A Study of the Relationship Between Perceived Class Mobility, Philanthropic Sentiment and Consumer Online Giving Behavior Intention

Figures & data

Figure 1 Model of the measurement.

Table 1 Demographics

Demographic variables	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	126	41.0
	Female	181	59.0
Age	Under 18 years old	2	0.7
	18~25	75	24.4
	26~30	59	19.2
	31~40	118	38.4
	41~50	42	13.7
	51~60	10	3.3
	Over 60	1	0.3
Monthly disposable income	1000 and below	11	3.6
	1001–2000	37	12.1
	2001–3000	15	4.9
	3001–5000	47	15.3
	5001–10,000	145	47.2
	10,001–30,000	47	15.3
	Over $30,000	5	1.6
Academic qualifications	High School and below	24	7.8
	Tertiary	43	14.0
	Undergraduate	176	57.3
	Master’s degree students	53	17.3
	PhD and above	11	3.6
Occupation	Full-time students	53	17.3
	Civil Service	35	11.4
	Production staff	8	2.6
	Sales staff	45	14.7
	Marketing/PR personnel	10	3.3
	Customer Service Staff	2	0.7
	Administrative/Logistic Staff	15	4.9
	Human Resources	6	2.0
	Finance/Audit staff	11	3.6
	Clerical/clerical staff	6	2.0
	Technical / R&D staff	19	6.2
	Management staff	18	5.9
	Teachers	25	8.1
	Consultancy / Advisory	2	0.7
	Professionals	17	5.5
	(eg accountants, lawyers, architects, medical professionals, journalists, etc.)
	Other	35	11.4
Total		307	100.0

Table 2 Operational Definitions

Variables	Measurement Questions	Reference Sources
Perceived class mobility	The individual’s judgement of his or her environment and social opportunities and perception of his or her own social class in the present and future	Manoux and Marmot^Citation44
Charitable Emotions	The emotions that people can feel when they see the happiness and joy of others in relation to their own experiences and feelings	Smith^Citation45
Charity	What people think and feel about charity	Herbert^Citation14
Altruism	Behavioural intentions that bring inner pleasure and satisfaction to oneself	Wasko and Faraj^Citation19
Egoism	The idea of acting in one’s own self-interest and pursuing behaviour that contributes to one’s own social status.	Feuerbach^Citation16
Online Giving Behaviour Intention	The social nature of charitable giving on an internet platform	Moons et al^Citation26

Table 3 Variable Measurement Options Design

Variables	Measurement Questions	Reference Sources
Perceived class mobility	PCM1 Upward mobility in my social class compared to when I was 15 years old	CGSS2015 Questionnaire System^Citation47
	PCM2 In 10 years, my social class will be upwardly mobile
	PCM3 My family’s financial situation has improved compared to when I was 15 years old
Charitable Emotions	CE1 I sometimes try to understand my friends and think about things from their point of view.	Liu et al^Citation48
	CE2 I believe there are two sides to every issue and try to look at the whole picture.
	CE3 Before I criticise someone, I think about how I would feel if I were in their position
Egoism	EG1 My good deeds help me to promote myself	Siem and Stürmer^Citation49
	EG2 My good deeds can set an example to others
	EG3 My acts of kindness can make a good impression on others
	EG4 My good deeds can help me improve my social status
Altruism	AL1 My good deeds are good for the development of society	[19]
	AL2 My act of kindness can help someone in need
	AL3 My good deeds can feed the community
Online Giving Behaviour Intention	OGBI1 I would like to donate to charity	Icek Ajzen^Citation50
	OGBI2 I would like to donate to help others
	OGBI3 I would like to donate to give back to the community

Table 4 Reliability and Convergent Validity of Each Construct

Variables	Measurement Items	Standard Load Capacity	Cronbach’s Alpha	rho_A	Combined Reliability (CR)	Average Extraction Variance (AVE)
Perceived class mobility	PCM1	0.908	0.828	0.833	0.898	0.746
	PCM2	0.802
	PCM3	0.877
Egoism	EG1	0.900	0.906	0.907	0.934	0.781
	EG2	0.847
	EG3	0.898
	EG4	0.888
Altruism	AL1	0.888	0.840	0.843	0.903	0.757
	AL2	0.869
	AL3	0.853
Charitable Emotions	CE1	0.887	0.870	0.876	0.920	0.793
	CE2	0.913
	CE3	0.872
Online Giving Behaviour Intention	OGBI1	0.927	0.918	0.918	0.948	0.859
	OGBI2	0.926
	OGBI3	0.927

Abbreviations: PCM, Perceived Class Mobility; EG, Egoism; AL, Altruism; CE, Charitable Emotions; OGBI, Online Giving Behaviour Intention.

Table 5 Distinct Validity

	CC	PCM	CE	OGBI
CC	0.782
PCM	0.597	0.864
CE	0.600	0.473	0.891
OGBI	0.557	0.502	0.625	0.927

Notes: The diagonal bold values are the square root of each conformation AVE, the others are the correlation coefficients of the conformations.

Abbreviations: PCM, Perceived Class Mobility; CC, Charity Concept; CE, Charitable Emotions; OGBI, Online Giving Behaviour Intention.

Table 6 Results of Model Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis	Path	Standardised Path Coefficients	T Statistics	Result
H1	PCM->CE	0.597	12.22***	Support
H2	PCM->CC	0.473	8.347***	Support
H3	PCM->OGBI	0.189	2.395**	Support
H4	CE->OGBI	0.191	2.092**	Support
H5	CC->OGBI	0.420	5.353***	Support

Notes: **P-value<0.01, ***P-value<0.001.

Abbreviations: PCM, Perceived Class Mobility; CC, Charity Concept; CE, Charitable Emotions; OGBI, Online Giving Behaviour Intention.

Figure 2 Standardized path coefficients and significance.

Notes: **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Abbreviations: CVs, control variables; CV1, Age; CV2, Monthly disposable income; CV3, Monthly disposable income; CV4, Occupation.

Table 7 Mediating Effect

Path	Direct Effect (t-value)	Indirect Effect (t-value)	Total Effect (t-value)	VAF (%)	Conclusions
PCM -> CC -> OGBI	0.189*	0.114***	0.279***	40.87%	Partial mediation
PCM -> CE -> OGBI	0.189*	0.198***	0.363***	54.63%	Partial mediation

Notes: *p<0.05, ***p<0.001.

Abbreviations: PCM, Perceived Class Mobility; CC, Charity Concept; CE, Charitable Emotions; OGBI, Online Giving Behaviour Intention.

Manoux E, Marmot M, Marmot MG. Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(6):1321–1333. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00131-4

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fiala L, Noussair CN. Charitable giving, emotions, and the default effect. Econ Inq. 2017;55(4):1792–1812. doi:10.1111/ecin.12459

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spencer H. The Principles of Ethics. Vol. 1. D. Appleton and Company; 1892. Available from: https://sc.panda321.com/#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed June 21, 2023.

 Google Scholar

Wasko ML, Faraj S. ‘It is what one does!’: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. J Strategy Inf Syst. 2000;9(23):155–173. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00045-7

 Google Scholar

Feuerbach L. The essence of christianity. Anboco; 2016. Available from: https://sc.panda321.com/#v=onepage&q=Feuerbach.%20(2016).%20The%20Nature%20of%20Christianity&f=false. Accessed June 21, 2023.

 Google Scholar

Moons G, Seo M, Kim KW. Effects of motivation on charitable giving practices: the case of Korean American immigr ants. Voluntas. 2015;26(6):2645–2670. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9532-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Campagnolo G. Introduction: in search of the meaning of liberalism in a China confronting crisis. In: Liberalism and Chinese Economic Development. Routledge; 2016:15–36. Available from: doi:10.4324/9781315694115-8/. Accessed June 21, 2023.

 Google Scholar

Liu SS, Wen ZY, Su JL, Chong AM, Kong SY, Jiang ZY. Social trust, trust differential, and radius of trust on volunteering: evidence from the Hong Kong Chinese. J Soc Serv Res. 2020;47(2):1–16. doi:10.1080/01488376.2020.1758867

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Siem B, Stürmer S. Attribution of egoistic versus altruistic motives to acts of helping: the role of the helper’s status and the act’s intended publicity. Soc Psychol. 2019;50(1):53–66. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000360

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ajzen I. Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665–683. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data Sharing Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.