Motivational Effects of the Perceived Image of Non-governmental Organisations

! ! ! ! ! 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)