; Pe is Pichas o ,
Rosana ; Ramos Ribelles, Anna M. ; B o ons
Mi o, F ancisco Ja ie
Re is a:
Jou nal o Communi y & Applied Social
Psychology Volume 23, Issue 5,
Sep embe /Oc obe 2013
Ve sión / Ve sió:
P ep in de l’au o
Ci a bibliog á ica / Ci a
bibliog à ica (ISO 690):
PINAZO, Daniel, e al. Mo i a ional E ec s o he
Pe cei ed Image o Non‐go e nmen al
O ganisa ions. Jou nal o Communi y & Applied
Social Psychology, 2013, 23.5: 420-434.
u l Reposi o i UJI:
h p://hdl.handle.ne /10234/92212
!
1
Ti le: Mo i a ional E ec s o he Pe cei ed Image o NGOs
Running head: MOTIVATIONAL EFFECTS OF PERCEPTION OF NGOs
Abs ac
The mo i a ional e ec o he pe cei ed image o NGOs (Non-Go e nmen al O ganiza ions) was
analysed in wo s udies. Resul s om he i s s udy, comp ising wo samples (N=314 and N=220), poin
o h ee dimensions o he pe cei ed image o NGOs (solida i y, misleading and ins umen ali y). These
dimensions ha e di e en e ec s on in en ion o collabo a e and o ecommend o he s o collabo a e. In
he second s udy, wi h a sample o N=485, con i ma o y analysis con i med he h ee- ac o solu ion as
app op ia e. The misleading image eme ged as a sou ce o eac ance o NGO campaigns. Resul s sugges
he impo ance o p omo ing he image o solida i y as a mo i a ional s a egy.
Keywo ds Pe cei ed image, NGO, Mo i a ion, Psychological eac ance
2
In oduc ion
Whe he o no people decide o suppo an NGO (Non-Go e nmen al
O ganiza ion) can be pa ly explained by he c edibili y o he pe cei ed image o he
sec o . The pe cei ed image can a ec u u e in ol emen wi h NGOs o he ejec ion
o hei ad e ising campaigns. As a social ins i u ion, he pe cei ed image o he NGO
sec o can a ec ci izens’ mo i a ion o collabo a e wi h hem o accep hei messages.
Howe e , ew s udies ha e analysed he public’s mo i a ional esponse in e ms o
pe cei ed image, and in pa icula ly wi h e e ence o psychological eac ance o NGO
campaigns. The aim o his pape is wo old: i s , o design a eliable, alid measu e o
he pe cei ed image o NGOs; and second, o analyse he ela ion his pe cei ed image
has wi h mo i a ion o collabo a e and psychological eac ance o p omo ional
ad e ising.
Taken oge he , NGOs as a social ins i u ion equi e a commi men om ci izens,
and he pe cep ion o each NGO can be based on he cha ac e is ics o c edibili y
a ibu ed o hese o ganisa ions as ins i u ions. The need o ake in o accoun he
ci cums ances in which po en ial dono s decide o collabo a e wi h NGOs is well
es ablished in he li e a u e (Hibbe , & Ho ne, 1996). These ci cums ances in luence
whe he people decide o help o no . Many s udies, ocusing on indi idual mo i a ions,
ha e sugges ed ha ci izens mus be commi ed o he causes he NGO suppo s, o gain
some ad an age by olun ee ing and/o dona ing (B iggs, Land y, & Woods, 2007;
Pope, Isely, & Asamoa-Tu u, 2009).
NGOs’ mo i a ional s a egies will be di e en i hey ocus on commi men o he
social causes ha de ine he o ganisa ion, han i hey link collabo a ion wi h indi idual
ewa ds. Some s udies ha e cen ed hei analysis on cha i able ins i u ions’ c edibili y
in o de o unde s and ci izens’ mo i a ion o collabo a e. C edibili y is a ibu ed o
3
NGOs when ci izens conside i is suppo ed by he image he NGOs p ojec . Pe cei ed
aspec s o NGOs ela ed o compe ence in hei ac i i ies, amilia i y (Sa gean , Wes &
Fo d, 2004), and/o since i y in de ending hei alues (Gipp, Kala a is, & Ledden,
2008), ha e been ega ded as highly ele an in de e mining dono beha iou o
in en ion.
Indi idual collabo a o -cen ed pe spec i es and NGO image-cen ed pe spec i es
a e complemen a y. The e seems o be consensus ha mo i a ion o dona e o
collabo a e wi h NGOs can be in luenced by he pe cei ed image o whe he o no
NGOs mee hei s a ed objec i es o solida i y jus as much as by indi iduals’ pe sonal
alues and in e es s. When he pe spec i e o indi idual in e es s and he image o he
o ganisa ion a e ela ed, bo h con idence (Te wel, Ha inck, Elleme s, & Daamen, 2009),
and mo i a ion o collabo a e inc eases signi ican ly (Benne , 2003). Howe e , his
mo i a ion can also be guided by eac ance o p omo ional messages, an a ea o
mo i a ional esponse ha has ecei ed e y li le a en ion in he li e a u e.
An o ganisa ion’s c edibili y is a pe cei ed quali y ha gene a es us and
accep ance o he message, by elici ing a ou able hough s (Pe y, & Cacioppo, 1986).
The a ac i eness o NGO publici y campaigns and he public’s amilia i y wi h hei
message a e associa ed wi h a c edible image o he o ganisa ion (Benne , 2009; Te wel
e al., 2009). The message may be ejec ed i he sec o ’s c edibili y is pe cei ed o be
low. An NGO can ha e a nega i e image i people conside ha i does no beha e
co ec ly as a social ins i u ion. NGOs’ beha iou as ins i u ions can also be conside ed
censu able, and can gene a e psychological eac ance as a de ence agains NGOs’
ma ke ing messages. Analysis o he mo i a ions ha lead people o collabo a e wi h
NGOs has neglec ed eac ance heo y, despi e he e ec i can ha e on he e ec i eness
o hei messages. Psychological eac ance is a mo i a ional esponse o a pe cei ed
4
h ea o one’s eedom o choose how o beha e (B ehm, 1966). Reac ance inc eases
esis ance o pe suasion (Wo chel, & B ehm, 1970), and e en ejec ion o eques s o
help (Plan, & De ine, 2001; Fi zsimons, & Lehmann, 2004; Zemack-Ruga ,
Fi zsimons, & Lehmann, 2007). The pe cei ed image o NGOs can e lec hei low
c edibili y, which would inc ease he pe cep ion o a h ea o one’s eedom o
collabo a e in ma ke ing campaigns, hus inc easing psychological eac ance.
Two s udies wi h independen samples we e conduc ed o pu sue he aims o he
p esen esea ch. In he i s s udy, we designed a scale o measu e he pe cei ed image
o NGOs, and analyse i s ela ionship wi h mo i a ional ac o s associa ed wi h decision
making (willingness o dona e, willingness o ecommend o he s o collabo a e). In he
second s udy, we conduc ed con i ma o y analysis o he scale and analysed i s
ela ionship wi h psychological eac ance o NGOs’ ma ke ing messages.
STUDY 1
The aim o he i s s udy was o design a ques ionnai e o e alua e he pe cei ed
image o NGOs, and analyse i s psychome ic cha ac e is ics. We hen s udied he e ec
o he esul ing images on mo i a ion o collabo a e in he u u e o ecommend o he s
o collabo a e. The gene al hypo hesis o he i s s udy was ha he images o NGOs
would be ela ed o hei c edibili y. The ollowing hypo heses we e pu o wa d:
Hypo hesis 1: Pe cei ed images o NGOs e lec ing high c edibili y in hei ac i i ies
will be posi i ely ela ed o willingness o collabo a e and/o ecommend o he s o do
so.
Hypo hesis 2: Pe cei ed images o NGOs e lec ing low c edibili y in hei ac i i ies
will be nega i ely ela ed o willingness o collabo a e and/o ecommend o he s o do
so.
Me hod

5
P ocedu e
A h ee-phase p ocedu e was ollowed o p epa e a measu e o he pe cei ed image
o NGOs: 1. Explo a o y analysis phase: e alua ion o he ame o e e ence, o sha ed
meanings, in which people socially cons uc hei images o NGOs; 2. Knowledge
syn hesis analysis phase: in his phase, we analysed he in e nal s uc u e o di e en
images people we e amilia wi h, which in e ac in he common ame o e e ence; 3.
Syn hesis o belie s: analysis o he images ha ep esen each pe son’s se o belie s.
Phase 3 gene a ed he inal scale o pe cei ed images o NGOs. This scale was used o
e alua e he pe cei ed image using a ious ins i u ional c edibili y indica o s.
Phase 1. Explo a o y analysis o sha ed meanings o NGOs. A se ies o s a emen s
was compiled e lec ing he public’s opinions and he meaning NGOs ha e o
indi iduals. The s a emen s we e iden i ied and selec ed using he his o ical e iew
echnique in ins i u ional ex -based da abases. The sea ch gene a ed a o al o 143
s a emen s These s a emen s we e hen in e p e ed using he ocus g oup me hod. The
ocus g oup (six people) p oduced a lis o 68 s a emen s classi ied in six ca ego ies.
These 68 s a emen s cons i u ed he base ques ionnai e wi h which o analyse he image
o NGOs
Phase 2. Analysis o he syn hesis o knowledge on NGOs. The aim o his phase
was o explo e whe he people a ange he ca ego ies esul ing om he p e ious phase
as men al ep esen a ions o NGOs. Six ypes o ques ionnai es we e p epa ed o his
pu pose. Each one included he same 68 s a emen s selec ed in he p e ious phase. The
i s page o each ype di e ed in ha i p esen ed a b ie dialogue ep esen ing each o
he men al o heo e ical ca ego ies iden i ied in he ocus g oup (Annex 1). A e
eading he dialogue, each pe son was asked o espond acco ding o he ep esen a ion
o NGOs e lec ed by he cha ac e s in he dialogue. The ques ionnai e sample was
6
made up o 314 uni e si y s uden s, 70.4% (N = 221) o whom we e women and 29.6%
(N = 93), men. A e age age was 21.27 (SD = 3.38).
The da a analysis in his phase conside ed he ypicali y index and he pola i y
index o each i em. The ypicali y index was ob ained by ollowing he me hodology
de eloped by Rosch (1975, 1978). I was ob ained by using he a e age o he sco es
indi iduals ga e. The ollowing o mula was used o calcula e ypicali y:
TI1=S(A)+(B)+(C)/N
IT1= ypicali y index o s a emen 1.
S(A): Sco e gi en o his s a emen by subjec one.
S(B): Sco e gi en o his s a emen by subjec wo.
S(C): Sco e gi en o his s a emen by subjec h ee...
N: Numbe o subjec s who esponded o he Theo y 1 ques ionnai e
The i em’s pola i y index is he ela i e measu e ha con as s he ypicali y o one
i em in each heo y wi h he ypicali y ob ained in he o he heo ies. I was ob ained
ollowing Rosch’s (1978) sugges ions in Rod igo, Rod íguez, and Ma e o, (1993). The
o mula used o calcula e he pola i y o each i em was as ollows:
The pola i y index o s a emen 1 in heo y “a” (POL1(a))
is equal o he di e ence be ween he ypicali y sco e
ob ained o he same s a emen in heo y “a” minus he
sum o al o he sco es o he same s a emen in he o he
heo ies. The esul o his sub ac ion is di ided by he
numbe o ca ego ies minus 1 (“n”), all o which mus be
di ided by he b ead h o he measu emen scale used
minus 1 (“K”).
Fo he ypicali y index, ypical s a emen s we e conside ed o be hose wi h an
index o 3.5 o abo e. I ems ha we e no ep esen a i e, wi h pola i ies e y close o 0,
o we e no e y ypical, we e ejec ed. A o al o 36 i ems, o ganised in ou images,
emained (Table 1). This phase o analysis he e o e esul ed in ou images in which
people ecognise he wo k o NGOs in he public space: he ‘Social Ac ion
7
O ganisa ions’ Image (α = .90), he ‘Cul u e o Solida i y’ Image (α = .87), he ‘Co up
O ganisa ions’ Image (α = .96), and he ‘Social end’ Image (α = .87).
(Table 1 he e)
Phase 3. Analysis o he syn hesis o belie s. In his phase we explo ed he in e nal
s uc u e o he 36 s a emen s selec ed in he p e ious phase. A ques ionnai e was
p epa ed wi h he 36 s a emen s esul ing om phase 2. In his case, pa icipan s we e
asked o espond acco ding o hei pe sonal opinion. In his analysis he s a emen s
we e changed o ead as sel - e e en . Responden s we e asked o indica e hei le el o
ag eemen wi h he s a emen on a scale o 1 o 5 (whe e 1 ep esen ed s ong
disag eemen and 5, s ong ag eemen ).
Sample
The sample was made up o 220 subjec s wi h an a e age age o 24, o whom
39.9% had begun o comple ed uni e si y le el educa ion, 39.9% had comple ed p e-
uni e si y educa ion and 20.2% had comple ed basic educa ion. 47.9% we e men and
52.1% women.
Va iables
Pe cei ed image o NGOs. To assess he in e nal alidi y and eliabili y o he
images ob ained we conduc ed an explo a o y ac o analysis. The p inciple componen s
me hod wi h a imax o a ion was used o ob ain he mos ep esen a i e ac o s o he
pe cei ed image o NGOs. Ba le ’s es o sphe ici y (χ2 = 1634.29; d = 300; p < .001)
and he Kaise -Meye -Olkin index (KMO = .80) e i ied he i o he sample o he
explo a o y ac o analysis. The mos pa simonious s uc u e was inally chosen, gi ing
a ques ionnai e wi h h ee pe cei ed images o NGOs (Table 2): Fac o 1: NGOs a e
desc ibed as a way o ac ing and hinking in solida i y wi h o he s, based on denouncing
social injus ices, and commi men o p omo ing alues o solida i y and social jus ice.
8
This ac o sugges s an image o high c edibili y, since NGOs a e conside ed o be
since e in hei ac ions and compe en in ca ying hem ou . We call his ac o ‘Image
o Solida i y o NGOs’ (M = 2.51; SD = .75). Fac o 2: NGOs a e desc ibed as
audulen and co up en i ies ha se ou o decei e by manipula ing alues o
solida i y, which hey use as a way o ob aining inancial bene i s o hemsel es. This
ac o sugges s an image o low c edibili y, since NGOs a e conside ed o be nei he
since e in hei ac ions no compe en in ca ying hem ou . We call his ac o
‘Misleading Image o NGOs’ (M = 3.54; SD = .66). Fac o 3: NGOs a e desc ibed as
gene a o s o social p es ige and as a end. Collabo a ing wi h NGOs is a ool used o
gain ecogni ion and social p es ige, which is he mo i a ion o becoming in ol ed
wi h hem. This ac o sugges s ha NGO c edibili y is unconnec ed o he public’s
esponse o he o ganisa ion, since wha ma e s is o ake ad an age o i s social image
o gain ecogni ion o pe sonal p es ige. We call his ac o ‘Ins umen al image o
NGOs’ (M = 2.89; SD = .86). The esul ing explained a iance is no e y high, which
indica es ha he e a e meanings in he image o he NGOs ha canno be easily
g ouped unde a common ac o , and ha we e no de ec ed in he p esen explo a o y
analysis.
(Table 2 he e)
In en ion o collabo a e wi h an NGO. A single i em measu e ha asks esponden s
o e alua e hei le el o ag eemen o disag eemen , on a scale o 1 ( o ally disag ee) o
5 ( o ally ag ee), wi h he s a emen : ‘I in end o collabo a e wi h an NGO in he u u e’
(M = 3.14; SD = 1.29).
Willingness o ask o he s o collabo a e wi h NGOs. A single i em measu e ha
asks esponden s o e alua e hei le el o ag eemen o disag eemen , on a scale o 1
15
dimensions, and he good i o he h ee-dimensional model allow us o con i m ha he
cons uc alidi y o he scale is good.
The images pe cei ed as indica o s o c edibili y acco ded o NGOs by he public
demons a ed an impo an and signi ican capaci y o in luence mo i a ion o
collabo a e wi h NGOs. As epo ed in he p e ious li e a u e, mo i a ion o collabo a e
wi h hese o ganisa ions is ela ed o hei pe cei ed image (Benne , 2003, Gipp, e al.
2008, Sa gean , e al. 2004; Te wel, e al., 2009). This s udy has allowed us o es his
hypo hesis h ough a gene al measu emen o he pe cei ed ins i u ional image o
NGOs. Howe e , in con as o o he au ho s’ indings (B iggs, e al. 2007, Pope e al.
2009), he s udy esul s do no e eal any in luence on mo i a ion ela ed o indi idual
ewa d. The image associa ed wi h indi idual gain –ins umen ali y o NGOs– has no
mo i a ional e ec s when NGOs a e pe cei ed as a ool o indi idual gain. A pe son
who pe cei es NGOs as ins umen s o gain pe sonal p es ige could be mo i a ed o
collabo a e. Howe e , ou esul s do no e eal a signi ican ela ionship in his espec .
This may be because he pe son who has his image is no in e es ed in he NGO in
i sel , bu a he in he pe sonal use he o she migh make o i . A pe son wi h an
ins umen al image o NGOs is no in e es ed in collabo a ing, bu in ensu ing ha
o he s hink o belie e ha s/he collabo a es, and as such, his o he mo i a ion o
collabo a e is indi ec . The image o ins umen ali y could encou age dona ion i i is
accompanied by ins umen al ein o cemen , bu no by he NGO i sel . Likewise,
ano he ype o collabo a ion – olun ee ing – will be mo e bu densome and less
mo i a ing o an indi idual who is seeking pe sonal p es ige, i signi ican ins umen al
ein o cemen is no p esen .

16
Ou indings indica e ha emphasis should be shi ed o gene a e an image o NGO
solida i y a he han ins umen ali y as a way o mo i a ing ci il socie y o dona e o
olun ee .
The da a show ha he image o ins umen ali y has no mo i a ional e ec s. In
con as , ou esul s indica e ha an image o solida i y is wha b ings c edibili y and
posi i e mo i a ional consequences. An image o co up ion and decep ion p o okes
nega i e esponses such as eac ance o ad e ising o e icence o collabo a e wi h
NGOs. An ins umen al iew o NGOs indica es a neu al app oach in which he co e
causes de ended by he NGO a e elega ed o second place. Conside ando la
impo ancia de p oyec a una imagen cohe en e con las mo i aciones de la p opia
o ganización (Te wel, e al. 2009), u u e esea ch migh explo e he ela i e impo ance
o he image o solida i y as a sou ce o pe suasion, ocusing on he impo ance o he
causes hese o ganisa ions de end as he cen al poin o he message and he pe suasi e
s a egy.
In summa y, he ques ionnai e on pe cei ed images o NGOs appea s o be a good
ool wi h which o e alua e he ins i u ional c edibili y o NGOs and i s e ec on
mo i a ional esponses. The esul s also seem o sugges ha he mos e ec i e
pe suasion s a egy is o highligh he impo ance o he social causes he NGO de ends,
h ough an image o solida i y, as he main mo i a ional ac o o encou age
collabo a ion wi h NGOs.
The ac o s we ob ained co e a wide ange o images associa ed wi h all ypes o
NGOs. I is o be expec ed ha , ega dless o he ype o o ganisa ion, a misleading
image will nega i ely a ec in e es no only in dona ions, bu also he ec ui men o
olun ee s. In con as , a posi i e image should encou age dona ion and olun ee ing.
Howe e , speci ic aspec s o he unc ion o ce ain ypes o o ganisa ions could modi y
17
his ela ionship. How would hese pe cep ions un u l in an e alua ion o mo e speci ic
NGOs such as de elopmen o en i onmen al NGOs, o ins ance? Incen i es such as
ashions o social p es ige, bo h ins umen al aspec s, could ha e a speci ic e ec a a
gi en momen in ime i hey a e associa ed wi h one ype o o ganisa ion in pa icula .
In addi ion, olun ee s may be a ac ed by he p es ige o an o ganisa ion in e ms o i s
in e nal wo kings (Boezeman, & Elleme s, 2007), o by he pe cei ed cohe ence
be ween wha he o ganisa ion does and he in en ion behind i s ac ions (Te wel, e al.
2009). These a e mo i a ional ac o s ha depend on he speci ic pe cep ion o one
NGO o ano he . Fu u e esea ch migh u he explo e how he speci ic images o
NGOs a ec he h ee gene al ac o s, and analyse hei deg ee o s abili y. Simila ly,
each ype o NGO has i s own pa icula unc ion and image o di e en ia e i om
o he ypes o NGO, which migh a ec i s c edibili y in compa ison. Fu u e s udies
should explo e he di e en compa a i e pe cep ions o NGO ypes, and he way hey
a ec hei c edibili y in mo i a ing he public. We also sugges ha u u e esea ch
migh analyse he e iciency o communica ion o shape mo i a ing images o
o ganisa ions (once indi iduals in ci il socie y eel mo i a ed o ac ).
Limi a ions o he s udy
The s udy was unde aken in a speci ic cul u al en i onmen . Gene alisa ion o he
esul s is limi ed by he possibili y ha he images used in he s udy migh co espond o
cul u al limi a ions. Fu he mo e, he psychome ic cha ac e is ics o he ques ionnai e
equi e a mo e in-dep h analysis, pa icula ly wi h ega d o alidi y. In his pape we
ha e s udied NGOs’ image ela ionship wi h psychological eac ance and in e es in
collabo a ing. O he aspec s o NGOs’ c edibili y should be explo ed o disco e how
use ul hese images a e in designing e ec i e communica ion s a egies o NGOs.
18
Finally, his is a co ela ional s udy. Fu u e e idence on he alidi y and pe suasi e
e ec o he pe cei ed images should be analysed using expe imen al me hodology.
19
ANNEX 1. Dialogues ep esen ing men al ca ego ies o images
“In a pa k, wo iends si es ing on a bench alking abou NGOs:
John: I i wasn’ o NGOs he poo would die o hunge .
Jane: You’ e igh , go e nmen s only hink abou people when he e's an elec ion coming up...!
John: Tha 's why we need someone o ake cha ge o hinking abou he mos needy and ge ing down
o some eal social ac ion.
Jane: I ’s ue; i ’s only he NGOs ha go o he places whe e he e is a need”.
“In a pa k, wo iends si es ing on a bench ha ing a con e sa ion abou NGOs:
Jane: I wan o do some hing wi h my ee ime, bu I don' know wha . I'd like o eel use ul by
helping o he people.
John: Tha 's easy; join an NGO.
Jane: You’ e igh , I'd mee people he e like me, people who a e gene ous and hink abou o he s.
John: Su e, because wi hou people like us he e wouldn’ be any NGOs”.
“In a pa k, wo iends si es ing on a bench alking abou NGOs:
John: I’m ed up o my pa en s going on abou how ‘li e is ha d and e e ybody's go o look ou o
hemsel es and no bo he abou o he people’.
Jane: They a e a couple o eac iona ies; hey don' unde s and ha a ai e wo ld is possible.
John: Jus look a NGOs, and e e y hing hey do o make ha happen.
Jane: I ’s ue, NGOs a e ying o b ing abou he social changes ha we eally need”.
“In a pa k, wo iends si es ing on a bench ha ing a con e sa ion abou NGOs:
Jane: Lis en, I'm looking o a job. Do you know o any hing?
John: I saw a acancy on he In e ne wi h an NGO, bu i 's no ha easy; hey wan h ee yea s’
adminis a i e expe ience and a good le el o English.
Jane: Wha do you expec ? They need good p o essionals o manage hose so s o p ojec s.
John: O cou se, in he end hey’ e un like companies”.
“In a pa k, wo iends si es ing on a bench alking abou NGOs:
John: Did you know Michael has joined an NGO?
Jane: Su e, he same one I'm in. I you' e no in an NGO nowadays you' e nobody; ha en' you seen,
e e ybody amous is in an NGO.
John: And is i ue ha i you' e in an NGO you ge o wi h mo e gi ls?
Jane: O cou se. When you come ou o he gym, pop in and I'll sign you up”.
“In a pa k, wo iends si es ing on a bench alking abou NGOs:
Jane: Ha e you hea d abou he bosses o ha NGO who ha e lined hei pocke s wi h money om
all he subsidies hey go ?
John: Tha ’s no mal... All hose o ganisa ions a e a e he same hing: cash!
Jane: I ’s ue, and on op o ha hey ake ad an age o people's needs.
John: Yes, hey a e a bunch o auds. They should all be behind ba s”.
20
Table 1. Typicali y and pola i y indexes
S a emen s on he Image o Social Ac ion O ganisa ion
Typicali y
Pola i y
NGOs make peace a new social alue.
4.11
.21
NGOs exis as a esul o s a e en i y incapaci ies
4.00
.21
Thanks o he wo k o NGOs, he abuses he mos disad an aged su e
a e denounced.
4.39
.20
NGOs p o es agains disc imina o y go e nmen ac ions.
4.25
.18
S a emen s on he Image o a Cul u e o Solida i y
Typicali y
Pola i y
The key o playing an e icien ole in NGOs lies in being willing o
gi e mo e han you ecei e
4.33
.23
NGOs pu o wa d alues o a be e wo ld.
4.36
.18
NGOs a e made up o gene ous olun ee s who chee ully gi e up hei
ee ime o do good.
4.28
.29
NGOs exempli y a new way o hinking and li ing.
3.69
.07
NGOs de end global equali y.
4.31
.19
NGOs denounce he manipula ion o in o ma ion.
3.36
.02
NGOs campaign o expose uncon olled economic g ow h
3.67
.12
S a emen s on he Image o a Social T end
Typicali y
Pola i y
NGOs a e ‘in’, like digi al pho og aphy, o al ecycling, eco- uels o
u al ou ism.
4.40
.31
Dona ing o an NGO b ings social p es ige.
4.63
.45
Solida i y sells, and ha ’s why NGOs a e ashionable.
4.46
.45
NGOs a e a ashion bandwagon ha e e yone wan s o jump on.
4.74
.55
I ’s endy o be an NGO olun ee .
4.94
.55
Collabo a ing in some way wi h an NGO b ings social p es ige.
4.89
.52
S a emen s on he Image as Misleading O ganisa ions
Typicali y
Pola i y
Many NGOs a e decei ul in hei aspi a ions.
4.39
.59
NGOs ade on cha i y.
4.00
.38
NGOs only look o money o keep hemsel es going, no o do hings.
4.35
.61
NGOs ha e hidden in e es s ha ha e no hing o do wi h help and
coope a ion.
4.71
.67
Membe s o NGOs a e swindle s.
4.68
.75
NGOs a e “a good business” o hose who manage hem.
4.77
.55
Se ing up an NGO is an easy way o ge subsidies and hen use hem
o you own ends.
4.65
.64
NGOs s eal.
4.58
.73

21
Table 2. S uc u e and ac o loadings o he Images o NGOs ques ionnai e
I hink ha …
F1
Misleading
Image
F2
Solida i y
Image
F3
Ins umen al
Image
NGOs only look o money o keep hemsel es going, no o
do hings.
.579
.054
.156
NGOs ha e hidden in e es s ha ha e no hing o do wi h help
and coope a ion.
.565
-.155
.052
Membe s o NGOs a e swindle s.
.630
-.179
.046
NGOs a e “a good business” o hose who manage hem.
.609
-.176
.212
NGOs ade on cha i y.
.590
.009
.049
Se ing up an NGO is an easy way o ge subsidies and hen use
hem o you own ends.
.607
-.095
.079
Many NGOs a e decei ul in hei aspi a ions.
.730
-.213
.057
NGOs s eal.
.793
-.022
.028
NGOs exempli y a new way o hinking and li ing.
-.138
.545
.164
Thanks o he wo k o NGOs, he abuses he mos
disad an aged su e a e denounced.
-.187
.583
-.065
NGOs de end global equali y.
-.057
.712
.020
NGOs pu o wa d alues o a be e wo ld.
-.133
.691
.081
NGOs a e made up o gene ous olun ee s who chee ully gi e
up hei ee ime o do good.
.017
.609
-.029
NGOs denounce he manipula ion o in o ma ion.
.102
.623
.100
NGOs campaign o expose uncon olled economic g ow h.
-.035
.678
-.055
NGOs make peace a new social alue.
-.308
.498
.117
NGOs p o es agains disc imina o y go e nmen ac ions.
-.146
.645
.019
Dona ing o an NGO b ings social p es ige.
-.048
-.038
.772
Solida i y sells, and ha ’s why NGOs a e ashionable.
.311
-.007
.621
Collabo a ing in some way wi h an NGO b ings social
p es ige.
-.073
-.040
.793
NGOs a e ‘in’, like digi al pho og aphy, o al ecycling, eco-
uels o u al ou ism.
.053
.089
.531
I ’s endy o be an NGO olun ee .
.343
.228
.596
NGOs a e a ashion bandwagon ha e e yone wan s o jump
on.
.212
.070
.545
% Explained a iance (44.25%)
20.629
15.165
8.500
α
.821
.814
.741
22
Table 3. S epwise linea eg ession analysis
Independen a iables: Pe cei ed images o NGOs
Dependen a iable: In en ion o collabo a e wi h an NGO
P edic o s
R²
∆R²
β
S ep 1:
Misleading Image o NGOs
.17***
-.41***
S ep 2:
Misleading Image o NGOs
Image o Solida i y o NGOs
.23***
.06***
-.35***
.25***
Dependen a iable: Willingness o ask o he s o collabo a e
P edic o s
R²
∆R²
β
S ep 1:
Misleading Image o NGOs
.11***
-.33***
S ep 2:
Misleading Image o NGOs
Image o Solida i y o NGOs
.26***
.06***
-.26***
.22***
Va iables excluded: Ins umen al Image o NGOs
23
Table 4. Fac o analysis o Psychological eac ance o NGO campaigns
Indica e you le el o ag eemen wi h he ollowing s a emen s
(1 o ally disag ee; 7 o ally ag ee)
Psychological
eac ance o
NGOs
I conside NGO campaigns o be an in usion
.705
I i i a es me when NGO campaigns poin ou hings ha a e ob ious o me
.686
NGO campaigns induce me o do jus he opposi e o wha hey a e asking
.657
I esis he a emp s o NGO campaigns o in luence me
.655
I ge annoyed when NGO campaigns hold up o he people as examples o me o
ollow
.752
When I ealise ha NGO campaigns wan o make me ac in a way hey hink is
be e , I eel like doing jus he opposi e
.771
I ge annoyed when NGO campaigns gi e examples o o he people o make me
eel so y o hem
.728
% Explained a iance
50.269%
α
.834
24
Table 5. Fac o co ela ions (N=485)
Image o Solida i y
Ins umen al Image
Misleading image
-.37
(<.001)
.42
(<.001)
Image o Solida i y
----
.04
(<.36)