Bequest Giving: Revisiting

Donor Motivation with

Dimensional Qualitative
Research
Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang
Indiana University

ABSTRACT

This research seeks to examine donor motivation for supporting non-

profits with a bequest. We employ dimensional qualitative research
(DQR) procedures, demonstrating both the utility of the approach
and how the framework can be employed to illuminate bequest giving.
Employing an approach to data analysis based on grounded theory,
our findings indicate that bequest gifts are motivated by a variety of
factors, including a lack of family need, a need to live on, a desire to
make a difference to a cause, reciprocity, and spite. In addition, we
highlight a second-order modality that emerged from the BASIC IDS
analytical framework. Identification was found to be a highly influ-
ential factor in driving bequest-giving behavior. A series of practical
fund raising recommendations are offered to facilitate giving. © 2011
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Recent figures from the Giving USA Foundation provide testimony to the sig-
nificance of bequest income for the U.S. nonprofit sector. The total value of
bequests stood at $23.15 billion in 2007, accounting for some 7.6% of total giv-
ing. This compares with 74.8% from living individuals, 12.6% from foundations,
and 5.1% from corporations (Giving USA Foundation, 2008). Although bequests
account for just 8% of total voluntary income, this figure belies their enhanced

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28(10): 980–997 (October 2011)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20424
980
significance for many organizations. Mann and Sharpe (2004), for example,
remind us that it is not unusual for organizations with well-established bequest
programs to receive upwards of 30% of their philanthropic support in this form.
Historically, specific sectors have benefited particularly from gifts of this type.
In the U.S., bequests to higher education, for example, in 2005–2006 accounted
for 22% of giving by individuals (Kaplan, 2007).
Although bequests are a highly significant source of income for charities,
comparatively few of us will remember a charity in our will. While over 80% of
individuals will give during their lifetime, it is estimated that only around 5%
of those who die leave a bequest to charity, a figure which has remained remark-
ably static for over a century (Harris, 1911; Radcliffe, 2007). Recent longitudi-
nal work by James (2008) examining known charity donors established that a
mere “10% to 12% of that group will die with any charitable estate provision”
(p. 3). It is therefore not without cause that writers such as Smith (1996) regard
the bequest as “the last great fundraising opportunity” (p. 35).
This research seeks to extend our understanding of the motives individuals
might have for offering such gifts and to offer practical recommendations for
fundraisers in regard to how they might facilitate higher levels of participation
in this form of giving. We focus on delineating the motives for offering charita-
ble bequests and the mechanisms that fundraisers might employ to engage with
these and facilitate behavior change. The requirement to understand the “why”
of bequests made the application of an approach based on dimensional qualitative
research (DQR) particularly appropriate (Cohen, 1999; Shabbir, Palihawadana,
& Thwaites, 2007). The topic of bequests is often considered a sensitive and
highly personal one, with many individuals reluctant to talk candidly about
this most private form of giving. The use of the multimodal assessment at the
root of DQR offers a helpful way of circumventing sensitive issues while ensur-
ing that the focus remains squarely on acquiring data that may be used to facil-
itate behavioral change. The origins of this perspective can be traced back to
Lazarus (1973), who proposed a multimodal approach to affecting behavioral
change comprising seven modalities; behavior, affect, sensation, imagery, cog-
nition, interpersonal relations, and drugs (or health related). Cohen adapted
this framework by including social and cultural factors and coined the acronym
BASIC IDS to include this latter dimension. We employ this approach to data
collection, demonstrating the value of this framework. We begin, however, by
setting our primary study in context.

BEQUEST MOTIVES

Over the past 30 years, there has been considerable interest in determining
motives for giving in the traditional disciplines of economics, psychology, and soci-
ology (Sargeant, 1999). A number of excellent reviews of this material have been
conducted in the field of marketing, including Burnett and Wood (1988), Guy and
Patton (1989), Bendapudi, Surendra, and Bendapudi (1996), and Sargeant
and Woodliffe (2007). All these models offer utility for the bequest marketer, but
in focusing on general giving (or helping), it is possible that some of the nuances
of what drives bequest giving may be overlooked. It is, after all, a very distinc-
tive form of giving, being planned typically a number of years before the gift

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 981

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
will be made and where the donor (usually) will not be cognizant of the benefit
that is ultimately realized for the beneficiary group.
An emerging body of research has specifically addressed the motives for offer-
ing a charitable bequest. Indeed, a plethora of analyses have now been per-
formed on the effect of estate tax deductibility on the uptake of this form of giving
(Boskin, 1976; Feldstein, 1976; McNees, 1973). Boskin (1976), for example, indi-
cates that the elasticity of charitable bequests with respect to the after-tax cost
of contributing is about ⫺1.0. This result indicates that a fall in estate tax rates
will increase the cost of charitable bequests and reduce their popularity. Indeed,
work by Joulfaian (2000) suggests that charitable bequests may decline by about
12% in the absence of an estate tax. The avoidance of tax is thus seen by many
as a motive for leaving a charitable bequest.
Other economic research has revealed that the probability of these bequests
increases with wealth and age and declines with the share of business assets in
the estate (Boskin, 1976; Joulfaian, 1991). Auten and Joulfaian (1996) have also
shown that the income of children affects the amount that parents contribute
to charity. Their results indicate a positive elasticity of up to 0.14 for contribu-
tions by parents with respect to the income of children, implying that where
children are better off, parents are likely to increase charitable giving. We also
know that the presence of a surviving spouse and children generally diminishes
the size of a charitable bequest. A strongly stated religious preference also has
an impact (Chang, Okunade, & Kumar, 1999; James, 2008), with bequests to
religious organizations being the most wealth inelastic (Joulfaian, 1991). Finally,
bequests have been found to vary by state of residence, number of dependents,
the form of legacy (i.e., cash vs. fixed assets), the inclusion of non-charitable
legacies, and lifetime gift giving (Clotfelter, 1985; McNees, 1973). All these stud-
ies utilize data sourced primarily from tax returns and, therefore, do not directly
address individual motives for charity giving.
Studies examining other motives for bequest giving are rare and have tended
to adopt a positivist perspective, asking individuals to choose from a list the
motives that apply. In the largest study of its kind, for example, the National Com-
mittee on Planned Giving conducted research with a representative sample of
1579 households that had pledged a planned gift, asking donors explicitly what
had motivated them to consider a charitable bequest or other form of “planned”
donation. Their data indicate that the most common motives are a genuine
desire to support the charity, the appeal of the purpose for which the gift was
sought, and a desire to reduce estate taxes. Less commonly cited motives include
the desire to create a lasting memorial and the quality of the perceived rela-
tionship with the nonprofit. More recent work conducted by Sargeant, Hilton,
and Wymer (2005) confirmed many of these findings, concluding that the three
most commonly cited motives were a desire to support what the individual
regarded as important work, a lack of family need, and the avoidance of tax. To
this latter list, Sargeant, Wymer, and Hilton (2006) add the need for reciproca-
tion (perhaps for services provided by the nonprofit) and perceptions of the qual-
ity of performance of the nonprofit.
While the research we allude to above has been conducted in the context of
predominantly Christian societies, it is important to recognize that the chari-
table bequest is actually a vehicle for giving adopted in many other cultures
and religious traditions. As Galinsky (2005) notes, for example, bequests have
been popular in Jewish society for centuries, with many individuals electing to

982 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
establish private charitable foundations. Similarly, dana (good deeds), or char-
itable giving, is a vital component of Buddhism. There is a Buddhist tradition
of giving one-sixth of one’s income to the Buddhist temple, while in death it is
generally up to the person to decide how much to give (although the same one-
sixth proportion is commonly applied; Shenkman, 2003). The Muslim faith makes
a similar provision for bequests to charity. In this tradition, Muslims may give
one-third of their wealth (in charity) when they die to increase their good deeds,
and many choose to do so (Renard, 1996).
In this paper, we will demonstrate how the application of qualitative tech-
niques can yield additional insight into the motives for this important form of
giving, particularly when a systematic approach to data collection and analysis
is applied. Cohen (1999) observed that while many research projects set out to
answer the “why” underpinning behavior, they ultimately fail to do so because
of the manner in which the questions are posed. The author argued that sim-
ply asking participants to describe the rationale for their behavior fails to take
account of the fact that “it is very often the case that the respondent cannot or
will not provide an accurate answer to such questions” (p. 353). As a conse-
quence, he argues that researchers need a systematic method for coaxing the
“why” out of respondents who for various reasons may be reluctant to share this
information. Reasons may include a lack of candor, social desirability bias, or the
respondent simply being unaware of the “true” reasons for their behavior.
The author therefore posits the BASIC IDS framework as a means of ensuring
that meaningful data are gathered, particularly where the goal of understand-
ing the underlying motivation is to influence it. Each of the modalities referred
to in the framework may be explored and ultimately manipulated to achieve a
behavioral change.
As the reader will later appreciate, the result is a richer picture of the motives
for bequest giving than has emerged in many previous studies. The extant lit-
erature has been developed from a primarily positivistic perspective, with
researchers either providing a prepared list of options in regard to motivation,
or developing them from their own classification devices, typically basing these
on the initial opinions of their interview participants. In contrast with these pre-
vious studies, we adopt a systematic approach, extrapolating the psychological
underpinnings of bequest behavior by exploring responses in relation to each of
a series of modalities selected specifically for the purpose of affecting adaptive
behavioral change.

METHODOLOGY

To address the study objectives, a series of ten focus groups were conducted,
working in partnership with three U.S. nonprofits. Partners were deliberately
selected from a variety of different categories of causes, and focus group par-
ticipation was solicited from donors to all organizations living in the geograph-
ical area in which the groups were to take place. Participants were offered a fee
of $50 for attendance at each meeting, which were scheduled to last for around
90 minutes.
When the goal of research is to understand the meanings that individuals give
to their actions rather than to predict their behavior, qualitative methods are
often the most appropriate methodology (Braybrooke, 1965). Field-based

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 983

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
approaches, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, are particularly use-
ful when the research objective is to understand tacit perceptions and beliefs,
especially when the researcher cannot be sure what interpretation or code is guid-
ing the actors (Fielding & Fielding, 1986; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Strauss,
1990). Cost and time factors were also significant in the selection of focus groups
for data collection, but as Basch (1987, p. 434) notes, focus groups “are well
suited to collecting in-depth qualitative data about individuals, definitions of prob-
lems, opinions, feelings and meaning associated with various phenomena.”
Indeed, the theoretical advantages of focus groups have been felt to include syn-
ergism, snowballing, security, spontaneity, and scrutiny.
Writers such as Bryman and Burgess (1994) suggest that it is particularly
appropriate for qualitative researchers to be explicit about their beliefs and
purposes. To that end, the perspective adopted throughout this research is essen-
tially post-positivist (Guba & Lincoln, 1992); that is, we subscribe to a critical
realism ontology rather than relativism. An approach to the research process and
data analysis based on grounded theory as conceived by Glaser and Strauss
(1967) was adopted, which we believed was appropriate given the applied nature
of the research.
Following an initial discussion of the organizations participants elected to
support, each group was asked to consider the factors that had driven that choice
and what, if anything, was distinctive about each focal organization. There then
followed a discussion of the context for their giving and the factors that had
influenced their decision. This discussion was kept semi-structured, using the
BASIC IDS framework as a guide to the dimensions explored. As the researchers
began to understand more about the phenomenon under investigation and the
key variables important to this process, the nature of the specific questions
posed evolved to reflect this. It quickly became apparent that a number of the
BASIC IDS components were inappropriate to this context. Since the bequest
is an intangible offering and importantly one which the donor will usually not
experience pre-mortem, the concept of sensation was unhelpful. Similarly, the
concept of “drugs” offered little utility in this case, even adopting the wider per-
spective on this issue (e.g., examining health concerns) originally advocated by
Cohen (1999). Cohen himself acknowledged the need for flexibility in employ-
ing the BASIC IDS, noting that “exactly how these dimensions will be applied
in a particular study will be dictated by a number of different factors related to
the research objectives of the study” (p. 359).
Analysis of initial focus group data revealed the emergence of a second-order
modality that should also be explored in this context (Lazarus, 1989). As will be
demonstrated below, the concept of identification emerged as a significant deter-
minant of behavior, a function of the modalities of cognition and interpersonal
relations. As a technical note, we prefer not to categorize identification as sim-
ply cognition or interpersonal relations, since merely having the cognitive abil-
ity to recognize that one belongs to a certain social category or participating in
certain interpersonal or group relations does not guarantee that an individual
will adopt a particular identity (Turner, 1981; Brewer, 1991). Our data support
the perspective that individuals must integrate these with their self-concept
for them to become an identity and it is that identity that appears to drive giv-
ing. Identification is therefore viewed a distinctive second-order modality, con-
sistent with the multimodal approach adopted by Lazarus (1997).

984 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 The focus groups were audiotaped and then transcribed. Data were system-
atically and intensively analyzed through standard procedures for qualitative
analysis (Spiggle, 1994). First, the transcripts were reviewed individually and
summarized. Second, in a phase that Strauss (1990) called open coding, the
interview transcripts were scrutinized line by line and paragraph by paragraph
to suggest initial categories or themes. In the third step, which Strauss called
axial coding, the transcripts were scrutinized to consider each of the themes
across the interviews and assess the fit of each theme to the data. In a final
stage, which Strauss called selective coding, the data were examined once again
to refine the themes and findings for each. The limitations of this research
method are well documented, but considerable effort was expended to minimize
their impact. Inevitably, a high degree of judgment is required by the researcher
in interpreting the data, giving rise to concerns of subjectivity in analysis
(Dexter, 1970). We therefore open up our data set to scrutiny. A large number
of quotations are provided to indicate how each conclusion was drawn
(Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1993). The quotations we supply are representative of
the views of several participants unless otherwise stated. Participants may not
be representative of the total population, but they did vary on many dimen-
sions, including age, gender, and overall patterns of giving.

RESULTS

Initial analysis of our data suggested that the motives for giving could be struc-
tured into three categories, examining “generic” motives for giving that also
seemed to have resonance in the bequest context, bequest specific motives, and
motives derived from perceptions of the receiving organization. We examine
each category as follows.

Generic Individual Motives

It was interesting to note that many of the “generic” motives for giving were
not reflected in the context of bequest support. Only five such motives could be
discerned: prestige, accessing personal benefit, reciprocation, warm glow, and
identification. In regard to prestige, it was interesting to note that some indi-
viduals had structured their giving to allow them to see the benefits of their
bequest delivered to the organization in their lifetime. Donors to a university
foundation, for example, had gained considerable utility from this. They were able
to “enjoy” the impact of their gift while still actively connected to the institution.
Some participants noted that this had conferred on them a degree of prestige.

It gave me a lot more leverage politically, within the institution. It was not tangible,
it was not directly they were saying you are now this or that, but rather it permit-
ted, it gave one . . . a certain deference.

I want to see these kids. I want to know I have them in class, I want to see them in
the hall and I want to be able to point to them and say there’s one of [our] scholars
you know.

In addition, it was clear that some respondents had been motivated by the per-
ception of personal benefits that would accrue to them by virtue of their having

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 985

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
offered a pledge. These were normally provided as part of a package of “rewards”
offered as a thank-you for the decision or as components of the package of serv-
ice offered in a bequest club or society.

They make you feel special, invitations to events and the like. They try to bring you
closer to the organization and I appreciate that. I’ve been to a number of their events
now and really enjoy the contact.

The motive of reciprocation was also commonly expressed. Almost all partic-
ipants reported feeling the need to give something back to their nonprofit in
return for the benefits it (or a previous generation of donors) had delivered. The
following comments are illustrative of the discussion.

One reason why I thought of leaving money to [midwest university] is because edu-
cation has enriched my life a lot and I want to give something back to the commu-
nity there.

I’ve had opportunities to travel a lot at someone else’s expense and I’ve had grants
too, studied at Oxford for a semester. . . . So I really feel like I should pay back.

It’s always on [local public radio station]. It’s been such a friend to me over the years,
particularly when my husband died. You have to pay something back for that.

The act of giving back to the organization also seemed to confer a “warm
glow” to the donor. Participants generally felt good about pledging their sup-
port in this way, a feeling that derived from a belief it was “the right thing to do”
and that the gift would be appreciated, either by fund raisers, the organization,
or the beneficiaries that would follow. Interestingly, it is the positive emotion of
warm glow, but not the negative emotion of guilt that is reflected in the responses.
Doing the right thing here seems to have brought additional joy instead of alle-
viating any guilt that might have been created by not doing the right thing (for
guilt-related perspectives, see Basil, Ridgway, & Basil, 2006, 2008; Hibbert et al.,
2007).

It’s a good feeling to be able to be able to do this. You know that its impact will be
appreciated by colleagues and of course the students that will be touched by this.

It’s satisfying to know you’ve done this. You can reach out to other people like your-
self and help them too.

Two distinct forms of identification emerged in the course of our discussions.

The first appeared to be based on the notion of community, with different donors
identifying with different categories of community. In the case of a university
foundation, for example, respondents identified themselves with the city in
which it was based, specific university personnel (typically those they had
regarded as role models), students of the university, and with fellow (or previ-
ous) donors.
This form of identification is well supported in the literature. Social cohesion
theory (Lott & Lott, 1965) tells us that “individuals become a group insofar as
they develop mutual and positive emotional bonds: what matters for group-
belongingness is how individuals feel about each other and in particular whether
they like each other” (Turner, 1981, p. 16). The identification based on such affil-
iations is mostly determined by the interpersonal relationships that donors may

986 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
have with the various stakeholders of an organization or, perhaps more impor-
tantly, believe they have, with critical groups.
The second category of identification was identification with the nonprofit
itself. Here giving appeared to be prompted by a belief in the values of the organ-
ization and a desire to see these continue over time. This was particularly impact-
ful where the donor believed there was a high degree of fit between their own
values and the values of the Institution (see work by Brewer, 1991; Turner,
Sachdev, & Hogg, 1983; Stride & Lee, 2007).
The following quotations are illustrative:

[They] would stand at the door as I came in, to tell me as I was on my way to class
just exactly how many minutes I was late. And so it just became one of those things
that you didn’t want to disappoint your “parents,” they were the surrogate parents,
so you just did things for them.

It’s just the special things, the unique things that are different, it’s the story, it’s the
values, it’s the history, it’s the traditions.

My father I think instilled in me very early on, the importance of giving back to
community and connecting to community and that can be the community of work,
it can be the community where you live and I just have very strong feelings about
that.

The data therefore reveal a complicated web of interrelated identities, each

possessing the capacity to influence bequest behavior. The difficulty for the
bequest fund raiser lies in establishing which identities are relevant in the case
of their organization and, moreover, which of these may be capable of influenc-
ing the behavior of a particular donor. The need for appropriate and properly
structured prospect research is highlighted, as is the need for the careful tailoring
of the case for support to reflect the highlighted identities (Brady et al., 2002;
Reed, 2002).
A number of factors appeared to drive the creation of identification. First,
we concur with Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn (1995) that a degree of identifi-
cation will develop naturally over time. A number of the university foundation
donors, for example, noted that they would not have conceived of making a gift
when they arrived in the city, but over time, as they became acquainted with dif-
ferent communities and were socialized into these communities, the bond of
identification developed. The process of socialization was facilitated by frequency
of contact, but also by the quality of the interaction. As friendships developed,
or contact was initiated with admired or respected individuals, the degree of
identification increased.

I got to meet some truly amazing people, with real passion for the work. When I
look back at how hard they worked for [the beneficiary group] it wasn’t hard to see
how they enthused you about the cause. You came to share the passion by just being
around them.

It was also clear that the level of distinctiveness of the group was an issue—
in other words, how different it might be from others the individual had had con-
tact with. In the context of public radio, the distinctiveness originated in the
nature of the values that the individual felt were shared with other listeners,
donors, staff, presenters, volunteers, and listening friends and families (Brewer,
1991). The greater the degree of differentiation, the easier it appeared to be for

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 987

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
the bond to develop. This effect was moderated by the perceived desirability
of the values being shared.

I definitely identify with what they are trying to do. There is just so much rubbish
out there, people trying to influence you, not with reasoned argument, but just by
shouting the loudest for the longest period of time. This is decent. It’s open, respect-
ful, intelligent and thoughtful. It doesn’t take long to realize how special it is—and
that there’s nowhere else you can buy into that—or express who you are through that.

Finally, we fund evidence in support of Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994),

who posit that identification will develop when a person’s self-concept contains
the same attributes as those perceived in the focal group. Closer matches equate
to a greater likelihood of a bond of identification evolving.

They’re just people like me. Like-minded people—who think in the same way about
life and events. It doesn’t matter where they live or what color their skin is—it’s
how they think. You don’t mind helping people like you, even if they are people to
follow.

Bequest-Specific Motives
As one would expect, focus group data also yielded data in regard to motives that
appeared specific to the bequest context. These were found to be the lack of a fam-
ily need, the need to manage estate tax, a desire to live on, and a desire to “make
a difference.” Each will now be considered in turn.
Only when family and in some cases close friends were adequately provided
for was it felt reasonable to leave a bequest to a charity (see also Schervish &
Havens, 2003). As one participant noted, “my children all have good jobs and I
don’t feel they need the money. Sure—I’ll leave them something, but the money
will make a bigger difference for [the nonprofit].” It was clear in many cases
that considerable planning and discussion had taken place to ensure that this
was the case. By contrast, some participants expressed anxiety about the fate
of their “hard earned” resources. Some felt that they didn’t want to see their
estate going to relatives because they would “blow through” or waste them, that
they wouldn’t appreciate the money, or that they simply didn’t deserve it. The
object of making a charitable bequest was to limit the amount that would be avail-
able to family.

When [my mother] died she gave the money to the five of us kids and I watched two
of my siblings just rip through the money, it was just an unbelievable waste and I
thought, I don’t have any kids and I had originally had my will going to my siblings
and then I thought—why?? They’d do the same thing with my hard earned money.

I’d reached a point where I said . . . you know what . . . I’m happy to leave them
something but I worked damn hard for all this and I just kind of, it sounds petty, but
I don’t want to necessarily make it easy for them when they have often made choices
to work a lot less hard than I have. . . .

As anticipated, the reduction of estate (and other) tax was also an issue. Mak-
ing a will and indicating how the estate would be dispersed were seen as criti-
cal in ensuring that the government did not claim too big a share. Interestingly,
it appeared from the discussion that tax considerations had been a motive
for planning estate issues, rather than making a bequest to a specific nonprofit

988 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
per se. If tax reduction were to be employed as a motive in fund raising litera-
ture, it should therefore be used as a rationale for prompting estate planning,
but not as a rationale for supporting the organization. A range of the other
motives listed here were found to be driving the latter behavior.

But then we [tried] to shelter it so that Bush or equivalents didn’t get their hands
on it.

I think if there is talk about those tax advantages, if you can direct where your
money can actually go, where you want it to go, even if it doesn’t start right away. . . .

Tax was definitely an issue, but more in terms of structuring things properly. We
wanted to make our money work for them, not the government.

For some donors, the bequest offered an opportunity to ensure that they would
be remembered, either by those working in the nonprofit, their family, or by
successive generations of users of the nonprofit’s services. This need was typi-
cally expressed as an ego need for the pledgers themselves or as a perceived
need of their family for remembrance. The following quotations are illustrative
of the views expressed.

Sure, I want to see it continue and when it does a little bit of me will too.

It’s been really important to me in my lifetime and I want to think that it will con-
tinue to touch the lives of other folks when I’m gone.

Yes, it means my children can see I have an impact from beyond the grave . . .
[laughter].

A number of participants recognized that one of the unique facets of a bequest

gift was the ability to be able to make a big impact on the cause—and a bigger
impact than would typically be the case with lifetime giving. Two participants
observed that their selection of the particular nonprofit had been driven by a
belief that the gift would make a bigger difference for it than for other organi-
zations they could have selected.

My giving I know is going to make a difference in the future in working with stu-
dents and developing student leaders and also other people who will be going into
the field which has been very good to me.

My husband is a graduate from Harvard and Columbia, none of them needs more
money and so it was a very conscious decision on his part that he really was not
going to give there. What he could give would be a drop on the ocean there. It wouldn’t
make as much of a difference there.

Organizational Factors
A number of factors about the organization itself were also mentioned by par-
ticipants as motivating factors, namely performance, professionalism, commu-
nications quality, and the quality of the interpersonal relationship with the
fundraiser. As previously, we discuss each in turn.
Bequest pledgers were found to have a particular interest in the perform-
ance of their selected organization. Both efficiency and effectiveness would
appear to have been at issue. There are parallels here with the quantitative

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 989

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
work conducted by Sargeant, Wymer, and Hilton (2006), where the authors
determined that bequest pledgers had a greater concern with the performance
of the organization than annual fund givers.

I’ve always been very involved in a lot of community organizations whether it be

United Way or right now Volunteers in Medicine, but organizations that make a dif-
ference in the quality of life in the community are important to me to support.

Cut the overhead, cut the overhead . . . some organizations have high indices for
what money goes to the causes and what money goes in order to be able to admin-
ister the causes and so that’s one of the things that I look at and get value if it’s in
the right direction.

The perceived professionalism of the soliciting organization was very much

an issue. This reflects a motive common in annual giving (Grounds & Harkness,
1998; Sargeant, West, & Ford, 2001), with donors preferring those organizations
that they feel deal with them professionally. There was a sense from partici-
pants, however, that professionalism was a greater concern in the case of
bequests. Participants were clear that they did not mind the organization
approaching them to ask them to consider a bequest, but that this had to be
handled in a professional manner, with an approach tailored to their needs. Pro-
fessionalism also played a role in the sense that participants indicated that
they would only be willing to have this kind of dialog with an organization
that had historically met certain standards of service.

This is such a big thing. It’s not something you would consider doing lightly and
oftentimes the only clue you have about how good the organization really is—is how
you are handled by its people. It’s a kind of surrogate measure. I mean I know it’s
not the same people handling [the service provision] but what else can you look at?

It is a fund raising truism that donors like to be kept informed about how their
gift has been used and the issues/challenges facing those organizations. Donor
development communications are therefore critical in maintaining the rela-
tionship. Schlegelmilch, Diamantopoulos, and Love (1992) examined the role of
the quality of communication in gift solicitation and found that by optimizing
communications, organizations could maximize gifts. In the context of bequests,
it was clear this involves much more than just controlling the quality of com-
munications through the mail; donors appreciated the events, opportunities to
meet individuals at the nonprofit, opportunities to volunteer, and so on. One
participant was particularly impressed with the quality of service she received
and recalled that this had been a major factor in her decision to leave a bequest.

They treated me like royalty. I’m like “wow—I’m getting a great return on this [gift]”
because they were inviting us to events and there was a way of suddenly feeling . . .
very invested. I went—yeah—these people are nicer than my siblings, so they’ll get
my money.

Others emphasized that the quality of the interaction they had with the fund-
raiser was key. They welcomed the professionalism of the individual, but also felt
that they had developed a genuine friendship with the passage of time. This
friendship, it was felt, impacted on the fund raiser’s desire and ability to respond
to their specific needs and aspirations.

990 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 It’s a tough job, asking for money. We recognize that. [They] took the time to get to
know us and our circumstances and we gradually built a relationship. It’s important
to trust [the fundraiser]. You need to know you can count on their judgment.

I consider [the fundraiser] as a friend really. I know it’s a job for them, but without
that relationship I’m not so sure I would have been willing. So many fundraisers have
screwed up with me in the past.

DISCUSSION

A summary of our findings is shown in Table 1. Here we illustrate the rela-

tionship between the motives for bequest giving and the primary modality that
prompted the discussion. We offer this only as an illustration of the operation
and utility of the BASIC IDS framework. As the reader will appreciate, many
of the motives we identify can be linked to multiple modalities. Lack of family
need, for example, can be a function of both cognition and interpersonal relations.
Our point is merely that by failing to adopt a systematic approach to the collection
of qualitative data, many of these dimensions may be overlooked.
The table also provides a number of practical recommendations to fund raisers
in regard to how they might seek to develop bequest income working with each
major motive in turn. Four key themes emerge from this analysis. First, atten-
tion can be given to planning donor journeys as a normal part of donor devel-
opment and stewardship activity. These journeys should expose individuals to
different identities and aspects of those identities that they are likely to find
attractive. Research should be used to generate an understanding of what these
might be. Communications and events can then be deliberately designed to help
foster shared identities and to reinforce the distinctive values associated with
these. Identities can also be primed in fundraising communications so that indi-
viduals begin to accept these “labels” over time and to value them as part of
their self. Organizations also need to be clear about the brand personality
of their organization and the extent to which this is genuinely distinctive or
shared with others in the sector. The distinctive aspects of personality are likely
to offer the greatest utility in facilitating identification. Particular care should
be taken to regularly and consistently communicate these over time.
Second, the quality of service provided by the organization would appear to
be a highly significant issue. A concern for the quality of service provided both
to the beneficiary group and to the donor is highlighted. In regard to the latter,
the quality of the relationship with the fund raiser (where fund raising has
been undertaken face to face) is important, but so too is the quality of commu-
nication generated by the organization as a whole. In cases where the donor is
not in a position to directly assess the delivered service quality, communica-
tions quality (i.e., with them) may be used as a proxy. Nonprofits need to iden-
tify donor requirements and to ensure that the quality of service provided is
consistent with expectations.
Third, bequest solicitations should be ubiquitous, as it is impossible to know
when an individual might be revising his or her will and hence be in a position
to include a bequest. Solicitations should pervade newsletters, annual reports,
events, and mail communications. Case studies of the achievements of previ-
ous donors (celebrating large and small gifts) and highlighting future need
would be likely to be effective. Appeals for general purposes are likely to offer

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 991

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. Application of the BASIC IDS Framework.

Modality Motive Marketing Implications

First-Order Modalities
Behavior Personal benefits a. Conduct research to identify donor needs and
preferences.
b. Creation of bequest club/society and promotion
of nature and availability of benefits.
c. Celebrate membership in institutional commu-
nication to render membership aspirational.
Prestige/recognition a. Creation of differentiated standard of care for
pledgers.
b. Need to plan for individual donor (or segment)
recognition, e.g., to meet donor expectations of
social status.
c. Develop events program to celebrate new
pledges and solicit others.
Affect Warm glow a. Need to develop understanding of the aspira-
tional and affective sources of donor value.
b. Need to develop tailored donor recognition
plans to meet donors’ emotional needs.
c. Clear communication of affective benefit to
beneficiaries likely to be provided by bequest
gifts and experiences.
Cognition Making a difference a. Solicitation should specify how donated funds
would be applied and the timeline associated
with this (i.e., not general funds).
b. Case studies of how previous gifts have
impacted the beneficiary group. Celebrate both
large and small gifts.
c. Illustrate the organization’s past achieve-
ments, providing donors with a timeline indi-
cating success. Map out goals for the future.
Perceived a. Determination of components of performance
organizational most of interest to potential bequest donors
performance b. Regular provision of performance data con
cerning both efficiency and effectiveness in
donor communications.
c. Establish communication channels to receive
feedback and increase donor involvement and
engagement.
Professionalism a. Need to subscribe to the donors charter or sim-
ilar code of conduct.
b. Need to subscribe to fundraising code of ethics.
c. Ongoing need for fundraising training and
development.
Lack of family need a. Raising awareness of the bequest as an addi-
tional means of supporting the focal nonprofit.
b. Demonstration of need for bequest funding in
ongoing donor communications.
c. Engage donors in discussions about mission
achievements and why their bequests are nec-
essary.
(Continued)

992 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. (Continued)

Modality Motive Marketing Implications

Interpersonal Spite a. Agree and implement gift acceptance

relations policy, outlining circumstances under which
gifts will be accepted.
b. Raising awareness of the bequest as an addi-
tional means of supporting the focal nonprofit.
c. Demonstration of need for bequest funding in
ongoing donor communications.
Communications a. Identification of donors’ communication needs
quality and preferences.
b. Design of fundraising systems, procedures, and
communications to reflect these preferences.
c. Ongoing measurement of service quality and
benchmarking as appropriate.
Relationship with a. Ongoing need for fundraising training and
fund raiser development.
b. Need to ensure retention and motivation of
key personnel.
c. Need to for succession planning of key personnel.
Imagery Need to live on a. Promote match between individual and organ-
ization values in bequest solicitations.
b. Emphasize in campaign how such values may
endure through bequest giving.
c. Provide appropriate donor recognition vehicles
such as a book of remembrance or “our lasting
tribute.”
Sociocultural Tax reduction a. Use of tax benefits as rationale for opening a
aspects dialogue to make a bequest.
b. Provision of tax calculators to raise awareness
of the issue of revising wills to include
bequests (e.g., through Web site).
c. Provision of illustrative case studies in cam-
paign materials.
Second-Order Modality
Identification Values-based a. Need to research donor perceptions of organiza-
identification tional and/or brand personality and the degree
to which they can or cannot identify with them.
b. Delineation of appropriately differentiated
brand personality consistent with donors’
sense of self.
c. Consistent communication of organizational
(or brand) values in all forms of communica-
tion consistent with donors’ sense of self.
Affiliation-based a. Need to identify salient groups to donors’
identification sense of self.
b. Need to facilitate in-depth interaction with
salient groups through organizational events
and communications.
c. Creating connections and bonds for salient
groups through fundraising communications—
particularly case studies of other bequest
donors.

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 993

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
less utility to those bundling or making tangible the likely future need. The
selection of case studies that deliberately prime desirable identities would be par-
ticularly effective in increasing donations.
Finally, the selection of appropriate rewards and recognition appears to be of
particular significance in this domain. While not all donors will require this,
many participants valued the rewards associated with becoming a legacy pledger.
The nature of these varied on a wide spectrum from personalized gifts, to atten-
dance at events, to simply having ego needs met (i.e., where opportunities for pres-
tige or to demonstrate a particular identity were provided). The need to offer a
differentiated standard of care to bequest pledgers is clear, yet data from NCPG
(2001) reveals that only 25% of donors who inform a charity of their bequest
intention experience being treated any differently as a consequence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has highlighted a number of bequest motives not previously identi-
fied in the extant literature, notably identification. It has also provided insight
into the way in which these motives impact individual behavior and the man-
ner in which these develop. Using the BASIC IDS framework, our approach pro-
vides a richer and more comprehensive perspective on donor motivation to aid
fund raisers seeking to design and tailor their approach. Given that the incidence
of charitable bequests in wills has remained static for a century, the need for such
additional insight is clear. There appears to be much that fundraisers might do
to bolster participation in bequest giving and to ensure that the percentage of
wills including such provision grows from the current 5%.
We recognize, however, that our study suffers from a number of limitations,
most notably that it is conducted in the context of a Judeo-Christian society.
Our findings, particularly in regard to the impact of factors such as taxation
and the categories of benefit that might accrue from giving, could be culturally
specific. Further work in other contexts would be necessary to explore this issue.
Equally, as we noted in our review, an individual’s faith can have a significant
impact on bequest giving. It would therefore seem appropriate to seek to repli-
cate this work in other national contexts and with individuals from others of the
world’s great faiths. Since bequest giving is one of the few forms of giving with
almost universal applicability, extending the study in this way could yield con-
siderable utility.

REFERENCES

Auten, G., & Joulfaian, D. (1996). Charitable contributions and intergenerational trans-
fers. Journal of Public Economics, 59, 55–68.
Basch, C. E. (1987). Focus group interview: An underutilized research technique for
improving theory and practice in health education. Health Education Quarterly, 14,
411–448.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2006). Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of
responsibility. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 1035–1054.
Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, M. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of
empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 1–23.

994 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Bendapudi, N., Surendra, S., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behaviour: An
integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60, 33–49.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identi-
fication: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of
Marketing, 59, 46–57.
Boskin, M. J. (1976). Estate taxation and charitable bequests. Journal of Public Eco-
nomics, 5, 27–56.
Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E. (2002). How to give and receive:
An exploratory study of charitable hybrids. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 919–944.
Braybrooke, D. (1965). Philosophical problems of the social science. Old Tappan, NJ:
Macmillan.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (1994). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.
Burnett, J. J., & Wood, V. R. (1988). A proposed model of the donation process. Research
in Consumer Behavior, 3, 1–47.
Chang, C. F., Okunade, A. A., & Kumar, N. (1999). Motives behind charitable bequests.
Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 6, 69–85.
Clotfelter, C. T. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Cohen, R. J. (1999). What qualitative research can be. Psychology & Marketing, 16,
351–368.
Dexter, L. A. (1970). Elite and specialized interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Uni-
versity Press.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and mem-
ber identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
Feldstein, M. (1976). Charitable bequests, estate taxation and intergenerational wealth
transfers. In R. Grieson (Ed.), Public and urban economics (pp. 91–110). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galinsky, J. D. (2005). Jewish charitable bequests and the Hekdesh trust in thirteenth-
century Spain. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 35, 423–440.
Giving USA Foundation. (2008). Giving USA 2007. Glenview, IL: Giving USA Foundation.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qual-
itative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (1993). Appealing work: An investigation of how ethno-
graphic texts convince. Organization Science, 4, 595–616.
Grounds, J., & Harkness, J. (1998). Developing a brand from within: Involving employ-
ees and volunteers when developing a new brand position. Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 3, 179–184.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1992). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of
evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. New York: Wiley.
Guy, B. S., & Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding
why people help. Journal of Services Marketing, 2, 5–16.
Harris, V. M. (1911). Ancient and curious wills. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange Ltd.
Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowl-
edge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 723–742.
James, R. N. (2008). Causes and correlates of charitable giving in estate planning: A
cross-sectional and longitudinal examination of older adults. Report to the Association
of Fundraising Professionals and Legacy Leaders, Washington, DC.
Joulfaian, D (1991). Charitable bequests and estate taxes. National Tax Journal, 44,
169–180.
Joulfaian, D. (2000). Taxing wealth transfers and its behavioral consequences. National
Tax Journal, 53, 933–957.

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 995

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Kaplan, A. E. (2007). Voluntary support of education. New York: Council for Aid to
Education.
Lazarus, A. A. (1973). Multimodal behavior therapy: Treating the BASIC ID. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 156, 404–411.
Lazarus, A. A. (1989). The practice of multimodal therapy: Systematic, comprehensive and
effective psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lazarus, A. A. (1997). Brief but comprehensive psychotherapy. New York: Springer Pub-
lishing Company.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review
of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychology Bulletin, 64,
259–309.
Mann, B. T., & Sharpe, R. F. (2004). Giving reached record levels. Give and Take, 37, 1.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McNees, S. (1973). Deductability of charitable bequests. National Tax Journal, 26, 79–98.
NCPG. (2001). Planned giving in the United States. Indianapolis, IN: National Com-
mittee on Planned Giving.
Radcliffe, R. (2007). Legacy fundraising. London: Institute of Fundraising National Con-
vention.
Reed, A., II. (2002). Social identity as a useful perspective for self-concept-based con-
sumer research. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 235–266.
Renard, J. (1996). Seven doors to Islam: Spirituality and the religious life of Muslims.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charity giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Mar-
keting Management, 15, 215–238.
Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Gift giving: An interdisciplinary review. Interna-
tional Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 275–307.
Sargeant, A., Hilton, T., & Wymer W. W. (2005). Making the bequest: An empirical study
of the attitudes of pledgers and supporters. International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 5, 207–220.
Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. B. (2001). The role of perceptions in predicting donor
value. Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 407–428.
Sargeant, A., Wymer, W. & Hilton, T. (2006). Marketing bequest club membership: An
exploratory study of legacy pledgers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35,
384–404.
Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (2003). Gifts and bequests: Family or philanthropic
organizations? In A. H. Munnell & A. Sunden (Eds.), Death and dollars: The role of gifts
and bequests in America (pp. 130–158). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., Diamantopoulos, A., & Love, A. (1992). Determinants of charity giv-
ing. In C. T. Allen (Ed.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 507–516). American
Marketing Association Winter Conference Proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Shabbir, H., Palihawadana, D., & Thwaites, D. (2007). Determining the antecedents and
consequences of donor-perceived relationship quality: A dimensional qualitative
research approach. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 271–293.
Shenkman, M. M. (2003). Inherit more. New York: Wiley.
Smith, G. (1996). Asking properly. Kermarquer, France: White Lion Press.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.
Strauss, A. L. (1990). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Stride, H., & Lee, S. (2007). No logo? No way: Branding in the non-profit sector. Journal
of Marketing Management, 23, 107–112.
Turner, J. C. (1981). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Current Psy-
chology of Cognition, 1, 93–118.

996 SARGEANT AND SHANG

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Turner, J. C., Sachdev, I., & Hogg, M. A. (1983). Social categorization, interpersonal attrac-
tion and group formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 227–239.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this project from the Asso-
ciation for Fundraising Professionals and Legacy Leaders.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Jen Shang, Assistant Professor,
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Center on Philanthropy, Indiana Univer-
sity, 1315 E. Tenth Street, SPEA 429, Bloomington, IN 47404 (jenshang@indiana.edu).

MOTIVATIONS FOR BEQUEST GIVING 997

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar