Journal of Distribution Science (유통과학연구)

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Distribution of Personal Income on Donating Behavior: Application of Theory of Planned Behaviors

  • Received : 2021.06.11
  • Accepted : 2021.08.05
  • Published : 2021.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explain the application of TPB and personal happiness on donation behavior and willingness to donate. Research design, data, and methodology: The population of this research is people in Indonesia who have a tendency in its culture to donate. The sample size used was 245 people with a purposive sampling method. The analysis technique used is Path Analysis using SEM-PLS. Result: The results show that the subjective norm had appositive and significant effect on attitude to donate; subjective norm has appositive and significant effect on the donation behavior. Personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on attitude to donate, and personal happiness also has a positive and significant effect on the donation behavior, and the donation behavior has a positive and significant effect on the attitude to donate. Conclusions: Being a responsible person to other people's conditions, as you see other people needing help, you will feel that you have the power to help them. you are often helping people in need, which concludes you are a compassionate person.

Keywords

1. Introduction

Donation behavior by distributing personal income is good behavior and should be developed in everyone. Donating behavior teaches us to always share in material form (Smith & McSweeney, 2007; Knowles, Hyde, & White, 2012; Kashif, Sarifuddin, & Hassan, 2015) or non- material (Warburton & Terry, 2000; Hyde & White, 2009: Otto & Bolle, 2011), to always try to help people. Research on the donation behavior has been studied by many people, including: Charseatd (2016); Martin, Greiling and Leibetseder (2017); Liu, Bao and Zheng (2019); Chen, Dai, Yao and Li (2019); Septianto, Tjiptono, Paramita and Chiew (2020). In accordance with the development of the digital era, donation behavior can now be done online (Ahn, J. Chang, Sura, & An, 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Paramita, Septianto, Rostiani, Winahjoe, & Audita, 2020);. The usual source of donations comes from personal income. Personal income tends to be divided based on needs and desires, one of which is the desire to donate. The factors that determine donation behavior are internal factors of the individual itself and external factors. External factors are factors outside of the individual himself, such as family, parents, role models, or important people, and social groups (Knowles et al., 2012; Kasri & Ramli, 2019). Ng, Cowling, So, Ip and Liao (2020); Pham, Dang, and Nguyen (2020), examined the effect of subjective norm on donation behavior by distributing personal income, which found that the subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on donation behavior by distributing personal income. Likewise, previous researchers Rivis and Sheeran (2003), showed that the influence of social groups greatly determines someone's donation behavior by distributing personal income. Similar results were shown by several other researchers, including: Kasri and Chaerunnisa (2021); Wang, Li, Kang and Zheng (2019); Zhou, Xue, Yu and Zhou (2018). However, there are still researchers who show that subjective norms have no effect on donating behavior (Kashif et al., 2015). This shows that there is a research gap about the effect of subjective norms on donating behavior.

In Because of this research gap, this study develops factors that influence donation behavior by distributing personal income by adding the variables driving the donation behavior by distributing personal income to the personal happiness variable. This is done because if a person has positive emotions, the behavior leads to positive behavior as well, and one of the positive behaviors is the donation behavior by distributing personal income. Likewise, this is because personal happiness can indeed increase the donation behavior by distributing personal income (Shehu, Langmaack, Felchle, & Clement, 2015; Soliman & Boenigk, 2019). Negative emotions reduce the donation behavior by distributing personal income (Nesbit, 2012). In addition, there are also research results that show disagreement, which states that positive emotions have a negative effect on blood donation (Charbonneau, Cloutier, & Carrier, 2016; Schreiber, Schlumpf, Glynn, Wright, Tu, King, Higgins, Kessler, Gilcher, Nass, & Guiltinan, 2006).

Based on the existing research gap, it needs to be supplemented by adding a mediating variable. The mediating variable used is the attitude variable about donating. The reasons for including the attitude variable as a mediating variable include: if someone gets suggestions from people who are considered important, then that person usually has a positive attitude as well as those suggested. The results also show that subjective norms have a positive and significant effect on attitudes (Agarwal, 2019; Bananuka, Kasera, Najjemba, Musimenta, Ssekiziyivu, & Kimuli, 2020), and attitudes also have a positive and significant effect on donating behavior (Knowles et al., 2012; Kashif et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2019). Likewise, personal happiness encourages people to be positive about donating behavior. Based on the background of the existing problems, this study aims to examine and explain the effect of personal happiness and subjective norms on attitudes and behavior in donating in Indonesia. This research is important because the habit of donating is a good thing and can help people who are in need directly or indirectly. The behavior of donating or setting aside the income earned to donate is a noble human behavior and must be cultivated. Personal happiness is a condition for someone who is having positive emotions with feelings of being happy, comfortable, and peaceful. Emotion is a term that denotes subjective feelings (Barsade, 2002) and a status of pleasure or displeasure (Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007). Over the centuries, emotions impact human decisions into intriguing riddles that have baffled scientists, philosophers, writers, policymakers and, in effect, entire societies. Despite the great scientific advances made in the last century, we still know very little about how emotions influence human behavior including the donation behavior by distributing personal income. In recent years, research has developed that examines the effect of personal happiness on human behavior. There are those who examine the impact of happiness on entrepreneurial behavior (Wolfe & Shepherd, 2015; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2017) and there are also those who examine the relationship of happiness to donating behavior (Soliman & Boenigk, 2019). Personal happiness is reflected in feelings of joy, feelings of optimism, feelings of always being excited, can smile, and always feels at peace.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). First proposed by Ajzen (1991), TPB is an extended model of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) that is used to predict and explain individual intentions and behavior. This model contains three constructs, namely: perceived behavioral control, attitudes toward behavior, and subjective norms. The last two constructs are derived from TRA (Hill, Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1977). This model examines whether these three factors influence people's intentions and in turn influence their behavior. Behavioral attitude refers to beliefs about predictable behavior. Positive attitudes tend to positively influence behavioral intentions. Although TPB initially appeared in the organizational behavior literature, in recent years, it has been used in various studies on donation behavior by distributing personal income (De Cannie`re, De Pelsmacker, & Geuens, 2009; Holdershaw, Gendall, & Wright, 2011; Martín-Santana & Beerli-Palacio, 2012; Faqah, Moiz, Shahid, Ibrahim, & Raheem, 2015). Studies have confirmed that the behavior of giving is largely determined by individual attitudes, subjective norms, and attitudes to donate even though the power of influence of each construct differs in various contexts and situations.

Subjective norm refers to the social pressure that a person may feel regarding certain behaviors or is said to be a person's belief that a certain individual or group thinks he should or does not carry out the behavior and his motivation to comply with certain references (Agarwal, 2019). Subjective norm is the social pressure that is felt to do or not perform behavior (Chen et al., 2019; Bananuka et al., 2020). When individuals are in groups, there are certain rules or norms, or certain beliefs about proper consumption behavior (Ghazali, Soon, Mutum, & Nguyen, 2017). This is a variable commonly used in behavioral research. This particular individual or group is usually an important person, such as friends, family or colleagues. Subjective norm is also considered as an element of social influence and is also often known as social pressure (Ajzen, 1991). The higher an individual's subjective norm, the more likely he or she intends to behave as expected by other references (Hameed, Waris, & Amin Ul Haq, 2019; Muhamad, Khamarudin, & Fauzi, 2019) . In this study, the subjective norm measurement, refers to the research of Chen et al. (2019), which have been modified as follows: 1) influence from parents, 2) influence from close friends, and 3) influence from other parties who are considered important apart from parents and close friends, 4) influence from public opinion.

According to Ahn et al., (2018), an attitude affects individual behavior by filtering information and shaping individual perceptions of the world. They state that donating behavior is influenced by positive views or attitudes about donating (Knowles et al., 2012). In addition, research conducted by Agarwal (2019) and Bananuka et al. (2020) stated that the attitude towards donations is influenced by subjective norms and a person's emotional condition. Research conducted by Kashif et al. (2015) and Chen et al. (2019), states that attitude has a significant effect on donation behavior by distributing personal income. The attitude indicator in this study refers to the research of Liu, Suh, and Wagner (2018) and Chen et al. (2019) and it is also modified according to the existing reality, namely donations are considered positive, useful donations, are happy with donation activities, and are a future investment.

Donation behavior by distributing personal income is behavior that wants to help people (Chang, 2014; Lee, Winterich, & Ross, 2014; Septianto et al., 2020). This behavior can be demonstrated by being responsive or responding to other people's conditions, when you see other people needing help, you feel you have the power to help, want to give from your heart, often help what other people need, and are a compassionate person (Chang, 2014; Lee et al., 2014). In accordance with the times, donating behavior can be conducted offline and online. Likewise, the donations given can be both material and material (blood donors, organ donors, giving up the time they have to help people).

Sharps and Schroeder (2019) states the act of distributing money can increase the total donation amount. We reasoned that if people feel compelled to donate to each individual requester who they view, then having to make decisions about how to help multiple requesters might ultimately lead them to end up donating more. In this way, donation decisions that are “unpacked” into constituent requesters may lead to more donations than those that are “packed” (so that multiple requests are viewed in a single unit) or those that involve viewing just a single requester. Fairness is a powerful psychological motive that can be leveraged in donation decisions. For example, charities might try designing a donation page with a small number of requesters who seem very similar in neediness or deservingness, as it may make it harder for donors to justify leaving some requesters not getting help.

The debate on the “charitable-giving profile” started in the 1990s with several studies revealing contradicting results. Some of them find that the generosity of the population, defined as the amount donated divided by income, follows a U-shaped curve, with individuals at both ends of the income distribution donating the highest proportions of their income (Auten, Clotflter, & Schmalbeck, 2002; James & Sharpe, 2007; Jencks, 1987). Other studies do not find that lower income groups are more generous, but rather describe the charitable-giving profile as a flat curve with an upward slope for higher income groups (Schervish & Havens, 1998; Schervish, O’Herlihy, & Havens, 2002). The relation between income and proportion of income donated is negative, described by a linear downward-sloping curve (Benediktson, 2018). Finally, some further studies describe the curve to be overall flat, with the proportion of income donated being the same across all income groups (Schervish & Havens, 1995; Neumayr & Pennerstorfer, 2021). First, people in the lowest income group donate the largest proportion of income. Second, the profile of the charitable giving curve seems to be fairly flat for middle- and high-income groups. Third, regarding the very high-income groups, the relation is more difficult to describe.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis

2.1. The Effect of Personal Happiness on Donation Behavior by Distributing Personal Income

Soliman and Boenigk (2019) which states that personal happiness plays an important role in increasing donation behavior by distributing personal income. Similar results have been obtained previously by Barrett et al., (2007), which states that positive emotional experiences encourage people to make donations. The results of this study were also reinforced by the results of research from Agarwal (2019)which found that the personal happiness variable had a positive and significant influence on the variable of donating behavior. It can be concluded that personal happiness has a positive and significant influence on donating behavior, this means that the higher the personal happiness, the donation behavior by distributing personal income increases.

H1: Positive and significant personal happiness towards donation behavior by distributing personal income

2.2. The Effect of Subjective Norm on Donation Behavior by Distributing Personal Income

Kashif et al. (2015), which states that the subjective norm variable has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior. The results of this study were confirmed by research by Chen et al. (2019), found the results of the subjective norm variable have a positive and significant effect on donating behavior so that it can be concluded that subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior, this means that the better the subjective norm is able to increase the higher the donation behavior by distributing personal income.

H2: The subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior

2.3. The Effect of Personal Happiness on Attitude to Donate

Soliman and Boenigk (2019), regarding the role of personal happiness in increasing a positive attitude of donation. This result is also confirmed by the research results of Bananuka et al. (2020), found that personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on donating attitudes. It can be concluded that, in order to build a positive attitude for the Indonesian people to donate, individual happiness must be created first.

H3: Personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on donating attitudes.

2.4. The Effect of Subjective Norm on the Attitude to Donate

Kashi et al. (2015), shows that subjective norms can increase a positive attitude of donating. Furthermore, Bananuka et al. (2020), who examined the subjective effect of norms on donating attitudes, also found the same results, where subjective norms had a positive and significant effect on donating attitudes. In addition, there are several researchers who show consistent results, namely Holdershaw et al. (2011); Faqah et al. (2015). It can be concluded that the subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on the attitude of donating, this means that the better the subjective norm is given to the community, the more positive the attitude to donate.

H4: The subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on the attitude of donating.

2.5. The Effect of Attitude to donate on Donation Behavior by Distributing Personal Income

Wang et al. (2019) regarding the effect of attitude being able to increase donation behavior by distributing personal income. Previously, there were other researchers, namely Smith and McSweeney (2007), who studied the attitude of being able to increase the donation behavior by distributing personal income; and Knowles et al. (2012), found that the attitude of donating has a positive effect on donating behavior. This result is also reinforced by the results of research by Kasri and Ramli (2019) found that attitude has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior.

H5: Attitude has a positive and significant effect on donation behavior by distributing personal income

3. Research Methods and Materials

The measurement of the variable construct in this study refers to previous research and is further modified according to the conditions in the field. The measurement of personal happiness variable refers to the measurement used by Soliman and Boenigk (2019); Measurement of subjective norm variable refers to the measurement used by Chen et al. (2019); and the measurement of the attitude variable refers to the measurement used by Liu et al. (2018) and Chen et al. (2019), and measurement of donation behavior by distributing personal income refers to the measurements made by Chang, 2014; Lee et al., 2014). Furthermore, the measurement of all the variables studied can be seen in Table 1. The measurement scale used is a five-level Likert scale, from strongly disagree (1), agree (2), quite agree (3), agree (4), strongly agree (5).

Table 1: Measurement of Variables

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_t0001.png 이미지

When viewed from the nature of the problem, this research is a type of causality research. That is, this study aims to examine the causality relationship between the variables of personal happiness, subjective norms, attitudes, and donation behavior by distributing personal income. This research was conducted on Indonesians who have made donations at least twice. The questionnaire was distributed to many WhatApp groups using the google form. The data collected by 30 respondents were tested for validity and reliability.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 2 shows that all variables are valid because the correlation value is above 0.30 and reliable because the Cronbach's Alpha value is above 0.6. Furthermore, data collection was continued by distributing questionnaires in google form format to many WhatApp groups and collected as many as 245 respondents. This number has exceeded the targeted sample size of 160 respondents. A sample of 245 respondents, then analyzed using analysis tools, namely: Path Analysis using SEM-PLS.

Table 2: Characteristics of Respondent

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_t0002.png 이미지

Profiles of 245 respondents are presented in general with several characteristics including gender, age, latest education, occupation and monthly income. The characteristics of the respondents in this study can be described as follows. Female respondents were more than male respondents, namely 139 women and 106 male respondents. The age range 18-28 years dominated the filling of the questionnaire as many as 166 people. Respondents with education at the secondary education level and the equivalent dominate, as many as 146 people. Respondents in this study on average have other professions, such as: retirees, students, directors of stateowned enterprises (BUMN), of 160 people. Grouping of respondents based on monthly income shows that as many as 173 people earn Rp. 2 - 5 million. The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 2.

This study uses a two-stage approach to measuring the model before it is used for hypothesis testing, which aims to verify the validity and reliability of a research model. First, by analyzing convergent validity, followed by analyzing discriminant validity. Convergent Validity. The outer model test is carried out to ensure the research indicators are feasible to use as their role in measuring the research variables, so to see whether a model is valid to be the basis for research, there are three criteria that must be met, namely: (1) all loading indicators must be above 0.65 (2) Composite Reliability (CR) must be above 0.8, and (3) Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct must exceed 0.5.

Based on Table 3, it shows that all outer loading indicators have a value above 0.65 with a range between 0.718 to 0.912 meaning that it is at the recommended limit, then the Composite Reliability (CR) value is in the range between 0.872 to 0.921, all of which are above 0.8 meaning that all constructs are formed. has good consistency as a research model, the third is the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value where all values are above 0.5, namely with a range from 0.625 to 0.789 so it can be concluded that the research model in this study has good validity. Discriminant validity is considered good if the root value of AVE (√AVE) in Table 6 is greater than 0.5. The research model proposed in this study can be considered good, where the smallest √ AVE value is 0.791.

Table 3: Model Size Results

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_t0003.png 이미지

Table 6: Indirect Effects

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_t0006.png 이미지

Structural models focus on the hypothesized relationships or pathways between latent variables. The results of the inner model test can be seen in Figure 2. The structural model was evaluated using the R-square for the dependent construct and the t test and the significance of the structural path parameter coefficients.

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: Structural Model

In this study, a bootstrap will be carried out which will produce two structural model measurements, namely: the ttest and R2 values which will be interpreted the same as multiple regression analysis in general. The predictive strength of a research model can be seen by looking at the R2 value generated by the bootstrapping process, in Table 7. the R2 value for each exogenous variable contained in the model will be presented.

Based on Table 4, it can be explained that the highest R2 value is in the donation behavior by distributing personal income variable of 0.491 which means that as many as 49.10% of the donating behavior variable can be explained by the constructs contained in the model, namely personal happiness, subjective norm, and attitude, while the lowest value is in the attitude variable. Donating with 0.289 which means that 28.90% of the attitude variable donating can be explained the constructs that affect these variables, namely personal happiness and subjective norm. From the examination of the R2 value, it can be concluded that in general the predictive ability of this research model is sufficient or moderate, seen from all variables that have the same R2 value or nearly 50%.

Table 4: Coefficient of Determination

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_t0004.png 이미지

Hypothesis testing. The significance of the estimated parameters provides very useful information about the relationship between the research variables. The basis used in testing the hypothesis is the value contained in the output path coefficients which are presented in Table 5. Hypothesis testing is done using t-statistics and looking at the p-value. If the p-value <0.05, the hypothesis is accepted. Based on Table 5, it can be explained that personal happiness on donation behavior by distributing personal income has a t-statistic value of 4.361 with a p-value of 0.000 <0.05, so the hypothesis is accepted. This means that the higher the personal happiness, the higher the donation behavior by distributing personal income of the Indonesian people. The norm objective of the donation behavior by distributing personal income has a t-statistical value of 2,575 with a p-value of 0.010 <0.05, so the hypothesis is accepted. This means that the higher the subjective norm, the higher the donation behavior by distributing personal income. Personal happiness towards the attitude of donating has a t-statistic value of 5.206 with a p-value of 0.000 <0.05, so the hypothesis is accepted. This means that the higher the personal happiness, the more positive the attitude of donating. Furthermore, subjective norm also affects the attitude of donating with a t-statistic value of 5.812 with a p-value of 0.000 <0.05, so the hypothesis is accepted; The attitude of donating also affects the donation behavior by distributing personal income with a statistical t value of 7,197 with a p-value of 0.000 <0.05, the hypothesis is accepted.

Table 5: Path Coefficient

OTGHB7_2021_v19n8_57_t0005.png 이미지

Indirect Effect Testing (Mediation Test). Test the me diating role of the attitude of donating on the effect of personal happiness on donating behavior and the effect of subjective norms on donating behavior by examining the indirect effects which are the output of Smart PLS a s presented in Table 9. Based on Table 9, it can be exp lained that the t-statistic value is greater than the t value -table (4.215> 1.96), then the attitude of donating signi ficantly partially mediates the effect of personal happine ss on donation behavior by distributing personal income and the t-statistic value (4.719> 1.96), then the attitude of mediating significantly effects subjective norm on d onating behavior.

The Effect of Personal Happiness on Donation Behavior by Distributing Personal Income. Based on the results of the analysis of the effect of personal happiness on donating behavior, the beta coefficient value is 0.254 with a significance level of 0.000 ≤ 0.05, which means that Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted. This result means that the personal happiness variable has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior. This means that, the higher the personal happiness of the Indonesian people, which is shown by the feeling of being happy every day, feeling optimistic when loyal, excited, always smiling, and having a feeling of peace, the greater the ability to donate.

The results of this study at the same time strengthen the results of previous research conducted by Soliman and Boenigk (2019) which states that personal happiness plays an important role in increasing donation behavior by distributing personal income. Similar results have been obtained previously by Barrett et al. (2007), which states that positive emotional experiences encourage people to make donations. The results of this study were also reinforced by the results of research from Agarwal (2019) which found that the personal happiness variable had a positive and significant effect on the variable of donating behavior. It can be concluded that personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior, this means that the higher the personal happiness, the donation behavior by distributing personal income increases.

The Effect of Subjective Norm on Donation Behavior by Distributing Personal Income. Based on the results of the analysis of the subjective norm effect on donation behavior by distributing personal income, the beta coefficient value is 0.193 with a significance level of 0.010 ≤ 0.05, which means that Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted. These results mean, the subjective norm variable has a positive and significant effect on donation behavior by distributing personal income. So, the better the subjective norm, which is shown by the effect of family, friends, important people, and public opinion about donating, the better the donation behavior by distributing personal income can be.

The results of this study at the same time strengthen the results of previous studies conducted by Kashif et al. (2015), which states that the subjective norm variable has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior. The results of this study were confirmed by research by Chen et al. (2019), found the results of the subjective norm variable have a positive and significant effect on donating behavior so that it can be concluded that subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior, this means that the better the subjective norm is able to increase the higher the donation behavior by distributing personal income.

The Effect of Personal Happiness on Attitude to Donate. Based on the results of the analysis of the effect of personal happiness on donating attitudes, the beta coefficient value is 0.334 with a significance level of 0.000 ≤ 0.05), which means that Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted. This result means that personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on the attitude of donating. This means that the higher the personal happiness of the Indonesian people is shown by feeling happy every day, feeling optimistic when loyal, excited, always smiling, and having a feeling of peace, then can increase the positive attitude of donating.

The results of this study at the same time strengthen the results of previous research conducted by Soliman and Boenigk (2019), regarding the role of personal happiness in increasing a positive attitude of donation. This result is also confirmed by the research results of Bananuka et al. (2020), found that personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on donating attitudes. It can be concluded that, in order to build a positive attitude for the Indonesian people to donate, individual happiness must be created first.

The Effect of Subjective Norm on The Attitude To Donate. Based on the results of the analysis of the subjective norm effect on the attitude of donating, the beta coefficient value is 0.301 with a significance level of 0.000 ≤ 0.05, which means that Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted. These results mean, subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on attitudes. This means, the better the subjective norm, which is shown by the influence of family, friends, important people, and public opinion about donating, the better the attitude of donating will be positive.

The results of this study at the same time strengthen the results of previous studies conducted by Kashif et al. (2015), regarding subjective norms being able to increase a positive attitude of donating. Furthermore Bananuka et al. (2020), who examined the subjective effect of norms on donating attitudes, also found the same results, namely subjective norms had a positive and significant effect on donating attitudes. In addition, there are several researchers who show consistent results, namely Holdershaw, Gendall, and Wright (2011); Faqah et al. (2015). It can be concluded that the subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on the attitude of donating, this means that the better the subjective norm is given to the community, the more positive the attitude to donate.

The Effect of Attitude to Donate on Donation Behavior by Distributing Personal Income. Based on the results of the analysis of the effect of the attitude of donating on the donation behavior by distributing personal income, the beta coefficient value is 0.419 with a significance level of 0.000 ≤ 0.05, which means that Ho is rejected and H1 is accepted. These results mean that the attitude of donating has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior. This means, the more positive the attitude of donating is shown by a positive view of donations, getting the benefits of donating, being happy to see other people donating, and being a savings in the afterlife, the more frequent donations will be able to increase.

The results of this study at the same time strengthen the results of previous studies conducted by Wang et al. (2019), regarding the effect of attitude being able to increase donation behavior by distributing personal income. Previously, there were other researchers, namely Smith and McSweeney (2007), who studied the attitude of being able to increase the donation behavior by distributing personal income; and Knowles et al. (2012) found that the attitude of donating has a positive effect on donating behavior. This result is also reinforced by the results of research by Kasri and Ramli (2019), found that attitude has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior.

5. Conclusions

The conclusion of this study is donation can be demonstrated by being responsive or responding to other people's conditions, when you see other people needing help, you feel you have the power to help, want to give from your heart, often help what other people need, and are a compassionate person. The subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior. This result means that the better the subjective norm, the higher the donation behavior by distributing personal income Personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on donating behavior. This result means that the higher the personal happiness, the more the donation behavior by distributing personal income increases. The subjective norm has a positive and significant effect on the attitude of donating. This result means that the better the subjective norm, the more positive the attitude of donating. Personal happiness has a positive and significant effect on donating attitudes. This result means that, the higher the personal happiness, the more positive the attitude of donating. The attitude of donating has a positive and significant effect on the donation behavior by distributing personal income. This result means that the more positive the attitude of donating, the more it will increase the donation behavior by distributing personal income. Fairness is a powerful psychological.

This research was only conducted in Indonesian society, which turned out to be that respondents were dominated by the millennial generation, so that the research results could not be generalized to other generations. In addition, the data is taken cross-sectional, so that environmental changes occur at any time, so that in the future longitudinal research is needed. Likewise, the exogenous variable only adds to the personal happiness variable on the TPB and in the future it can be added with the religiosity variable, other local wisdom values that are roughly related to donation behavior by distributing personal income.

References

  1. Agarwal, P. (2019). Theory of Reasoned Action and Organic Food Buying in India. Srusti Management Review, 12(2), 28-37. http://srustimanagementreview.ac.in/paper_detail.php?id=MzU2
  2. Ahn, J. chang, Sura, S., & An, J. C. (2018). Intention to donate via social network sites (SNSs): A comparison study between Malaysian and South Korean users. Information Technology and People, 31(4), 910-926. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0307
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  4. Auten, G. E., Clotfelter, C. T., & Schmalbeck, R. L. (2002). Taxes and philanthropy among the wealthy. In Slemrod, J. B. (Ed.), Does atlas shrug? The economic consequences of taxing the rich (pp. 392-424), Massachusetts, UK: Harvard University Press.
  5. Bananuka, J., Kasera, M., Najjemba, G.M., Musimenta, D., Ssekiziyivu, B., & Kimuli, S.N.L. (2020). Attitude: mediator of subjective norm, religiosity and intention to adopt Islamic banking. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(1), 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-02-2018-0025
  6. Barrett, L.F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K.N., & Gross, J.J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373-403. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085709
  7. Barsade, S.G. (2002). The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3094912 https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3094912
  8. Benediktson, M. N. (2018). Investigating the U-shaped charitable giving profile using register-based data. COHERE discussion paper (pp.1-38), Odense, Denmark: University of Southern Denmark
  9. Chang, C. (2014). Guilt regulation: the relative effects of altruistic versus egoistic appeals for charity advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(3), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.853632
  10. Charbonneau, J., Cloutier, M.S., & Carrier, E. (2016). Why do blood donors lapse or reduce their donation's frequency. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 30(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2015.12.001
  11. Charseatd, P. (2016). Role of religious beliefs in blood donation behavior by distributing personal income among the youngster in Iran: a theory of planned behavior perspective. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 7(3), 250-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-05-2014-0037
  12. Chen, Y., Dai, R., Yao, J., & Li, Y. (2019). Donate time or money? The determinants of donation intention in online crowdfunding. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(16), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164269
  13. De Cannie're, M.H., De Pelsmacker, P., & Geuens, M. (2009). Relationship quality and the theory of planned behavior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.001
  14. Faqah, A., Moiz, B., Shahid, F., Ibrahim, M., & Raheem, A. (2015). Assessment of blood donation intention among medical students in Pakistan-an application of theory of planned behavior. Transfusion & Apheresis Science, 53(3), 353-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2015.07.003
  15. Ghazali, E., Soon, P.C., Mutum, D. S., & Nguyen, B. (2017). Health and cosmetics: Investigating consumers' values for buying organic personal care products. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 154-163. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v39y2017icp154-163.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.002
  16. Hameed, I., Waris, I., & Amin Ul Haq, M. (2019). Predicting eco-conscious consumer behavior using theory of planned behavior in Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(15), 15535-15547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04967-9
  17. Hyde, M.K., & White, K.M. (2009). To be a donor or not to be? Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to predict posthumous organ donation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 880-900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00464.x
  18. Hill, R.J., Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Contemporary Socialogy, 6(2), 244-245. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065853
  19. Holdershaw. J., Gendall, P., & Wright, M. (2011). Predicting blood donation behaviour: further application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(2), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/20426761111141878
  20. James, R. N., & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 218-238. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764006295993 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764006295993
  21. Jencks, C. (1987). Who gives to what? In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (pp. 321-339), London, UK: Yale University Press.
  22. Kashif, M., Sarifuddin, S., & Hassan, A. (2015). Charity donation: intentions and behavior. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 33(1), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-07-2013-0110
  23. Kasri, R. A., & Chaerunnisa, S. R. (2021). The role of knowledge, trust, and religiosity in explaining the online cash waqf amongst Muslim millennials. Journal of Islamic Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-04-2020-0101
  24. Kasri, R.A., & Ramli, U.H. (2019). Why do Indonesian Muslims donate through mosques? A theory of planned behaviour approach. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 12(5), 663-679. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-11-2018-0399
  25. Knowles, S.R., Hyde, M.K., & White, K.M. (2012). Predictors of young people's charitable intentions to donate money: an extended theory of planned behaviour perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2096-2110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00932.x
  26. Lee, S., Winterich, K.P., & Ross, W.T. (2014). I'm moral, but I won't help you: the distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678-696. https://doi.org/10.1086/677226
  27. Liu, C., Bao, Z., & Zheng, C. (2019). Exploring consumers' purchase intention in social commerce: an empirical study based on trust, argument quality, and social presence. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(2), 378-397. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-05-2018-0170
  28. Liu, L., Suh, A., & Wagner, C. (2018). Empathy or perceived credibility? An empirical study on individual donation behavior by distributing personal income in charitable crowdfunding. Internet Research, 28(3), 623-651. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2017-0240
  29. Martin, S., Greiling, D., & Leibetseder, N. (2017). Effects of word-of-mouth on the behavior of Austrian blood donors: a case study of the Red Cross blood donation service. Health Promotion International, 34(3), 429-439. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax086
  30. Martin-Santana, J.D., & Beerli-Palacio, A. (2012). Achieving donor repetition and motivation by block leaders among current blood donors. Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 47(3), 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2012.05.015
  31. Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs: a model of challenge-based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12253 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12253
  32. Muhamad, N., Khamarudin, M., & Fauzi, W.I.M. (2019). The role of religious motivation in an international consumer boycott. British Food Journal, 121(1), 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2018-0118
  33. Nesbit, R. (2012). The influence of major life cycle events on volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1153-1174. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764011429181 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764011429181
  34. Neumayr, M., & Pennerstorfer, A. (2021). The Relation Between Income and Donations as a Proportion of Income Revisited: Literature Review and Empirical Application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(3), 551-577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020977667
  35. Ng, T.W.Y., Cowling, B.J., So, H.C., Ip, D.K.M., & Liao, Q. (2020). Testing an integrative theory of health behavioural change for predicting seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among healthcare workers. Vaccine, 38(3), 690-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.041
  36. Otto, P.E., & Bolle, F. (2011). Multiple facets of altruism and their influence on blood donation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(5),558-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2011.04.010.
  37. Paramita, W., Septianto, F., Rostiani, R., Winahjoe, S., & Audita, H. (2020). Turning narcissists into prosocial agents: explaining young people's online donation behavior by distributing personal income. Young Consumers, 21(4), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-11-2019-1070
  38. Pham, Q.T., Dang, N.M., & Nguyen, D.T. (2020). Factors affecting on the digital piracy behavior: an empirical study in Vietnam. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(2), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762020000200108
  39. Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 22(3), 218-233. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-003-1018-2
  40. Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (1995). Do the poor pay more: Is the U-shaped curve correct? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089976409502400109 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089976409502400109
  41. Schervish, P. G., Havens, J. J. (1998). Embarking on a republic of benevolence? New survey findings on charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 237-242. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764098272007 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764098272007
  42. Schervish, P. G., O'Herlihy, M. A., & Havens, J. J. (2002). Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what, and how. In Powell, W. W., Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 542-567), London, UK:Yale University Press.
  43. Schreiber, G.B., Schlumpf, K.S., Glynn, S.A., Wright, D.J., Tu, Y., King, M.R., Higgins, M., Kessler, D., Gilcher, R., Nass, C.C., & Guiltinan, A. (2006). Convenience, the bane of our existence, and other barriers to donating. Transfusion, 46(4), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.00757.x
  44. Septianto, F., Tjiptono, F., Paramita, W., & Chiew T.M., (2020). The interactive effects of religiosity and recognition in increasing donation. European Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2019-0326
  45. Sharps, D. L., & Schroeder, J. (2019). The preference for distributed helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 954-977. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000179
  46. Shehu, E., Langmaack, A.C., Felchle, E., & Clement, M. (2015). Profiling donors of blood, money, and time. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(3), 269-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21126
  47. Smith, J.R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: the effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behavior. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.906
  48. Soliman, M., & Boenigk, S. (2019). Individual life events and blood giving. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(7), 926-938. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2018-2588
  49. Wang, T., Li, Y., Kang, M., & Zheng, H. (2019). Exploring individuals' behavioral intentions toward donation crowdfunding: evidence from China. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(7), 1515-1534. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2018-0451
  50. Warburton, J., & Terry, D.J. (2000). Volunteer Decision Making By Older People: A Test of a Revised Theory of Planned Behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2203_11
  51. Wolfe, M.T., & Shepherd, D.A. (2015). "Bouncing back" from a loss: entrepreneurial orientation, emotions, and failure narratives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 675-700. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12057 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12057
  52. Zhou, G., Xue, K., Yu, M., & Zhou, N. (2018). The effects of perceived deceptiveness and pressure on consumer donation: a mixed-methods study. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(1), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2018-0114