Download - Nostalgia and giving to charity: a conceptual framework for discussion and research

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector MarketingInt. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 13: 13–30 (2008)Published online 17 August 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.300
Nostalgia and giving to charity:a conceptual framework fordiscussion and researchAltaf Merchant*,y and John Fordz

Department of Business Administration, College of Business and Public Administration, Old

Dominion University, USA

� A

*CorBusinAdm2352E-mayDoczProfDom

Cop

cademicwork involving nostalgia has shown it to evoke a basket of emotions. This paper

proposes a conceptual model that links nostalgia to charitable giving. We argue that the

nostalgia evoked by certain NPOs (not-for-profit organizations) is likely to have a bearing

on both emotional and familial utility derived by the donor. This in turn is likely to drive

the donor commitment to the NPO. Thus by evoking nostalgia, certain NPOs are likely to

emotionally engage their current and potential donors, which could facilitate the creation

of long-term intimate relationships between themand their donors. However, the extent to

which the NPO can evoke nostalgia is likely to depend upon the nostalgia proneness of the

donor, the emotional importance of the past experiences evoked by the NPO, and the

characteristics of the NPO such as the extent to which the NPO can alleviate the feelings of

alienation, discontinuity, and the need for authenticity experienced by the donor. The

paper provides a series of research propositions and proposes a research agenda.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Charitable giving has stagnated in the U.S. overthe last 30 years (Burke, 2001). Philanthropicinstitutions have found it increasingly difficultto raise needed funds from givers (Eikenberry,2005). In fact, this has been seen in othercountries as well. Over the past 10 yearscharities in the U.K. have also been finding itincreasingly difficult to raise funds (Sargeant

respondence to: Altaf Merchant, Department ofess Administration, College of Business and Publicinistration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA9, USA.il: [email protected] Student in Marketing.essor of Marketing and International Business, Oldinion University.

yright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int

et al., 2000). There are a number of reasons forthis malaise in giving. First of all, many currentgivers only give small amounts to charities. Ithas been shown that individuals give less than2% of their personal income to charities(Burke, 2001). Second, the bulk of givers areolder adults (Kottasz, 2004). Third, there hasbeen an increase in the number of charitableorganizations (Sargeant et al., 2000), whichraises the competitive intensity across a largernumber of organizations fighting for a share ofa limited pool of donor funds. The picture isnot a promising one.The key challenge for MarketingManagers of

not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) is toincrease the amount of giving among currentgivers and to attract new and younger givers.

. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2008

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

14 Altaf Merchant and John Ford

To achieve this, NPOs are urged to engage theirgivers with appeals that interest and involvethem. They can facilitate this engagementthrough the identification of emotional con-structs that can drive commitment to NPOsand increase charitable giving. Recently,Sargeant et al. (2006) proposed a perceptualmodel of donor giving behavior which showedsignificant linkages between such perceptualdimensions as emotional utility (giving to feelbetter about oneself) and familial utility (givingconnected to a family member affected by thecause associated with the charity) and commit-ment which in turn was found to drive donorgiving.While this study took amajor step in theright direction, the authors noted thatadditional research into other driving percep-tual constructs is warranted.One such potentially relevant affecting

construct is nostalgia. Academic work invol-ving nostalgia has shown it to be a verypowerful array of emotions (Davis, 1979;Gardener, 1985). It evokes a poignant mixtureof mental pain and joy (Frued, 1926; Akhtar,1996). The American Heritage Dictionary(1972) defines nostalgia as a ‘longing forthings, persons, or situations that are notpresent’. It is basically a longing for a perceived‘utopian’ past (Bassin, 1993; Batcho, 1998)without the actual acceptance that it is gone(Kaplan, 1987). Nostalgia has been found toaffect old and young alike (McCann, 1941), andit appears to be not only a longing for a pastwhich has been personally experienced, but italso represents a longing for a ‘lost pastparadise’ (Peters, 1985) which one has neveractually been experienced (Stern, 1992). Thereis an increasing use of nostalgia in themarketing of consumer goods (Baker andKennedy, 1994). A good example of this canbe seen in the attempt to ‘reenact the reunion’with the lost past with appeals of ‘vintage retro’(Bassin, 1993), traditions, rituals, and the idealimages of the American community. One caneasily see these attempts in the use of the songsof the 1960s and 1970s and the strongemotional connections made between the pastand such products as automobiles, hamburgers,and soft drinks. If a song was associated with

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int

warm actual or perceived memories, theattaching of the song to a product or servicecan trigger warmth and positive feelings aboutthe associated product or service.

What might the connection be betweennostalgia and charitable giving behavior?Sargeant et al. (2006) suggest that familialutility may actually be affected by nostalgiasince desire for the situation experienced orperceived to have been experienced when aloved onewas still alive may influence giving inmemory of that loved one. However, theauthors are not aware of any research that hasbeen done to understand the relationshipbetween the experience of nostalgia andcharitable giving and the factors that influencethis relationship. The contribution of this studylies in its attempt to explain nostalgia and tosuggest how nostalgia may affect charitablegiving and also to discuss ways in which thecharacteristics of the donors and NPOs couldinfluence this relationship.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows.A detailed discussion of the nostalgia literatureis presented. This is then followed with aproposed conceptual model that links nostal-gia and giving to charity. A series of 11 researchpropositions are then justified and presentedwhich are connected to the various linkagesshown in the proposed model.

Nostalgia

There is much academic discussion on nos-talgia. Many scholars have described it as a fataldisease, which everyone experiences at onetime or another (Hoffer, 1934). Many othershave called it a hook of continuity in changingtimes (Tannock, 1995). They argue that themore dissatisfied consumers are with life as it istoday, the more they will want to revert backto the ways of the past (Baker and Kennedy,1994). Still others argue that since babyboomers are approaching middle age, theyare becoming increasingly nostalgic (Ungeret al., 1991; Stern, 1995). As a result, there is agrowing interest in the use of nostalgia inmarketing (Baker and Kennedy, 1994).


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Nostalgia and giving to charity 15

There are four broad definitions of nostalgia.The first is the temporal definition: ‘A positive

feeling for the past, with a negative feeling for

the present or future . . . THINGS WERE

BETTER . . ..THEN THAN NOW’ (Davis, 1979,page 18). The second focuses on the emotionsfelt while experiencing nostalgia: ‘A wistful

mood that may be prompted by an object, a

scene, a smell or a strain of music’ (Belk,1990, page 670). Holbrook and Schindler(1991), define nostalgia on the bases of whatcued the occurrence of nostalgia: ‘A preference

toward objects that were more common

when one was younger’. Finally Holbrook(1993) provides a more comprehensive defi-nition: ‘A longing for the past or a fondness

for possessions and activities associated with

the days of past’ (page 245).There are cognitive as well as affective

dimensions to the experience of nostalgia(Werman, 1977; Baumgartener, 1992). Thecognitive side focuses on the memories ofthe past and the affective side involves theemotions that these memories evoke. Researchhas shown that by stimulating the consumer’smemory, they can be made to feel theemotions they felt when they had the originalexperience (Braun-LaTour and LaTour, 2005).The emotions that are associated with nostal-gia are complex. The nostalgic experiencedoes not comprise all positive emotions, but itis a ‘bittersweet’ experience (Davis, 1979).Nostalgia evokes both positive and negativeemotions (Holak and Havlena, 1992). Byremembering the past the person feelswarmth, joy, and affection (Holak and Havlena,1998). At the same time there is a feeling ofsadness and loss with the realization that thepast cannot be recreated (Holak and Havlena,1998).Nostalgia is evoked by a variety of triggers

(Schindler and Holbrook, 1993; Holbrook andSchindler, 2003). Nostalgia can be triggered bysensory experiences (pleasurable sensorialexperiences from the past), links with theindividual’s homeland (bonding with objectsassociated with a distant land), items thatremind the individual of rites of passage,friends, and loved ones (objects representing


close social relationships), objects linked withaspects of continuity and security, and itemsassociated with the arts, culture, and entertain-ment (mental or spiritual freedom). Research-ers have also found that men and women havedifferent triggers for nostalgia (Baker andKennedy, 1994). There are two types ofnostalgia, personal or direct nostalgia andvicarious nostalgia.

Personal nostalgia

This is based on the person’s direct experi-ences. It is a longing for the lived past (Bakerand Kennedy, 1994) and the things, memories,and people associated with this past (Gould-ing, 2001). Personal nostalgia is a search for anidealized past. The person experiencing thiskind of nostalgia remembers things and eventsmore positively than they actually were.The individual experiencing nostalgia feelswarmth, happiness, and joy along with a senseof loss that the past is not going to return. Theylook to the past as if it represents the waythings should always be and regret the fact thatthings have changed (Bricklin, 2001; Stern,1995). Therefore, the person experiencingnostalgia is not only looking for the object ofnostalgia but the time before it was lost(Akhtar, 1996; Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport,2000). Personal nostalgia serves differentfunctions. It serves as an anchor of continuityand identity (Rubin et al., 1998) duringchanging circumstances in life (Noble andWalker, 1997). When circumstances change,people feel insecure and unsure of themselvesand therefore tend to revert to the memories ofthe past for comfort and support amidst fearsof an uncertain future (Nawas and Platt, 1965).It also helps alleviate feelings of loneliness(Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport, 2000). Whenpeople feel lonely they tend to remember pastevents with friends and family and relive thetimes which were happier. The personalnostalgia an individual experiences is influ-enced bymany factors, including age, nostalgiaproneness, intensity of personal experiences,and discontinuity.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Age

Is personal nostalgia purely a factor of aging?Certainly as people age, they develop apreference for bygone days (Davis, 1979).Those born between 1946 and 1964, referredto as baby boomers, frequently rememberevents and feelings shared among them byrecalling the days gone by. Some say thatnostalgia is a part of the normal aging process.For example, Batcho (1995) found that aspeople age they got more nostalgic andremembered the times of their youth withconsiderable nostalgia as they entered olderstage in life. However, some studies show thatnostalgia is not purely a function of age.Nostalgia rises and wanes across different agegroups depending on the experiences and thedemands imposed by life. For example, Batcho(1995) found that young college students werefound to be more nostalgic than the elderlygiven certain subjects. Larsen et al. (2001)measured the emotions felt by studentsgraduating and the emotions felt by studentsmoving out of their dormitories. These in-stances made the individuals feel the emotionsof nostalgia. The respondents were found toexperience both the positive emotion ofhappiness and the negative emotion of regretat the same time.

Nostalgia proneness

Some individuals show higher propensities orproneness for nostalgia than others (Holbrook,1993). Therefore, even among the same agegroup some individuals may be more nostalgicthan others. Nostalgia proneness is thus a facetof a person’s personality. Holbrook (1993,p 246) defined nostalgia proneness as ‘a facetof individual character—a psychographicvariable, aspect of life-style, or general custo-mer characteristic-that may vary among con-sumers’. Batcho (1998) also showed that aperson highly prone to nostalgia, rather thanbeing depressed, would have a better capacityfor emotionality. Therefore, he or she wouldbe very happy when experiencing happinessand very sad when experiencing sadness. His


or her capacity to feel emotions more intenselywould increase the likelihood of the individualto experience both the ‘sweet’ and the ‘bitter’emotions of nostalgia.

Holbrook (1993) developed a nostalgiaproneness scale, which is widely usedand cited. This scale utilizes a battery of20 questions that measure both the pronenessfor personal nostalgia and vicarious nostalgiabut do not address the cognitive and emotionalelements of the experience of personalnostalgia. It indicates how prone a person isfor nostalgia and therefore how likely theindividual will prefer consumption itemswhich evoke nostalgia. Batcho (1995) createdand tested the nostalgia inventory, whichexamined nostalgia as a personality trait. Thisscale looked at personal nostalgia and segre-gated individuals into high nostalgia and lownostalgia groups. Individuals who were in thehigh nostalgia group perceived the past asmore favorable that those in the low nostalgiagroup (Batcho, 1998). Therefore, people whoare more prone to nostalgia are more open tonostalgic appeals, branding strategies, andadvertising (Zimmer et al., 1999). For the highnostalgia prone individuals, the consumptionof goods and services acts as a means ofexperiencing nostalgia (Holbrook and Schind-ler, 2003). They are more open to nostalgicappeals and hence consume products whichenable them to experience nostalgia.

Personal experience

Nostalgia is influenced by personal experi-ence. The more intense the past experiences,the stronger the memories associated withthose experiences (Baumgartener, 1992; Loms-ky-Feder and Rapoport, 2000). Events whichhave been more intense or more significant areretained (hence more vivid) in the autobio-graphical memory more than less intense andless important events (Sehulster, 1989). In astudy of the recall of 25 seasons of Metropo-litan opera, Sehulster (1989) found thatindividuals recalled those seasons better whichwere associated with intense emotions or


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


significant events linked to them. For instance,one individual remembered the 1979–80season of opera more than any season becauseit was the first his wife and he had attendedtogether. Novel events are also better remem-bered (Rubin et al., 1998). These events areremembered better because they are subject tomore elaborate cognitive processing (due totheir novelty), as they are distinct from otherevents. Events associated with life scripts arealso better recalled. Life scripts refer todevelopmental changes that are expected totake place at various points of life and differentlife phases that people are expected to livethrough at different ages (Bluck and Habermas,2000; Clarke, 1995). For example—gradu-ation, marriage, childbirth are part of the lifescript. Since these events are recalled better,people get more nostalgic about these eventsas they have special memories surrounding theevents. Does this mean nonsignificant eventsare not recalled? Sehulster (1989) found thatthough the recall was better than for lessintense events, the accuracy of the events wasnot precise and there was much distortion.

Discontinuity

People experiencing discontinuity tend tobecome nostalgic (Davis, 1979). Negativeand stressful events in life may result indepression and negative feelings which theindividual must deal with (Tesser and Beach,1998). This is evident when a loved one passesaway, one moves to a new country, loses a job,or any event which disturbs the equilibrium oflife. When faced with these disjunctiveepisodes, individuals tend to draw on innerresources so that they can restore the sense ofstability, security, and continuity (Elson, 1992).The individual then clings to objects andevents experienced in the past. The individuallooks out for stimuli which enable them tostimulate past memories. This could be a strainof music, an object or anything that could takethe individual back in time and make him orher remember the past and experiencenostalgia. This leads the individual to revive


the past and re-experience the memories andthe warmth of the past (Ornstein and Ornstein,1985). Nostalgia provides a mesh of securityand helps the individual to overcome theinsecurity brought on by discontinuity. Bestand Nelson (1985) found that men who weremore mobile and travelled a lot tended to bemore nostalgic than women who stayed athome. Mehta and Belk (1991) found thatIndian migrants to the US kept objects fromtheir homes in India, and often indulged inpersonal nostalgia while coping with theseparation from their homeland. The objectsof nostalgia also become a mechanism for themaintenance of a sense of continuity (Belk,1990). For example, when a loved one dies,their belongings become objects that remindthem about the person and bring backmemories and emotions associated with thedeceased person.

Vicarious nostalgia

‘It deals with nostalgia for a period outside ofthe individuals living memory’, (Goulding,2002, p 542). Vicarious nostalgia is not linkedto any direct past personal experience. Unlikepersonal nostalgia it is the grieving for the lossof something that was never directly experi-enced by the individual (Croft, 1989; Baker andKennedy, 1994). It is not influenced by age.Goulding (2002) found that even 25-year-oldsfelt nostalgic for the era of the 1960s, whichthey never experienced. Vicarious nostalgiarepresents a yearning for traditional, conser-vative, and community values of bygone eras.Experiencing vicarious nostalgia is an indivi-dualized blend of fantasy and reality (Rose andWood, 2005). It is remembering times whichan individual has not personally experiencedbut longs for. Sohn (1983) argues that vicariousnostalgia should be considered as paramnesia,the feeling that one has seen it before or heardit before, the basis of which could be purefantasy. Vicarious nostalgia is transformative(Sohn, 1983). For example, by attending anOpera, the audience feels transported toanother era. The visit to a museum becomes


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


a retreat from the real world, both spatially andtemporally and a transportation to the real past(Joy and Sherry, 2003). When indulging invicarious nostalgia the past becomes thepresent, which is followed by a feeling ofloss and melancholy that the past was but athought and not a reality (Daniels, 1985). As aresult, vicarious nostalgia becomes a quest foran illusion that can never be found. Thisidentification with the past influences thought,action, and behavior (Goulding, 2002). Indi-viduals experience the authentic ‘golden’ pastvicariously by consuming objects that helptake them back to that time (Rose and Wood,2005). The factors that influence vicariousnostalgia are: nostalgia proneness, discontinu-ity, alienation and the loss of the feeling ofcommunity (Daniels, 1985), and the feelingthat the authentic ‘golden’ past is being lostand needs to be preserved (Stern, 1992).

Nostalgia proneness

Like personal nostalgia, there are some peoplewho are more prone to indulge in vicariousnostalgia than others. The Holbrook (1993)scale measures how prone a person is likely tobe nostalgic. It does not measure the intensityof the experience of vicarious nostalgia beingexperienced by the individual. People who aremore prone to be nostalgic are more likely tobe influenced by nostalgic appeals.

Discontinuity

Davis (1979) argues that when individuals facediscontinuity, they tend not only to indulge inpersonal nostalgia but also are open toexperiencing vicarious nostalgia. Therefore,like personal nostalgia, vicarious nostalgia canalso serve as a basis for coping with disconti-nuity. When faced with uncertainty andanxious circumstances, individuals tend togo back in time and link with the past as thatgives a sense of security. It represents an ‘oldtweed coat’ (Davis, 1979), suggesting that asmany things may change, there are alwaysthings that remain the same. For example, a


visit to the museum can transport theindividual to the past, thus generating vicar-ious nostalgia. This helps the individual escapefrom the present and experience a sense ofstability in the past. Thus, the link to the pastprovides a hook of continuity in turbulenttimes (Davis, 1979; Tannock, 1995) since itfacilitates an escape from the problems ofreality by allowing the individual to seekshelter in the security of the past (Baudrillard,1983).

Alienation

Alienation refers ‘to the separation of humanbeings from fellow human beings and fromtheir institutions’ (Kanungo, 1979, p 120). Thiscould be related to the workplace, thechanging face of the family, etc. In the past,the perception was that people had strongerconnections and roots with family and othersocial institutions. Unbridled individualismleads to extreme competition which can resultin the tendency for individuals to feel that theirinterests are incompatible with those of others.Hence, a positive outcome for one might meana negative outcome for another (Waterman,1981). Adding to this, the fast pace of life hasled to pressures, frustrations, and a lack ofinterpersonal involvement (Bewes, 1997;Lears, 1998). This has led to individuals leadingmore private lives and society becomingimpersonalized (Chase and Shaw, 1989). Somepeople no longer have strong ties to others.The result of this can be a loss of belongingnessand security. Even if individuals feel the needto be associated with groups, they may beunable to build these relationships thus leadingto frustration and insecurity, which in turncreates a sense of meaninglessness in life andloneliness (Kanungo, 1979). By indulging invicarious nostalgia, it may be possible forindividuals to indulge in the values of com-munity of the past, of times when family andsocial groups had a presence in everyday life(Daniels, 1985). Thus, the transference toanother era through vicarious nostalgiabecomes a way of healing the sense of


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


insecurity and loneliness. By identifying withspecific objects of nostalgia, individualsindulge in the times when community valueswere stronger. Individuals experiencing vicar-ious nostalgia will feel that they are a part of agroup sharing the same interest and henceform a collective identity. This creates a ‘neotribe’ where the group shares something incommon that is mutually valued. This becomesa basis for socializing and building alternatecommunities (Maffesoli, 1996). This thereforeserves as the foundation for a larger identity forthe marginalized individual (Price et al., 2000).An example of this is the reliving of themountain man myth fantasy, where a group ofpeople get together and live, dress, eat, anddrink just like the mountain man did manyyears ago. Not only does it enable them torelive the days when there was a strong senseof community, but it also helps create a socialgroup of people for friendship, bondingnetworking among those with a commoninterest (Belk and Costa, 1998). Historicalanachronist groups share a love of the life andtimes and values of some common interestperiod in history, and can be seen in largenumbers in the U.S. and Europe.

Search for authenticity

Authenticity of an object refers to its perceivedgenuineness (Trilling, 1972). Authenticitygives a feeling of purity and sacredness. Forsome people nothing appears as how it shouldbe. Products, fashion, art, and even the role ofthe family is perceived to have deteriorated.Lears (1998) argues that the individualistculture of pleasure seeking has created adisillusionment of everyday life. It is thisdiscontentment with the present that createsan urge to seek the ‘golden age’ of the past(Chase and Shaw, 1989). For some individuals,they cannot believe what has happenedaround them (Baudrillard, 1983). This hasprompted a feeling of deterioration anddecline with a need for authenticity (e.g.,the Coke catch phrase ‘The Real Thing’ assuggested by Belk et al., 1989) and for a


simpler and more authentic way of life awayfrom present day complexities (Seremetakis,1994). Thus, when the present is no longerappealing, individuals want to simulate (Bau-drillard, 1983) and create an alternate‘authentic’ reality (Firat and Venkatesh,1995). This authentic object of the past isperceived to be genuine, true, and eternal.Vicarious nostalgia therefore offers a link to

the past and the values associated with thatpast (Lears, 1998). The authenticity of the pastbecomes resurrected by the experience ofnostalgia and the individual relives theauthentic past. Nostalgia becomes a way totake refuge away from everyday life into thevalues of the past. This is reflected in theconsumption undertaken by the individual. Forexample, Belk (1991) argues that individualsconsume antiques or antique looking memor-abilia because they evoke a time associatedwith the era antique belongs to, which isvalued or admired by the owner. It is thesepositive emotions that give a sense of con-tinuity and a feeling of authenticity andnostalgic escapism. Imagine how appeals thatlink individuals to times of perceived warmthand security could trigger donors to givemonies to those charitable organizations.

Giving behavior

As per the charitable giving literature, givingmay result in a direct gain to the giver. Thisgain could be either emotional or economic.Emotional benefits include a warm glow(Andreoni, 1990), prestige, and respect(Olson, 1965) in the community, self-esteem(Mathur, 1996), recognition (Kottasz, 2004),peer pressure (Webber, 2004), and thealleviation of negative feelings (Cialdiniet al., 1987). Economic benefits include taxbenefits, invitations to gala events (Kottasz,2004; Sargeant et al., 2006), etc. Sargeant et al.(2006) summarized the intrinsic determinantsof giving under three categories: familial utility(benefits to family members either alive or inmemoriam), emotional utility (emotions felt),and demonstrable utility (a direct economic


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


benefit accruing to the giver like the chance toattend a performance, dinner, event, etc).In this burgeoning era of relationship

marketing, the focus is on establishing long-term intimate relationships between buyersand sellers. Equally appropriate is the establish-ing of a relationship between donor andrecipient (Belk, 1979). For this to happen, itis proposed that commitment and trust arevital to maintain relationships (Morgan andHunt, 1994). Trust is the confidence in theother party’s reliability and integrity (Morganand Hunt, 1994) and in the not-for-profitliterature, trust has been found to be influ-enced by organizational factors: professional-ism demonstrated by the charity and thequality of its communications (Sargeantet al., 2006). Commitment is the enduringdesire to maintain a valued relationship(Morgan and Hunt, 1994). The higher theemotional utility (emotions felt out of giving)and familial utility (link to family), the greaterthe degree of commitment and the greater thelevel of giving that is exhibited by the donor tothat charitable organization (Sargeant et al.,2006). The perceived demonstrable benefits(selfish gains like invitations to gala events(Kottasz, 2004)) associated with charitablegiving helps to persuade nondonors to becomedonors, but it does not drive commitment(Sargeant et al., 2006).

Conceptual model

Looking to the work of Sargeant et al. (2006),charitable giving is affected by commitment,which in turn is affected by trust and byemotional and familial utility, which areintrinsic, while trust is driven by organizationalelements such as organizational professional-ism and quality of communications, which areextrinsic.Our model (Figure 1) builds on the work of

Sargeant et al. (2006). We propose that theemotional engagement associated with nostal-gia is likely to have a bearing on both emotionaland familial utility. The two types of nostal-gia—personal nostalgia and vicarious nostalgia


are likely to impact the emotional utility andfamilial utility derived by the giver, which inturn would drive commitment. The effectiveuse of advertising cues to elicit nostalgicreactions to ads or communications wouldbe expected to affect the donor’s feelingsabout the organization doing the communicat-ing/advertising. The positive potential associ-ated with the reliving of fond personalexperiences and memories (personal nostal-gia) and/or the connection to a happier past(vicarious nostalgia) should enhance thechance of donor giving to the charity inquestion. However, the extent to which theNPO can evoke nostalgia depends upon thenostalgia proneness of the giver, emotionalimportance of the past experiences evoked bythe NPO and the characteristics of the NPOsuch as the extent to which the NPO canalleviate the feelings of alienation and dis-continuity in the giver, and the level to whichthe NPO can fill in the need for authenticity forthe giver. We will now present researchpropositions on the bases of the model.

Research propositions

From the nostalgia literature review it isevident that nostalgia evokes a bundle ofemotions that engage the person experiencingnostalgia. The giving behavior literature hasalso shown that there are emotional benefitsarising out of giving. This section first presentsa set of six research propositions that lay outthe bases of the relationship between nostalgiaand giving to charity. The next five prop-ositions then provide specific circumstancesunder which nostalgic appeals by NPOs arelikely to provide emotional benefits to thedonor and hence create stronger bonds withhim.

Personal nostalgia and charity giving

With changing circumstances in life and aging,people remember the past with increasingfondness. They remember the experiencesthey have undergone. They begin to long for


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

EmotionalUtility

FamilialUtility

Personal Nostalgia

CommitmentGiving

Behavior

VicariousNostalgia

Communication

Professionalism

Trust

Nostalgia proneness

PastExperiences

Nostalgia proneness

Alienation Discontinuity

Aging

Nostalgia

Search forauthenticity

Discontinuity

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

/ P6

P7 P11

P8P9

P10

Figure 1. Conceptual model.


the past (Baker and Kennedy, 1994) and thethings, memories of experiences, and peopleassociated with this past (Goulding, 2001). Thetriggering of nostalgia is associated with fondmemories of friends and loved ones who mayhave died. Nostalgia opens a variety of positiveand negative emotions. Though there is often asense of loss, there is also comfort and warmthin thememories. In a charitable giving context,when thinking of one’s loved ones, theindividual is likely to feel a personal affinityfor the people being remembered. Thispersonal affinity should motivate the individualto donate to a charity in memoriam (Sargeantet al., 2006). In this case, the likelihood isthat the giver will feel a connection to the pastloved one through the giving of a gift in thatindividual’s name (Fischer et al., 1996). Thisacts as a platform for the individual toexperience nostalgia and hence be closer tothe loved one. For example, if someone haslost a relative to cancer, by giving to charitiesassociated with cancer in the name of the lostrelative, this will help to keep the memory ofthe loved one alive and bring the individual astep closer to that lost relative or friend. This iswhat is described by Sargeant et al. (2006) asfamilial utility arising out of giving, which


benefits family members either alive or inmemoriam. As a result, the following researchproposition is offered:

P1: Personal nostalgia is likely to lead to

higher levels of familial utility

Nostalgia creates a fantasized reunion withthe idealized past. The person experiencingnostalgia is not only looking for the object ofnostalgia, but the time before it was lost(Akhtar, 1996; Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport,2000). Thus, an academic institution couldevoke nostalgia in their appeals for donationsby stimulating the school day memories(Braun-LaTour et al., 2004) among itsex-students. Hence by giving to his school,the individual would feel closer to his schooldays, reminding him of the memories of thepast and thus experiencing nostalgia. Thiscould result in feelings of elation, happiness,and warmth (Holak and Havlena, 1998). As aresult, personal nostalgia would thereforecontribute to emotional benefits (Sargeantet al., 2006). Therefore, we expect that theemotions evoked by personal nostalgia arelikely to result in emotional utility. Thus wecan say that:


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


P2: Personal nostalgia is likely to lead to

higher levels of emotional utility

Commitment is the enduring desire tomaintain a valued relationship (Morgan andHunt, 1994), and those who develop acommitment to nonprofits will maintain thatrelationship as it serves to reduce uncertaintyand vulnerability (Sargeant et al., 2006).Certainly the more personal association thedonor develops with the charity, the morecommitted he or she will be to that charity(Sargeant and Lee, 2004). The emotion ofnostalgia triggered by giving in memoriam(familial utility) would be expected tostrengthen the commitment to the charity(Sargeant et al., 2006). Logically then charitygiving becomes a way for the giver toreconnect with the past or feel close affinityto his lost loved one. This commitment to thecharity drives giving behavior. Thus:

P3: Personal nostalgia is likely to result in

familial utility, which produces higher

levels of commitment, which in turn is

likely to drive giving behavior.

P4: Personal nostalgia is likely to result in

emotional utility, which produces higher

levels of commitment, which in turn is

likely to drive giving behavior.

Vicarious nostalgia and charity giving

Vicarious nostalgia is a longing for a past notpersonally experienced by the individual(Baker and Kennedy, 1994). As previouslydiscussed, it is a response to alienation andneed for authenticity. One of the mainpremises is that associating with certainobjects of the past will allow the individualto relive the past vicariously through theseobjects of consumption (Belk, 1991; Rose andWood, 2005). By associating with objects orevents of the past they vicariously relive theemotions of this past (Belk, 1988). The triggersof vicarious nostalgia are experiential andevoke the emotions of nostalgia (Holbrook


and Schindler, 2003). In a charity-givingcontext, when someone goes to the Operaor symphony, the experience evokes theemotions of vicarious nostalgia for a past era.Offerings such as operas and music recitals/performances give the donor fulfillment andelation and transport him or her to another era(Goulding, 2001), provide an intellectualascendance (Davis, 1979), offer mental orspiritual freedom (Holbrook and Schindler,2003), and alleviate a sense of loss of history(Goulding, 2001). Vicarious nostalgia alsohelps create a community where the groupshares something in common that is mutuallyvalued (Daniels, 1985; Maffesoli, 1996). Beingassociated with and giving to causes that evokevicarious nostalgia aids in the recapturing ofpositive feelings (Fischer et al., 1996). Itfollows, therefore, that vicarious nostalgia willalso be able to create emotional utility(Sargeant et al., 2006). Hence, the followingproposition is posited:

P5: Vicarious nostalgia is likely to lead to

emotional utility.

The desire to be associated with a group ofpeople with similar values and beliefs in causesthat coincide with those of the potential donorwill drive commitment to the cause (Morganand Hunt, 1994). By being associated with andgiving to these causes, the giver can gainemotional utility through vicariously relivingthe ‘golden era’. This emotional utility wouldthen drive commitment (Goulding, 2002) tothe cause, which in turn will drive givingbehavior (see Figure 1). Thus, it is proposedthat:

P6: The emotional utility derived through

vicarious nostalgia is likely to drive giving

behavior mediated by commitment.

Factors influencing nostalgia and

giving to charity

As discussed in the paper earlier, certainfactors influence nostalgia among individuals.The factors that influence nostalgia are


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


nostalgia proneness, discontinuity, personalexperiences, search for authenticity, andalienation. It is therefore argued that sincethese factors influence nostalgia they wouldalso have a bearing on how nostalgia couldinfluence giving to charity.A review of the nostalgia literature has

shown us that certain people are more likely orprone to nostalgia than others. Nostalgiaproneness is a facet of a person’s personality.People who are more prone to nostalgia aremore open to nostalgic appeals, brandingstrategies, and advertising (Zimmer et al.,1999). Individuals who were in the highnostalgia proneness group perceived the pastas more favorable that those in the lownostalgia proneness group (Batcho, 1998).Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that thelevel of nostalgia proneness of the donor islikely to affect the extent of emotional benefitderived by the giver through supporting thecharitable cause. Therefore, we propose that:

P7: High nostalgia prone donors are likely

to derive more emotional and familial

utility by associating with NPOs that evoke

nostalgia.

People experiencing discontinuity tend tobecome nostalgic (Davis, 1979). Negative andstressful events in life may result in depressionand negative feelings which the person wouldwant to cope with (Tesser and Beach, 1998).The individual then clings to objects andevents experienced in the past. This leads himor her to revive the past and re-experience thememories and emotions of bygone days(Ornstein and Ornstein, 1985). Nostalgiaprovides a mesh of security and helps over-come the insecurity that discontinuity brings.For example, in the context of personalnostalgia, when a loved one dies, his or herbelongings become objects that remind theindividual about the person and bring backmemories and emotions associated with thedeceased person. In the context of vicariousnostalgia too, when faced with uncertainty andanxious circumstances individuals tend to goback in time and link with the past not


personally experienced by them in order tofeel a sense of security. It represents an oldcomfortable ‘tweed coat’ (Davis, 1979), sig-nifying that as much as many things maychange, there are always some things thatremain the same. We argue that in the contextof giving to charity, NPOs that can assurecontinuity to donors facing discontinuity arelikely to provide emotional benefits to the giverby evoking nostalgia. Therefore, we proposethat:

P8: Donors facing discontinuity are more

likely to derive emotional utility from the

personal/ vicarious nostalgia evoked by

associating with certain NPOs that can

assure a sense of continuity.

Events which have been more intense ormore significant for the individual are retained(hence more vivid) in the autobiographicalmemory more than less intense and lessimportant events (Best and Nelson, 1985). Ina study of the recall of 25 seasons ofMetropolitan Opera, Sehulster (1989) foundthat individuals recalled those seasons betterwhich had intense emotions or significantevents linked to them. Events associated withlife scripts are also recalled better. Forexample—graduation, marriage, and child-birth are more effectively remembered. Sincethese events are better recalled, people getmore nostalgic about these events as they havespecial memories around these events. There-fore, we argue that NPOs associated with thesesignificant personal events are likely to evokenostalgia among the donors by allowing themto relive or re-associate with the past. Thus, it isproposed that:

P9: NPOs connected with ‘significant’

personal events in the donors’ lives are

likely to benefit from the use of using

nostalgic appeals as they would enable the

donor to derive emotional utility.

For some people nothing appears as how itshould be. Products, fashion, art, and even therole of the family is perceived to have


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


deteriorated. It is this discontentment with thepresent that creates an urge to seek the‘golden’ past (Chase and Shaw, 1989). Thus,when the present is no longer appealing,individuals want to simulate (Baudrillard,1983) and create an alternate ‘authentic’ reality(Firat and Venkatesh, 1995). This authenticobject of the past is perceived to be genuine,true, and eternal. Vicarious nostalgia thereforeoffers a link to the past and the valuesassociated with that past. Thus, we argue thatdonors that seek authenticity are likely toderive emotional benefits by giving to NPOsthat assure a sense of authenticity. Artsorganizations, museums, Operas, etc. wouldbe organizations that could provide emotionalbenefits to the donor by evoking vicariousnostalgia. As a result, the following propositionis posited:

P10: Donors seeking authenticity are likely

to derive emotional utility of the vicarious

nostalgia evoked by associating with NPOs

that assure authenticity.

Unbridled individualism leads to extremecompetition and thus some people tend to feelalienation. Adding to this the fast pace of lifehas led to pressures, frustrations, and a lack ofinterpersonal involvement. This has resulted inindividuals leading more private lives and animpersonalized society (Chase and Shaw,1989). By indulging in vicarious nostalgiaindividuals indulge and crave in the values ofcommunity of the past, of times when familyand social groups had a presence in everydaylife. By identifying with specific objects ofnostalgia individuals also feel that they are apart of a group sharing the same interest andhence form a collective identity. This helps tocreate a ‘neo tribe’ where the group sharessomething in common that is mutually valued.This becomes a basis for socializing andbuilding alternate communities. In the NPOcontext, we argue that donors feeling alien-ation are likely to derive emotional benefitsfrom NPOs that can evoke nostalgia by relivingthe times when a sense of communitypervaded society. This can also create


bases for socialization. As a result, it isproposed that:

P11: Donors experiencing alienation are

likely to derive emotional utility by

associating with NPOs that evoke nostal-

gia and help alleviate the sense of alien-

ation.

Discussion and implications

The authors have not been able to find anyacademic studies which have focused on therelationship between nostalgia and charitablegiving. This paper has contributed to theorydevelopment by synthesizing the currentliterature and presenting a conceptual frame-work with proposed linkages between nostal-gia and giving to charity. A host of researchpropositions have also been presented whichexplore linkages in detail. Even though thismanuscript presents a conceptual argumenta-tion, a series of proposed managerial implica-tions are now discussed which might stemfrom the findings of future studies.

Research agenda

Through the discussion on the relationshipbetween nostalgia, giving to charity, and thefactors affecting the relationship, the followingsections will elucidate a research agenda.

Personal nostalgia and giving to charity

One area of research need involves thedevelopment and testing of how personalnostalgia influences giving to charity and whatfactors can influence this relationship.Through this paper it has been argued thatpersonal nostalgia is likely to evoke emotionaland familial utility which is likely to influencegiving to charity. Can any NPO evoke nostalgiaamong any donor? It has been argued that thereare specific factors which can enable an NPOto evoke nostalgia among specific types ofconsumers. We argue for the role of significantlife events, and NPOs which are related to


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


these events should be able to evoke memoriesrelated to these events and, therefore, evokenostalgia and hence build stronger bonds withthe donors. We have also argued that this islikely to vary based upon the proneness fornostalgia among the donors and the disconti-nuity those donors might be experiencing.

Vicarious nostalgia and giving to charity

Another relevant area for research involves therole of vicarious nostalgia and its relationshipwith charitable giving. It has been argued herethat vicarious nostalgia evokes emotionswhichcould help the NPO develop emotional bondswith the donors. This could be relevant toNPOs which can assure a sense of authenticityto donors. We have also argued that this islikely to vary depending upon the pronenessfor nostalgia among the donors and thediscontinuity and alienation that donors areexperiencing.

Measurement of nostalgia

The current paper has proposed severalpropositions which can be quantitativelytested in future research programs. In orderfor researchers to test the proposed model, it isnecessary to be able to assess the intensity ofnostalgia being experienced by the donor.Unfortunately, the authors have not been ableto identify a scale for this measurement eitheron the vicarious or personal levels. Holbrook’s

Fan

Nostalgia

Figure 2. Template for measuring nostalgia.


(1993) nostalgia proneness scale utilizes abattery of 20 questions that measure theproneness for personal nostalgia and vicariousnostalgia, but it does not measure actualexperience of nostalgia (Schindler and Hol-brook, 2003). Batcho’s (1995) nostalgia inven-tory examines nostalgia as a personality trait.Baumgartener (1992) developed a scale to lookat the effect of music on evoking autobiogra-phical memories and the emotions thesememories evoke, but this scale again doesnot address the nostalgia experience. There areseveral older scales (e.g., the antiquarianismscale (McKenchie, 1974) and experience scale(Taylor and Konrad, 1980)) which measurepersonal dispositions towards the past but notthe experience of nostalgia. As describedearlier in this manuscript, in order to effec-tively measure nostalgia, it would be necessaryto measure the experiencing of both of itsdimensions—cognition and affect (Werman,1977; Baumgartener, 1992). Cognition refersto the recall of the past memories and affectrefers to the emotions these memories evoke.Personal nostalgia is comprised of autobiogra-phical memories and the emotions thesememories evoke. Vicarious nostalgia is com-prised of the fantasized reality in the minds ofindividuals and the emotions it evokes. SeeFigure 2, for a proposed framework tomeasure nostalgia.Examining the relevant literature to identify

work reflecting these components is a necess-ary step in scale development. In terms of

VicariousNostalgia

tasy Emotions

Personal Nostalgia

Autobiographicalmemories Emotions


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


personal nostalgia, an initial study of theliterature shows that the Grayson and Shulman(2000) scale of Indexicality measures mem-ories of the past being evoked by possessions.This offers a promising starting point, but therewould be a need to adapt the scale to acharitable giving context. Beatty and Ferrell’s(1998) scale to measure negative emotions alsohas promise; however, this scale was devel-oped for studying impulse buying habits. The1998 scale developed by Coulter (1998)measures positive emotions but with regardto reactions to TV programs. No direct scaleexists at this point, so scale development is animportant avenue.In terms of vicarious nostalgia, a scale

developed by Coyle and Thorson (2001)measures the psychological transportation toa world created by a ‘website’. Though this isnot directly measuring vicarious nostalgia, itcould be adapted to measure the transpor-tation to the fantasized reality of vicariousnostalgia. This warrants more work by study-ing the dimensions of fantasy and the identify-ing scales that could be adapted for measuringvicarious nostalgia.

Other relevant areas

Nostalgia could be used as a tool by NPOs tobond with the donors, more effectively amongnostalgia prone donors. Would this have anadverse effect on the low nostalgia pronedonors? Would this isolate the forward lookingor progressive donors? Holbrook and Schindler(1996) concluded that high nostalgia proneconsumers are more open to nostalgia appealsthan low nostalgia prone individuals. Schindlerand Holbrook (2003) stated that since nostal-gic appeals evoking the past may not besuccessful among the low nostalgia proneindividuals, they recommend that more pro-gressive appeals need to be used which couldevoke the heritage of the product or brand butalso cue modernity. For example, they studiedthe effect of nostalgic features and appeals inthe context of cars. They found that lownostalgia prone individuals were not stirred bythese appeals and hence recommended more


progress-related appeals like ‘It is not yourfather’s Oldsmobile’ (p 285). In the context ofcharitable giving too, it would be appropriateto argue that the nostalgic appeals would notwork as well among low nostalgia proneconsumers. However, there is no researchcurrently which elaborates whether the effectsof nostalgic appeals would be detrimental. Asrecommended by Schindler and Holbrook(2003), one can argue that the nostalgicappeals would need to be altered. However,the extent to which they would need to bealtered and the effects of that could beinteresting areas for future research.

This paper has also argued that giving inmemoriam would help to cope with thediscontinuity with the death of a loved one.Is there a relationship between the griefreaction and nostalgia while giving in memor-iam? Is giving in memoriam only an action ofgrief reaction? Would this wane over a periodof time? A review of the literature on griefshows that there are three phases of grief(Goalder, 1985). The first phase is comprisedof disbelief in the death of the loved one. It is aphase of shock. The second phase refers to thebeginnings of coping with the death. Thisinvolves a searching for meaning in the death.This also involves searching for the deadindividual in his/her belongings and memories.The final phase is recovery. This involvesproceeding with life and overcoming the paininvolved. However, this does not mean that theindividual stops grieving for their loved one.Scharlach (1991) found that when some adultswere reminded of the death of their parent,they cried even years after the death of thatparent. Nostalgia refers to the remembering ofthe events of the past and reliving the positiveemotions with a sense of loss. Thus, one canargue that getting nostalgic for a loved onewho is dead, allows them to cope with the lossand the grief involved with the death. Bonnanoand Kaltman (1999) argued that one of themeans of coping with the death of anindividual is to develop ‘continued bonds withthe deceased’ to ‘foster the continuity ofidentity’ (p 562). Therefore, it appears thatby giving in the memory of the deceased the


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


giver remembers the loved one and it gives asense of continuity. Therefore, one can arguethat it helps in the grieving process as it aidsrecovery from the grief. However, we recom-mend that this specific relationship betweengrief and nostalgia be studied in greater detailin future research.There is growing interest inmemoriam tribute

funds in the US and UK. Could this be because ofthe personal nostalgia these funds evoke?Conceptually it appears that there could be arelationship between the two. However, thisarea needs to be studied in greater detail as therecould be various other variables that could alsoaccount for this increase of this interest. Whatappears clear from an analysis of the literature isthat nostalgia could have an important impactupon donor giving and warrants empiricalinvestigation.

Biographical notes

Altaf Merchant is a Doctoral Student inmarket-ing at the Old Dominion University, Norfolk,Virginia. His research interests include nonpro-fit marketing and consumer behavior. Prior topursuing his doctorate, he worked for 8 yearsin brand management and innovations withconsumer product companies like GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, ReckittBenckiser, and Sara Lee.John Ford is a Professor of Marketing and

International Business at the Old Dominion Uni-versity, Norfolk, Virginia. His research interestsinclude nonprofitmarketing, international adver-tising strategy, cross cultural issues in marketingresearch, and gender issues inmarketing. Amongothers his publications have appeared in theJournal of Business Research, the Journal ofAdvertising, the Journal of Advertising Research,the Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science,and International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing.

References

Akhtar S. 1996. ‘Someday . . .’ and ‘If only . . .’

fantasies; pathological optimism and inordinate

nostalgia as related forms of idealization. Journal


of the American Psychoanalytic Association

44(3): 723–753.

American Heritage Dictionary. 1972. Dell: New

York, NY.

Andreoni J. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to

public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The

Economic Journal 100(401): 464–477.

Baker SM, Kennedy PF. 1994. Death by nostalgia: a

diagnosis of context-specific cases. Advances in

Consumer research 21: 169–174.

Bananno GA, Kaltman S. 1999. Toward an integra-

tive perspective on bereavement. Psychological

Bulletin 125: 760–776.

Bassin D. 1993. Nostalgic objects of our affection:

mourning, memory and maternal subjectivity.

Psychoanalytic Psychology 10(3): 425–436.

Batcho KI. 1995. Nostalgia a psychological perspec-

tive. Perceptual and Motor Skills 80: 141–143.

Batcho KI. 1998. Personal nostalgia, world view,

memory and emotionality. Perceptual and

Motor Skills 87: 411–432.

Baudrillard J. 1983. Simulations. Columbia Univer-

sity, NY 10027.

Baumgartener H. 1992. Remembrance of things past:

music, autobiographical memory and emotion.

Advances in Consumer Research 19: 613–620.

Beatty SE, Ferrell ME. 1998. Impulse buying: mod-

elling its precursors. Journal of Retailing 74(2):

169–191.

Belk R. 1979. Gift giving behavior. In Research in

Marketing (Vol. 2), Sheth JN (ed.). JAI Press:

Greenwich CT; 95–126.

Belk R. 1988. Possessions and the extended self.

Journal of Consumer Research 15(2): 139–168.

Belk R. 1990. The role of possessions in construct-

ing and maintaining a sense of past. Advances in

Consumer Research 17: 669–674.

Belk R. 1991. Possessions and the sense of past.

Highways and buyways, Association for Consu-

mer Research.

Belk R, Costa JA. 1998. The mountain man myth: a

contemporary consuming fantasy. Journal of

Consumer Research 25(3): 218–240.

Belk R, Wallendorf M, Sherry JF, Jr. 1989. The

sacred and the profane in consumer behavior;

theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer

Research 16(1): 1–38.

Best J, Nelson EE. 1985. Nostalgia and discontinu-

ity: a test of the Davis hypothesis. Sociology and

Social Research 69: 221–2223.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Bewes T. 1997. Cynicism and Postmodernity.

Verso: London.

Bluck S, Habermas T. 2000. The life story scheme.

Motivation and Emotion 24: 121–145.

Braun-LaTour K, LaTour MS. 2005. Transforming

consumer experience. Journal of Advertising

34(3): 19–30.

Braun-LaTour K, Latour MS, Pickrell JE, Loftus E.

2004. How and when advertising can influence

memory for consumer experience. Journal of

Advertising 33(4): 7–25.

Bricklin B. 2001. Nostalgia, integration, validity

issues, and generative power: some thoughts

on Zygmunt A. Piotrowski. Journal of Personal-

ity Assessment 76(2): 194–199.

Burke CC. 2001. Nonprofit history’s new numbers

(and the need for more). Nonprofit and Volun-

tary sector quarterly 30(2): 174–203.

Chase M, Shaw C. 1989. The dimensions of nostal-

gia. In The Imagined Past: History and nostal-

gia, Shaw C, Chase M (eds). Manchester

University Press: Manchester, UK.

Cialdini RB, Schaller M, Houlihan D, Arps K, Fultz J.

1987. Empathy-based helping: is it selflessly or

selfishly motivated?. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 52(4): 749–758.

Clarke DC. 1995. Life scripts: implicit representa-

tions of life course patterns. Journal of Social

Behavior and Personality 10: 871–884.

Coulter KS. 1998. The effects of affective responses

to media context on advertising evaluations.

Journal of Advertising 24(4): 41–51.

Coyle JR, Thorson E. 2001. The effects of progress-

ive levels of interactivity and vividness in Web

marketing studies. Journal of Advertising 30(3):

65–77.

Croft A. 1989. Forward to the 1930s; A literary

politics of amnesia. In The Imagined Past:

History and nostalgia, Shaw C, Chase M (eds).

Manchester University Press: Manchester,

UK.

Daniels EB. 1985. Nostalgia and hidden meaning.

American Imago 42(4): 371–383.

Davis F. 1979. Yearning for Yesterday. The Free

Press: New York.

Eikenberry AM. 2005. Fundraising or promoting

philanthropy? A qualitative study of the Massa-

chusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy. Inter-

national Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Marketing, 10(3): 137–149.


Elson M. 1992. Restoring continuity: the view from

within. Psychoanalytic Psychology 9(3): 369–

385.

Firat FA, Venkatesh A. 1995. Liberatory postmo-

dernism and enchantment of consumption.

Journal of Consumer Research 22(3): 239–

267.

Fischer E, Gainer B, Arnold SJ. 1996. Gift giving and

charitable donating: How (Dis)similar are they?

Gift Giving; A Research Anthology, Bowling

Green State University, OH 43403.

Frued S. 1926. Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety.

S.E 20: 75–172.

Gardener MP. 1985. Mood states and consumer

behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer

Research 12(3): 281–300.

Goalder JS. 1985. Morbid grief reaction: a social

systems perspective. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice 16(6): 833–842.

Goulding C. 2001. Romancing the past: heritage

visiting and the nostalgic consumer. Psychology

and Marketing 18(6): 565–580.

Goulding C. 2002. An exploratory study of age

related vicarious nostalgia and aesthetic con-

sumption. Advances in Consumer Research

29: 542–546.

Grayson K, Shulman D. 2000. Indexicality and

verification function of irreplaceable posses-

sions: a semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer

Research 27(1): 17–30.

Hoffer J. (trans. Carolyn Kiser Anspach)., 1934.

Medical Dissertation on Nostalgia by Johannes

Hoffer, 1688. Bulletin of History of Medicine 2:

376–391.

Holak SL, Havlena WJ. 1992. Nostalgia: an explora-

tory study of themes emotions in the nostalgic

experience. Advances in Consumer Research

19: 380–387.

Holak SL, HavlenaWJ. 1998. Feelings, fantasies, and

memories: an examination of the emotional com-

ponents of nostalgia. Journal of Business

Research 42(3): 217–226.

Holbrook MB. 1993. Nostalgia and consumption

preferences: some emerging patterns of consu-

mer tastes. Journal of Consumer Research

20(2): 245–256.

Holbrook MB, Schindler RM. 1991. Echoes of the

dear departed; some work in progress on nos-

talgia. Advances in Consumer Research 18:

330–333.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Holbrook MB, Schindler RM. 1996. Market segmen-

tation based on age, attitude toward the past:

concepts, methods, and findings concerning nos-

talgic influences on customer tastes. Journal of

Business Research 37: 27–39.

Holbrook MB, Schindler RM. 2003. Nostalgic bond-

ing: exploring the role of nostalgia in the con-

sumption experience. Journal of Consumer

Behavior 3(2): 107–127.

Joy A, Sherry J. 2003. Speaking of art as embodied

imagination: a multisensory approach to under-

standing aesthetic experience. Journal of Con-

sumer Research 30(2): 259–281.

Kanungo RN. 1979. The concepts of alienation and

involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin

86(1): 119–138.

Kaplan HA. 1987. The psychopathology of nostal-

gia. The Psychoanalytic Review 74(4): 465–486.

Kottasz R. 2004. How should charitable organiz-

ations motivate young professionals to give

philanthropically. International Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,

9(1): 9–27.

Larsen JT, McGraw AP, Cacioppo JT. 2001. Can

people feel happy and sad at the same time?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

81(4): 684–696.

Lears J. 1998. Looking backward: in defense of

nostalgia. Lingua Franca: The review of aca-

demic life 7: 59–66.

Lomsky-Feder E, Rapoport T. 2000. Visit, separation

and deconstructing nostalgia. Journal of Con-

temporary Ethnography 29(1): 32–57.

Maffesoli M. 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The

Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. Sage

publications: London.

Mathur A. 1996. Older adults motivations for gift

giving to charitable organizations: an exchange

theory perspective. Psychology and Marketing

13(1): 107–123.

McCann WH. 1941. Nostalgia: a review of the

literature. Psychological Bulletin 38: 165–

182.

McKenchie GE. 1974. ERIManual; Environmental

Response Inventory. Consulting Psychologists:

Palo Alto, CA.

Mehta R, Belk R. 1991. Artifacts, identity and tran-

sition: favorite possessions of indians and indian

immigrants to the United States. Journal of Con-

sumer Research 17(4): 398–411.


Morgan RM, Hunt SD. 1994. The commitment-trust

theory of relationship marketing. Journal of

Marketing 58(3): 20–38.

Nawas MM, Platt JJ. 1965. A future oriented theory

of nostalgia. Journal of Iindividual Psychology

21(1): 51–57.

Noble C, Walker B. 1997. Exploring the relation-

ships among liminal transitions, symbolic con-

sumption, and the extended self. Psychology

and Marketing 14(1): 29–47.

Olson M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action.

Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USA.

Ornstein A, Ornstein P. 1985. Clinical understand-

ing and explaining: The empathic vantage point.

In Progress in Self Psychology (Vol. 1), Goldberg

A. (ed.). Guilford: New York; 43–61.

Peters R. 1985. Reflections on the origin and aim of

nostalgia. Journal of Analytical Psychology 30:

135–148.

Price LL, Arnould E, Curasi CF. 2000. Older con-

sumer’s disposition of special possessions. Jour-

nal of Consumer Research 27(2): 179–201.

Rose R, Wood SL. 2005. Paradox and the consump-

tion of authenticity through reality television.

Journal of Consumer Research 32(2): 284–

296.

Rubin DC, Rahlal TA, Poon LW. 1998. Things learnt

in early adulthood are remembered best. Mem-

ory and Cognition, 26: 3–19.

Sargeant A, Lee S. 2004. Donor trust and relation-

ship commitment in the UK Charity Sector: the

impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly 33(2): 185–202.

Sargeant A, Ford J, West DC. 2000. Widening the

appeal of charity. International Journal of Non-

profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5(4):

318–332.

Sargeant A, Ford J, West D. 2006. Perceptual deter-

minants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of

Business Research 59: 155–165.

Scharlach AE. 1991. Factors associated with filial

grief following the death of an elderly parent.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 6(2):

307–313.

Schindler RM, Holbrook MB. 1993. Critical periods

in the development of men’s and women’s tastes

in personal appearance. Psychology andMarket-

ing 10(6): 549–564.

Schindler RM, Holbrook MB. 2003. Nostalgia for

early experience as a determinant of consumer


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


preferences. Psychology and Marketing 20(4):

275–302.

Sehulster J. 1989. Content and temporal structure

of autobiographical knowledge: remembering

the twenty five seasons at the metropolitan

opera. Memory and Cognition 17(5): 590–606.

Seremetakis NC. 1994. The Senses Still. Westview

Press: Boulder, USA.

Sohn L. 1983. Nostalgia. International Journal

Psycho-Anal 64: 203–211.

Stern BB. 1992. Historical and personal nostalgia in

advertising text: the Fin De Siecle effect. Journal

of Advertising 21(4): 11–22.

Stern BB. 1995. Consumer myths: Frye’s taxonomy

and the structural analysis of consumption text.

Journal of Consumer Research 22(2): 165–185.

Tannock S. 1995. Nostalgia critique. Cultural Stu-

dies 9(3): 453–464.

Taylor MS, Konrad V. 1980. Scaling dispositions

towards the past. Environment and Behavior

12: 283–307.

Tesser A, Beach SRH. 1998. Life events, relation-

ship quality, depression: an investigation of judg-


ment discontinuity in vivo. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 74(1): 36–

52.

Trilling L. 1972. Sincerity and Authenticity. Har-

vard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Unger LS, McConocha DM, Faier JA. 1991. The use

of nostalgia in television advertising: a content

analysis. Journalism Quarterly 68(3): 345–

353.

Waterman AS. 1981. Individualism and interdepen-

dence. American Psychologist 36(7): 762–773.

Webber D. 2004. Understanding charity fundrais-

ing events. International Journal of Nonprofit

and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2):

122–134.

Werman D. 1977. Normal and pathological nostal-

gia. Journal of American Psychoanalysis Associ-

ation 25: 387–398.

Zimmer MR, Little SK, Griffiths JS. 1999. The impact

of nostalgia proneness and need for uniqueness

on consumer perceptions of historical branding

strategies. American Marketing Association

Conference Proceedings 10: 259–267.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Download - Nostalgia and giving to charity: a conceptual framework for discussion and research

Top Related