Our new paper looks at whether different social groups perceive normative targets for their charitable giving. We find that they do!.

RT @HistPhil: New post in HistPhil's forum on the inclusive study of global philanthropy: @CM__Chapman & Sana Nakata urge scholars to "take….

Jumping ship to the new platform (have been waiting for a viable alternative since all the madness started here). You can follow me there at cass__chapman 😊.

Had a delightful few days in Canterbury visiting @UKCPhilanthropy — wonderful to connect with scholars and students of fundraising and philanthropy. Thanks for hosting, Beth.

Our study opens new pathways for preventing violations by proposing that sectors can have their own unique (lack of) ethical infrastructure, which can be pivotal in shaping organizational & individual trustworthy conduct.

Factors leaving nonprofits vulnerable to scandal are:.1. Corporatization: growing pressure for nonprofits to operate like businesses.2. Resource scarcity: sector is perpetually under-funded & under-resourced.3. Assumed moral integrity: nonprofit employees assumed to be good.

Specifically, we find that three factors about the nonprofit sector have downstream consequences (affecting organizational & individual factors in turn), which can therefore leave nonprofits more vulnerable to experiencing ethical transgressions.

By interviewing senior nonprofit leaders with cross-sectoral experience, we articulate a trickle-down model of trust violations in nonprofits.

Are there special characteristics of the nonprofit sector that actually leave charities MORE vulnerable to scandal?. I’m really jazzed to share our new research led by @DrNGillespie (& with Mattia Anesa, @dr_morganalw, @KarenEHealy, & Matt Hornsey).

Thank you @TFaseur & Tine De Bock for hosting me for a wonderful week at KU Leuven in Brussels. I’m excited about all the cool work your team are doing on the topic of fundraising ethics. Thank you to everyone I met for making me feel so welcome!

Based on these findings, we provide guidance for consumer advocates & policy makers to consider individual psychological factors in education campaigns to improve decision making in relation to multilevel marketing opportunities as well as participant wellbeing.

Surprisingly, there was no consistent evidence that people were attracted to multilevel marketing opportunities because they were looking to satisfy unmet psychological needs for meaning, growth, social connection, or control.

In addition, thought-action fusion (i.e., the belief that thoughts alone create reality) was a unique predictor of attraction to multilevel marketing among new prospects, & those high in thought-action fusion were more likely to have participated in MLM.

The second most reliable predictor was spirituality: new prospects who believed that a higher power protects & guides them were more likely to be attracted to MLMs. Those high in spirituality were also more likely to have participated in MLM & spent longer participating.

The strongest & most reliable predictor was extrinsic life goals: new prospects who placed an emphasis on becoming rich, famous, & having an appealing image were more attracted to multilevel marketing.

Despite much controversy, MLM continues to grow in terms of participation. It is not well known who participates or why they do so. We therefore surveyed 1503 people to find the psychological attributes associated with past MLM participation & interest in engaging in the future.

Very cool new research led by @Lucasjdixon1 (& in cahoots with Matt Hornsey, @nicofharts, me, & @brienza_p) asks why people are attracted to multilevel marketing (MLM) business opportunities:.

Thanks to the awesome research team: @Lucasjdixon1 Ann Wallin, @Tarliyoung @barbaramasser @WLouisUQ.

I wrote a short blog summarizing these and other interesting findings from the study, for those who want to learn more:

- 2x as many progressives as conservatives said their group supports environmental causes, &.- 17x as many religious as nonreligious people said their group supports religious causes.

Some of the differences between groups were large. For example,.- 5x as many men as women said their group supports political orgs,.- 6x as many younger as older people said their group supports sports & recreation nonprofits,.