SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 20 Sayı: 2

THE ROLE OF SELF-CONSTRUAL IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DONATION MOTIVATIONS AND DONATION INTENTION

BENLİK KURGUSUNUN BAĞIŞ MOTİVASYONLARI VE BAĞIŞ NİYETİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDEKİ ROLÜ

Süleyman Yılmaz0000-0001-9966-5616
Ali Emre Aydın(IZMIR BAKIRCAY UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2340-8469
Pages
462–488
Publication Date
2024-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results show that individualism, one of the dimensions of self-concept, do not have a mediating role in the relationship between social appreciation and donation intention, but it has a mediating role in the relationship between materialism and donation intention.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The only way to supply the blood and its components needed for the continuity of human vital activities is for a healthy individual to donate blood voluntarily.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, the data obtained from 522 participants using the online survey technique were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show that individualism, one of the dimensions of self-concept, do not have a mediating role in the relationship between social appreciation and donation intention, but it has a mediating role in the relationship between materialism and donation intention.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal pazarlama · Kan bağışı · Bağışçı davranışı

Abstract

The only way to supply the blood and its components needed for the continuity of human vital activities is for a healthy individual to donate blood voluntarily. Thus, it is very important to understand the motivational factors that lead individuals to donate blood. It is also known that the way individuals construct their own selves can be effective in this process. Although there are studies examining motivations for blood donation, the number of studies focusing on the relationship between self-construal and different donation motivations is scarce. In this regard, the aim of this study is to reveal the role of self-construal in the relationship between donation motivations, which diversify on the axis of altruism and selfishness, and donation intention. For this purpose, the data obtained from 522 participants using the online survey technique were analyzed. Results show that individualism, one of the dimensions of self-concept, do not have a mediating role in the relationship between social appreciation and donation intention, but it has a mediating role in the relationship between materialism and donation intention. On the other hand, collectivist self do not mediate the relationship between altruism and donation intention, but it mediates both the relationship between empathy and donation intention, and the relationship between religious values and spirituality and donation intention. Finally, the theoretical and practical contributions of the study are discussed. The study is expected to contribute to communication and marketing tactics that will mobilize individuals for blood donation.

Özet

İnsanın yaşamsal faaliyetlerinin devamlılığı için ihtiyaç duyduğu kan ve bileşenlerinin tedarik edilebilmesinin tek yolu sağlıklı bir bireyin gönüllü bir şekilde kanını bağışlamasıdır. Dolayısıyla bireyleri kan bağışına yönlendiren motivasyon faktörlerini anlamak çok önemlidir. Bu süreçte bireylerin kendi benliklerini kurgulama şeklinin etkili olabileceği bilinmektedir. Kan bağışına yönelik motivasyonları inceleyen çalışmalar olsa da benlik kurgusuyla farklı bağış motivasyonları arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanan çalışma sayısı sınırlıdır. Bu doğrultuda çalışmanın amacı, özgecilik ve bencillik ekseninde çeşitlenen bağış motivasyonları ile bağış niyeti arasındaki ilişkide bireyin benlik kurgusunun rolünü ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çevrim içi anket tekniği kullanılarak 522 katılımcıdan elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda, benlik kurgusu boyutlarından bireyciliğin, sosyal beğeni ile bağış niyeti arasındaki ilişkide aracılık rolünün bulunmadığı ancak materyalizm ile bağış niyeti arasındaki ilişkide aracılık rolünün olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Toplulukçu benlik kurgusunun ise özgecilik ve bağış niyeti ilişkisinde aracılık rolünün bulunmadığı ancak hem empati ile bağış niyeti arasındaki ilişkide hem de dini değerler ve maneviyat ile bağış niyeti arasındaki ilişkide aracı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın, kan bağışı için bireyleri harekete geçirecek iletişim ve pazarlama taktikleri açısından katkı sunması beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, S., Aydın, A. E. (2024). THE ROLE OF SELF-CONSTRUAL IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DONATION MOTIVATIONS AND DONATION INTENTION. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 2, 462–488. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1408790

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (117)

  1. Akın, M. S. (2021). Benlik kurgusu ve materyalizmin gösterişçi tüketim eğilimine etkisi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 22(1), 219-239.
  2. Allain, J. P. (2019). Current approaches to increase blood donations in resource-limited countries. Transfusion Medicine, 29(5), 297-310
  3. Altındiş, S., Aşıcı, N., Şenol, U., Bakır, A. B., Yücedağ, Ç. Y., Demir, C., & Altındiş, A. (2019). Kan bağışı önündeki engellerin belirlenmesi. Sakarya Tıp Dergisi, 9(2), 237-244.
  4. Ardahan, F. (2016). Ciddi boş zaman faaliyeti olarak gönüllülük: AKUT örneği. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6(1), 47-61.
  5. Argan, M. T. (2007). Organ bağışını artırmada sosyal pazarlama yaklaşımı: Organ bağışına yönelik bir tutum araştırması (Doktora Tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  6. Argan, M. T. (2016). Kan bağış davranışını etkileyen faktörlerin Planlı Davranış Teorisi çerçevesinde incelenmesi. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, (2), 96-104.
  7. Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32-39.
  8. Balaban, A. Y., & İnce, İ. Ç. (2015). Gençlerin sivil toplum kuruluşlarındaki gönüllülük faaliyetleri ve gönüllülük algısı: Türkiye Eğitim Gönüllüleri Vakfı (TEGV) Örneği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 149-169.
  9. Bani, M., & Strepparava, M. G. (2011). Motivation in Italian whole blood donors and the role of commitment. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 16(6), 641-649.
  10. Basch, M. F. (1983). Empathic understanding: A review of the concept and some theoretical considerations. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 31(1), 101-126.
  11. Baumeister, R. F. (2023). The self explained: Why and how we become who we are. New York: Guilford Publications.
  12. Bednall, T. C., & Bove, L. L. (2011). Donating blood: a meta-analytic review of self-reported motivators and deterrents. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 25(4), 317-334.
  13. Bednall, T. C., Bove, L. L., Cheetham, A., & Murray, A. L. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis of antecedents of blood donation behavior and intentions. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 86-94.
  14. Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 349-366.
  15. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337-365.
  16. Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. ACR North American Advances, 12(1), 291-297.
  17. Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33-49.
  18. Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (1999). Charity involvement and customer preference for charity brands. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 49-66.
  19. Beyerlein, K. (2016). The effect of religion on blood donation in the United States. Sociology of Religion, 77(4), 408-435.
  20. Bove, L. L., Bednall, T., Masser, B., & Buzza, M. (2011). Understanding the plasmapheresis donor in a voluntary, nonremunerated environment. Transfusion, 51(11), 2411-2424.
  21. Bremner, R. H. (1994). Giving: Charity and philanthropy in history. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Bresnahan, M. J., Chiu, H. C., & Levine, T. R. (2004). Self-construal as a predictor of communal and exchange orientation in Taiwan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(2), 187-203.
  22. Carver, A., Chell, K., Davison, T. E., & Masser, B. M. (2018). What motivates men to donate blood? A systematic review of the evidence. Vox Sanguinis, 113(3), 205-219.
  23. Ceylan, H. H., & Aydın, S. (2012). Organ bağışına sosyal pazarlama yaklaşımı: üniversite öğrencilerinin organ bağışına ilişkin tutum ve niyetleri üzerine bir araştırma. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 169-190.
  24. Chang, C. (2015). Self-construal and Facebook activities: Exploring differences in social interaction orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 91-101.
  25. Charbonneau, J., Cloutier, M. S., & Carrier, É. (2015). Whole blood and apheresis donors in Quebec, Canada: Demographic differences and motivations to donate. Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 53(3), 320-328.
  26. Chell, K., Davison, T. E., Masser, B., & Jensen, K. (2018). A systematic review of incentives in blood donation. Transfusion, 58(1), 242-254.
  27. Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 124- 126.
  28. Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142-179.
  29. Çimen, L. K. (2017). Üniversite öğrencilerinin vatanseverlik tutumları ile benlik kurguları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 1950-1975.
  30. Daștan, N. B., Daștan, M., & Kıranșal, N. (2013). Sağlık yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin kan bağıșına yönelik bilgi ve tutumları. Kafkas Journal of Medical Sciences, 3(1), 27-32.
  31. Doğan, V. (2019). Why do people experience the fear of missing out (FoMO)? Exposing the link between the self and the FoMO through self-construal. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(4), 524- 538.
  32. Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93-108.
  33. Dunn, J., Chambers, S. K., & Hyde, M. K. (2016). Systematic review of motives for episodic volunteering. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 425-464.
  34. Eba idalla, E. M., & Malkawi, A. (2022). The impact of religion and modernity on luxury consumption in an Arabian Gulf community: does self-construal matter? Journal of Islamic Marketing, https:// doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-05-2022-0137
  35. Ercan, H. (2011). İlişkisel-bireyci-toplulukçu benlik ölçeği’nin psikometrik özellikleri ve uyarlama çalışması. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2011(2), 37-45.
  36. Ercan, H. (2013). Genç yetişkinlerde benlik kurgusu üzerine bir çalışma. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 5(2), 157-178.
  37. Ferguson, E. (1996). Predictors of future behaviour: A review of the psychological literature on blood donation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 1(4), 287-308.
  38. Ferguson, E., France, C. R., Abraham, C., Ditto, B., & Sheeran, P. (2007). Improving blood donor recruitment and retention: integrating theoretical advances from social and behavioral science research agendas. Transfusion, 47(11), 1999-2010.
  39. Gillespie, T. W., & Hillyer, C. D. (2002). Blood donors and factors impacting the blood donation decision. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 16(2), 115-130.
  40. Gillum, R. F., & Masters, K. S. (2010). Religiousness and blood donation: findings from a national survey. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(2), 163-172.
  41. Glynn, S. A., Kleinman, S. H., Schreiber, G. B., Zuck, T., Mc Combs, S., Bethel, J.,. & Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study. (2002). Motivations to donate blood: demographic comparisons. Transfusion, 42(2), 216-225.
  42. Glynn, S. A., Schreiber, G. B., Murphy, E. L., Kessler, D., Higgins, M., & Wright, D. J., (2006). Factors influencing the decision to donate: Racial and ethnic comparisons. Transfusion, 46(6), 980-990.
  43. Green, C. L., & Webb, D. J. (1997). Factors influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 5(3), 19-40.
  44. Grom, B., Hellmeister, G., & Zwingmann, C. (1998). Münchner motivationspsychologisches religiositätsinventar (MMRI): Entwicklung eines neuen Messinstruments für die religionspsychologische Forschung. Frankfurt: Lang
  45. Gu, Y., & Chen, R. (2021). How does money phrasing influence intention to donate: The role of construal level and fit. Psychology & Marketing, 38(11), 1911-1927.
  46. Gummerum, M., & Hanoch, Y. (2012). Altruism behind bars: Sharing, justice, perspective taking and empathy among inmates. Social Justice Research, 25, 61-78.
  47. Güner, Y. O., & Cicerali, E. E. (2021). Organ bağışında psikolojik ve kültürel etmenler. Opus International Journal of Society Researches, 17(38), 5735-5763.
  48. Habib, R., White, K., & Hoegg, J. (2021). Everybody thinks we should but nobody does: How combined injunctive and descriptive norms motivate organ donor registration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 621-630.
  49. Hablemitoğlu, Ş., Özkan, Y., & Yıldırım, U. F. (2010). Bir fedakâkarlık örneği olarak “kan bağışı”. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 20(20), 67-78.
  50. Hardie, E., Kashima, E., & Pridmore, P. (2005). The influence of relational, individual and collective selfaspects on stress, uplifts and health. Self and Identity, 4(1), 1-24.
  51. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
  52. Healy, K. (2000). Embedded altruism: blood collection regimes and the European Union’s donor population. American Journal of Sociology, 105(6), 1633-1657.
  53. Hoffman, M. L. (1978). Psychological and biological perspectives on altruism. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(4), 323-339.
  54. Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). “I” follow my heart and “we” rely on reasons: The impact of selfconstrual on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392-1411.
  55. 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.
  56. Jebarajakirthy, C., & Das, M. (2020). How self-construal drives intention for status consumption: A moderated mediated mechanism. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102065.
  57. Jonason, P. K., Foster, J., Oshio, A., Sitnikova, M., Birkas, B., & Gouveia, V. (2017). Self-construals and the Dark Triad traits in six countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 120-124. Kanver.org (tarihsiz). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de kan bankacılığı. https://www.kanver.org/sayfa/ekutuphane/dunyada-ve-turkiye-de-kan- bankaciligi/43 sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 23.05.2022
  58. Kaplan, M. (2020). Sosyal pazarlama ve gönüllülük: Kan bağışı üzerine bir araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(4), 3291-3309.
  59. Karacan, E., Seval, G. C., Aktan, Z., Ayli, M., & Palabiyikoglu, R. (2013). Blood donors and factors impacting the blood donation decision: motives for donating blood in Turkish sample. Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 49(3), 468-473.,
  60. Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 19-48.
  61. Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Farsides, T., Kim, U., Strack, F., Werth, L., & Yuki, M. (2004). Culture and context-sensitive self: The amount and meaning of context-sensitivity of phenomenal self differ across cultures. Self and Identity, 3(2), 125-141.
  62. Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3-12.
  63. Koydemir, S., & Mısır, S. (2015). Benlik kurguları ve mutluluk: Deneysel bir hazırlama çalışması. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 5(44), 49-60.
  64. Kumru, A., Carlo, G., & Edwards, C. P. (2004). Olumlu sosyal davranişlarin i̇lişkisel, kültürel, bilişsel ve duyuşsal bazi deǧiş kenlerle i̇lişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19(54), 109-125.
  65. Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2013). You get what you pay for? Self-construal influences price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 255-267.
  66. Lay, S., Zagefka, H., González, R., Álvarez, B., & Valdenegro, D. (2020). Don’t forget the group! The importance of social norms and empathy for shaping donation behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 518-531.
  67. Lee, Y. J., Choi, J., & Muldrow, A. F. (2020). The role of interdependent self-construal in increasing donation behavioral intention: Underlying processing mechanism of impression motives. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 41(1), 104-118.
  68. Lee, M., Bae, J., & Koo, D. M. (2021). The effect of materialism on conspicuous vs inconspicuous luxury consumption: focused on need for uniqueness, self-monitoring and self-construal. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(3), 869-887.
  69. Li, C., & Wu, Y. (2019). Understanding voluntary intentions within the theories of self-determination and planned behavior. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 31(4), 378-389.
  70. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognitions, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
  71. Masser, B. M., White, K. M., Hyde, M. K., & Terry, D. J. (2008). The psychology of blood donation: current research and future directions. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 22(3), 215-233.
  72. Mathur, A. (1996). Older adults’ motivations for gift giving to charitable organizations: An exchange theory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(1), 107-123.
  73. Mathur, A. (2013). Materialism and charitable giving: Can they co-exist? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(3), 149-158.
  74. Monroe, K. R. (2002). Explicating altruism. İçinde Post, S.G., Underwood, L.G., Schloss, J.P & Hurlbut, W.B. (Ed.). Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogu (s. 106-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  75. Nguyen, D. D., DeVita, D. A., Hirschler, N. V., & Murphy, E. L. (2008). Blood donor satisfaction and intention of future donation. Transfusion, 48(4), 742-748.
  76. Oswalt, R. M. (1977). A review of blood donor motivation and recruitment. Transfusion, 17(2), 123-135.
  77. Özdemir, Y. (2012). Ergenlerin öznel iyi oluşlarının özerk, ilişkisel ve özerk-ilişkisel benlik kurguları açısından incelenmesi. Turkish Psychological Counseling & Guidance Journal, 4(38), 188-198.
  78. Pearce, P. L., & Amato, P. R. (1980). A taxonomy of helping: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 363-371.
  79. Piersma, T. W., Bekkers, R., Klinkenberg, E. F., De Kort, W. L., & Merz, E. M. (2017). Individual, contextual and network characteristics of blood donors and non-donors: a systematic review of recent literature. Transfusion, 15(5), 382.
  80. Piliavin, J. A. (1990). Why do they give the gift of life? A review of research on blood donors since 1977. Transfusion, 30(5), 444-459.
  81. Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 27-65.
  82. Ranganathan, S. K., & Henley, W. H. (2008). Determinants of charitable donation intentions: a structural equation model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), 1-11.
  83. Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2012). Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment. Theory and Decision, 72, 221-243.
  84. Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303-316.
  85. Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209-219.
  86. Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215-238.
  87. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155-165.
  88. Saruhan, Ş. C., & Özdemirci, A. (2020). Bilim, felsefe ve metodoloji: araştırmada yöntem problemi-SPSS uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
  89. Schlegelmilch, B. B., Diamantopoulos, A., & Love, A. (1997). Characteristics affecting charitable donations: empirical evidence from Britain. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 3(1), 14-28.
  90. Simpson, B., White, K., & Laran, J. (2018). When public recognition for charitable giving backfires: The role of independent self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1257-1273.
  91. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
  92. Skarmeas, D., & Shabbir, H. A. (2011). Relationship quality and giving behaviour in the UK fundraising sector: Exploring the antecedent roles of religiosity and self-construal. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 720-738.
  93. Smith, D. H. (1981). Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 10(1), 21-36.
  94. Sojka, B. N., & Sojka, P. (2008). The blood donation experience: self-reported motives and obstacles for donating blood. Vox Sanguinis, 94(1), 56-63.
  95. Soyer, E., & Hogarth, R. M. (2011). The size and distribution of donations: Effects of number of recipients. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 616-628.
  96. Sönmezoğlu, M. (2020). Türkiye’de her yıl yaklaşık 3 milyon hasta kan transfüzyonuna ihtiyaç duyuyor https://yeditepehastaneleri.com/saglik-rehberi/saglik-yasam/turkiye-de-her-yil-yaklasik-3- milyon-hasta-kan-transfuzyonuna-ihtiyac sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim tarihi: 22.08.2023
  97. Steele, W. R., Schreiber, G. B., Guiltinan, A., Nass, C., Glynn, S. A., Wright, D. J.,. & Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study. (2008). The role of altruistic behavior, empathetic concern, and social responsibility motivation in blood donation behavior. Transfusion, 48(1), 43-54.
  98. Tekizoğlu, F. Y. (2018). Organ bağışı: Bireylerin kararlarını etkileyen psikolojik faktörler. Muhakeme Dergisi, 1(1), 21-35.
  99. Tiltay, M. A. (2014). Bir tüketici davranışı olarak bireysel bağış: Bağış motivasyonlarının doğrudan ve dolaylı bağış üzerindeki etkisi (Doktora Tezi). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  100. Tiltay, M. A., & Torlak, Ö. (2015). Bir tüketici davranışı olarak bireysel bağış: Gönüllü hizmet sağlayanlar üzerinde bir odak grup çalışması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 7-30.
  101. Tison, G. H., Liu, C., Ren, F., Nelson, K., & Shan, H. (2007). Influences of general and traditional Chinese beliefs on the decision to donate blood among employer-organized and volunteer donors in Beijing, China. Transfusion, 47(10), 1871-1879.
  102. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907- 924.
  103. Uysal V., Turan, Ş. & Işık, Z. (2014). Motivasyonel dindarlık ölçeği (MMRI) üzerine bir değerlendirme, Journal of Islamic Research, 25(1), 15-27.
  104. Veldhuizen, I., & Van Dongen, A. (2013). Motivational differences between whole blood and plasma donors already exist before their first donation experience. Transfusion, 53(8), 1678-1686.
  105. Verhaert, G. A., & Van den Poel, D. (2011). Empathy as added value in predicting donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1288-1295.
  106. von Borgstede, C., Andersson, M., & Hansla, A. (2014). Value-congruent information processing: the role of issue involvement and argument strength. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 461-477.
  107. Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299-309.
  108. Wei, Y., Donthu, N., & Bernhardt, K. L. (2012). Volunteerism of older adults in the United States. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 9, 1-18.
  109. Wiepking, P., Bekkers, R. H., & Osili, U. O. (2014). Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. European Sociological Review, 30(5), 640-654.
  110. Winterich, K. P., & Barone, M. J. (2011). Warm glow or cold, hard cash? Social identity effects on consumer choice for donation versus discount promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 855-868.
  111. Xu, J. (2022). The impact of guilt and shame in charity advertising: The role of self-construal. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 27(1), e1709.
  112. Yong Seo, J., & L. Scammon, D. (2014). Does feeling holier than others predict good deeds? Selfconstrual, self-enhancement and helping behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), 441- 451.
  113. Zengin, K. (2018). Yerel yönetimler ve sosyal sorumluluk Güngören Belediyesi Kan Kardeşliği Kulübü (Kanka) örneği. Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 84-101.
  114. Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 838-850.
  115. Zhao, X., Cai, F., & Yang, Z. (2023). Are people less generous after a family member gives to charity? The interaction of self-construal and relationship type. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(2), 398-416
  116. Glynn, S. A., Kleinman, S. H., Schreiber, G. B., Zuck, T., Mc Combs, S., Bethel, J.,. & Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study. (2002). Motivations to donate blood: demographic comparisons. Transfusion, 42(2), 216-225.
  117. Steele, W. R., Schreiber, G. B., Guiltinan, A., Nass, C., Glynn, S. A., Wright, D. J.,. & Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study. (2008). The role of altruistic behavior, empathetic concern, and social responsibility motivation in blood donation behavior. Transfusion, 48(1), 43-54.