The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 104 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
How personal nostalgia influences giving to charity
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
53 No full text of the sources · 30 Own interpretation · 26 Sources not found · 23 Own result · 20 Own method · 6 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given · 2 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Carnelly et al. (2006) found that the positive emotions that were evoked with the memories of the deceased did not change with time.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONAL NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Carnelly et al. (2006) source
The Results (Continuing Involvement and Emotional Resolution, p. 13) report that happy feelings when respondents thought or talked about their deceased spouse did not vary with years since widowhood. The discussion (p. 14) likewise says the frequency of positive affect arising from memories and conversations did not change with time since loss. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study found support for nine out of the ten hypothesized relationships.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: No prior study has linked personal nostalgia to charitable giving.
- Rests on an assumption: No prior study has comprehensively examined the role of potential factors influencing nostalgia in the context of charitable giving.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationship between recovery from grief and nostalgia and its potential influence on giving to charity has not been studied.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, at an aggregate sample level there were no significant differences.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Scale to measure the intensity of the personal nostalgia experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrary to what was hypothesized, this study found that Aging does not have a significant impact on Personal Nostalgia, hence hypothesis 4 is not supported.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships estimated in the structural model are causal.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The path coefficient = 0.151, (t=3.148) is significant at pO.Ol.Therefore, hypothesis 3 is supported.”
- Also stated in: § Hypothesis 3: · boosted
“The findings of this study confirmed that loneliness has a significant impact on Personal Nostalgia (path coefficient =0.227, t=4.508, pO.OOl).Therefore, hypothesis 3 is supported.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships estimated in the structural model are causal.
- Also stated in: § Hypothesis 3: · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The path coefficient = 0.261, (t=5.462) is significant at p<0.001 (see Table 456789101112).Therefore, HI is supported.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Measurement Model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships estimated in the structural model are causal.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, this study explains 15.1% of the variance in personal nostalgia.”
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
“This model explains 15.1% of the variance in personal nostalgia.”
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
“Thus it means that the variance exogenous variables (such as discontinuity, aging, loneliness etc) that lead to personal nostalgia together explain 15.1% of the variance of personal nostalgia.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no difference in the frequent donor group among those who received a thanks note versus those who did not.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Scale to measure the intensity of the personal nostalgia experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The path coefficient =0.134, (t=2.698) is also significant at p<0.01 and thus hypothesis 2 is supported (see Table 456789101112).”
- Also stated in: § Hypothesis 3: · plain
“The path coefficient =0.159, (t=3.154) is also significant at p<0.01 and thus hypothesis 2 is supported (see Table 4567891011121314).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Measurement Model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships estimated in the structural model are causal.
- Also stated in: § Hypothesis 3: · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The path coefficient =0.191, (t=3.338) is significant at p<0.001 and thus hypothesis 5 is supported.”
- Also stated in: § Hypothesis 3: · plain
“this study found that Recovery from Grief does have a significant and positive impact on Personal Nostalgia (Table 4-14) and thus hypothesis 5 is supported (path coefficient =0.228, t=3.926, p<0.001).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships estimated in the structural model are causal.
- Also stated in: § Hypothesis 3: · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 65
- It may state two separate claims as one. 48
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Using the split half method she found that the scale had good reliability (r=0.78,p<.01).Using test retest method (administering this scale to the same individual twice, using an interval of one week), she found good correlation between the average rating across the twenty items (r=0.84,p<.01).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Source: Russell et al (1980)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Batcho (1995) source
- Partly supportedcites Wildschut et al. (2006) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Manipulation check section (p. 22) reports α = .88 for Wildschut et al.’s administration of Batcho’s Nostalgia Inventory, supporting that part of the claim. Our copy does not report the cited split-half correlation (r = .78) or one-week test–retest correlation (r = .84). (LLM, conf=0.88)
plainn = 648- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Carnelly et al. (2006) found that the positive emotions that were evoked with the memories of the deceased did not change over time.Even though the frequency of thoughts that resulted in negative emotions decreased over time, the frequency of thoughts that resulted in pleasantness did not decrease over time.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Source: Russell et al (1980)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Carnelly et al. (2006) source
The Continuing Involvement and Emotional Resolution discussion (p. 14) says that the frequency of memories and conversations producing positive affect did not change with time since loss, while thoughts producing upset became less frequent and those producing happiness did not. The results (p. 13) likewise report stable happy feelings and declining negative feelings when respondents thought or talked about their deceased spouse. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Structural equation model was run and the statistical tests found support for nine of the research hypotheses.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > CLOSING REMARKS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This model explains 2.9% of the variance in emotional utility and 4.8% of the variance of familial utility, which are both small.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, this model explains 43.7% of the variance of commitment and 74.7%) of the variance in the intention to donate, which are both large.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other endogenous constructs were impacted less significantly.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The structural model shows reasonably good fit (%2 (694) = 1410, X 2/df=2.03,CFI=0.92,IFI=0.93,TLI=0.92,GFI=0.87,RMSEA=0.045).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model now explains 2.9% of the variance in emotional utility, 5% of the variance of familial utility, 43.8% of the variance of commitment and 74.8% of the variance in the intention to donate.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H8 H9 H10 0.279 0.590 0.865 ** significant at p<0.001 4.910** 10.472** 14.089** * significant atp<0.01”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The perceived demonstrable benefits (selfish gains like invitations to gala events (Kottasz, 2004)) associated with charitable giving helps to persuade non-donors to become donors.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is the warmth and the joy arising out of remembering the past but there is also a sense of loss that the past is no more (Holak and Havlena, 1998).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Holak and Havlena, 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Those that face discontinuous life experiences tend to get more nostalgic and look to the past for a sense of stability (Mehta and Belk, 1991).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mehta and Belk, 1991 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sargeant et al. (2006) summarized the intrinsic determinants of giving under three categories: familial utility (benefits to family members either alive or in memoriam), emotional utility (emotions felt) and demonstrable utility (a direct economic benefit accruing to the giver like the chance to attend a performance, dinner, event etc).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, it does not impact commitment nor does it impact trust in the charitable organization (Sargeant et al., 2006).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since baby boomers are aging, they are becoming increasingly nostalgic (Unger et al., 1991)”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Unger et al., 1991 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“NPOs that give the donor a window to experience personal nostalgia are likely to benefit through the creation of stronger bonds with current donors and by attracting nongivers.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Managerial Implications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It evokes a poignant mixture of mental pain and joy (Freud, 1926;Akhtar, 1996).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Freud, 1926
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Akhtar, 1996 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The higher the emotional utility (emotions felt out of giving) and familial utility (link to family), the greater the degree of commitment and the greater the level of giving that would be exhibited by the donor to that charitable organization (Sargeant et al., 2006).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > WHY DO PEOPLE GIVE TO CHARITY?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sargeant et al. (2006) suggest that familial utility may actually be affected by nostalgia since desire for the situation experienced or perceived to have been experienced when a loved one was still alive may influence giving in memory of that loved one.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Over the past 10 years charities in the U.K. have also been finding it increasingly difficult to raise funds (Sargeant et al., 2000).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Academic work involving nostalgia has shown it to evoke a variety of emotions (Davis, 1979;Gardener, 1985).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davis, 1979
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gardener, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it also represents a longing for a”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters, 1985 source
- Not matchedcites Stern, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Nostalgia has been found to affect old and young alike (McCann, 1941)”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McCann, 1941 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is an increasing use of nostalgia in the marketing of consumer goods (Baker and Kennedy, 1994).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baker and Kennedy, 1994
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recently, Sargeant et al. (2006) proposed a perceptual model of donor giving behavior which showed significant linkages between such perceptual dimensions as emotional utility (giving to feel better about oneself), familial utility (giving connected to a family member affected by the cause associated with the charity) and commitment which in turn was found to drive donor giving.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thirdly, there has been an increase in the number of charitable organizations (Sargeant et al., 2000)”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“What is apparent in an examination of this literature is that most of the charitable giving is done by older adults (Mathur, 1996;Pharoah and Tanner, 1997), while the younger generation is less motivated to give (Sargeant et al., 2000).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > GIVING BEHAVIOR
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Trust and commitment also drive giving behavior (Sargeant and Lee, 2004).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Giving as a relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant and Lee, 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bonnano and Kaltman (1999) argued that one of the means for coping with the death of an individual is to develop”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Source: Russell et al (1980)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bonnano and Kaltman (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Emotional engagement is key to donor commitment, and donors who are emotionally engaged are more likely to give to charity (Sarganet et al., 2006).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Managerial Implications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sarganet et al., 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This was tested among 345 respondents by Sarason et al. (1978) and was found to exhibit a reliability of 0.88 for the effect of negative events in life.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Discontinuity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sarason et al. (1978) source
plainn = 345- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Personal nostalgia is influenced by many factors.They include discontinuity, past experiences, loneliness, age and the recovery from grief.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONAL NOSTALGIA
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, Batcho (1995) found that as people aged they got more nostalgic and remembered the times of their youth with considerable nostalgia as they entered older stages in life.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONAL NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Batcho (1995) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Among both younger and older adults loneliness is linked to negative affects including boredom, unhappiness, and dissatisfaction (Perlman, Gerson, and Spinner, 1978).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONAL NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Perlman, Gerson, and Spinner, 1978
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It serves as an anchor of continuity and identity (Mehta and Belk, 1991) during changing circumstances in life (Noble and Walker, 1997).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Personal Nostalgia
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mehta and Belk, 1991 source
- Not matchedcites Noble and Walker, 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For this to happen, it is proposed that commitment and trust are vital to create and maintain relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Giving as a relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Morgan and Hunt, 1994 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The recall of the past leads to the evoking of both happy and sad emotions (Bernsten and Rubin, 2002;Holak and Havlena, 1992).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > THE PERSONAL NOSTALGIA EXPERIENCE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bernsten and Rubin, 2002;Holak and Havlena, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nostalgia is evoked by a variety of triggers (Holbrook and Schindler, 2003;Schindler and Holbrook, 1993).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Holbrook and Schindler, 2003 source
- Not matchedcites Schindler and Holbrook, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Maclnnis and Price (1987) stated that imagery plays an important role in reliving past experiences.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > THE PERSONAL NOSTALGIA EXPERIENCE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Maclnnis and Price, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It also helps to alleviate feelings of loneliness (Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport, 2000).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Personal Nostalgia
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport, 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it appears that by making a donation in the memory of the deceased, the giver remembers the loved one and is provided a sense of continuity.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONAL NOSTALGIA
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A review of the literature on grief shows that there are three phases of grief (Goalder, 1985).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONAL NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goalder, 1985 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Looking to the work of Sargeant et al. (2006), charitable giving is affected by commitment, which in turn is affected by trust and by emotional and familial utility, which are intrinsic, while trust is driven by organizational elements such as organizational professionalism and quality of communications, which are extrinsic.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al. (2006) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The higher the emotional utility and familial utility, the greater the degree of commitment and the greater the level of giving that will be exhibited by the donor to that charitable organization (Sargeant et al., 2006).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > H7: There is a positive causal link between personal nostalgia and emotional utility
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The personal nostalgia experience involves recalling experiences of the past and feeling the emotions of nostalgia (Holak and Havlena, 1992).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > THE PERSONAL NOSTALGIA EXPERIENCE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holak and Havlena, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Russell et al. (1980) tested this scale among 237 individuals and it demonstrated good reliability (Alpha = 0.94).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Past experiences
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Russell et al. (1980) source
boostedn = 237- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Researchers have also found that men and women have different triggers for nostalgia (Baker and Kennedy, 1994).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baker and Kennedy, 1994
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is argued that in the context of giving to charity NPOs that can assure continuity for donors facing discontinuity are likely to provide emotional benefits to the giver.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“By remembering the past, the person feels warmth, joy and affection (Holak and Havlena, 1998), but at the same time, there is a feeling of sadness and loss with the realization that the past cannot be recreated.(Holak and Havlena, 1998).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > NOSTALGIA
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Holak and Havlena, 1998 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Psychological Screening Inventory (1970) is a 130item scale which measures alienation, social non conformity and discomfort.The focus of this scale was on measuring these conditions among those who face major psychiatric disorder.Since this scale is overly lengthy and was developed to measure psychiatric disorders, it was felt to be inappropriate for use in this study.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Past experiences
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lanyon (1970) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study only retained the items of positive emotions, future studies could also look at the role of negative emotions.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of the number of times the respondents had donated to that charitable organization, 77.7% of the respondents in the sample indicated that they had given to that charitable organization over four times ever before (Table 45678).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The respondents in the sample were educated, 84% having done some college education or more (Table 45).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies that as individuals get lonely they tend to think of the past and tend to get nostalgic and fondly remember the days of the past.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fit looks reasonably good, and we can say that the model does a reasonably good job explaining, so the indications are that the model performs satisfactorily.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact 70.9% of the respondents had made their donations less than three months ago (Table 456789).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The check indicated that there were no major issues and the data appeared balanced.The data was also eyeballed for any issues on the respondent's demographic profile.The initial analysis showed that there were no major issues.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The racial profile of the respondents was skewed more towards Caucasians (Table 4-4).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is evident there are other factors which also influence personal nostalgia and future studies may focus on capturing them.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The balanced demographic profile of the sample was encouraging as it enhances the generalizability of the study findings.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Firstly, this research uses the Batcho (1995) scale to measure the proneness to be nostalgic, but it does not measure the intensity of the personal nostalgia the respondent is experiencing.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Batcho (1995) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this analysis, loadings with standardized factor construct which had a relatively low reliability was Familial Utility (a=0.61).Additional analysis was run for the increase/decrease in the Cronbach's Alpha if any of the scale items were dropped for the items of familial utility.The analysis showed that there was no opportunity to increase the alpha as there was a drop in the alpha if any of the”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Measurement Model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Braunsberger et al. (2007) found that survey data collected from an online consumer panel to be of good quality.They collected data from two waves of telephone surveys and web-panel surveys.They found that web panels can produce more reliable data estimates than telephone surveys.They also found that, web panels were cheaper and less time consuming to conduct than telephone surveys.They state that”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Data source
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braunsberger et al. (2007) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“A review of the nostalgia literature has shown that there are scales that measure the proneness or propensity for an individual to be nostalgic (Holbrook, 1993, Batcho, 1995).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Scale to measure the intensity of the personal nostalgia experience
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The agency returned completed responses from 502 consumers who had donated money to charity in the last 12 months.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Data collection process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As hypothesized, this means that as individuals experience discontinuity they are likely to get nostalgic for the past, as the past gives them a sense of security.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Measurement Model
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, one can argue that while thinking of the loved one, the bereaved remembers the loved one and it is likely that he or she will get nostalgic about that person.This helps the recovery from grief, as the griever feels that he or she has continual bonds with the deceased.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Source: Russell et al (1980)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ranganathan and Henley (2007) tested the four item intention to donate scale (Table 3-8) among 214 individuals and it showed good reliability (a=0.89).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Commitment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ranganathan and Henley (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 214- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In fact Batcho (1998) argues that if we eliminate the items with small loadings, the Holbrook (1993) scale really only measures vicarious nostalgia.Hence, she argues that the Holbrook (1993) scale is not a good measure of personal nostalgia.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Source: Russell et al (1980)
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This supports the arguments made by this study that when remembering the deceased friend or relative, individuals get nostalgic about the times they have spent with the deceased loved one.As people cope with the death of a loved one they seek solace in the memories of the deceased and get nostalgic for the days spent with the deceased.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lastly, the current study used cross sectional data, future researches may want to use experimental design to test the impact of nostalgic appeals on charitable giving.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the current project 905 respondents answered the first question and then 505 (56%) qualified as having donated to charity in the last 12 months and continued the entire survey (3 respondents were removed from the data for having missing values).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Data collection process
plainn = 905- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This research has found that fife stage factors like: the discontinuity the donor is experiencing, the extent to which the donor is feeling lonely, recovering from grief, along with whether the donor has significant past experiences associated with the charity influence the donor's personal nostalgia.The donor's personal nostalgia in turn provides emotional utility and familial utility to the”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A detailed analysis of the respondents showed that there was a balanced age break down on age (see Table 4-1).The average age of the respondents was 51 years.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Construct Intention to Donate Reliability (a): 0.90 Commitment Reliability (a): 0.82 Emotional Utility Reliability (a): 0.88 Familial Utility Reliability (a): 0.61 Personal Nostalgia Reliability (a): 0.88 Loneliness Reliability (a) : 0.89”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Measurement Model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fielding (2007) recognizes web based consumer panels for enabling researchers to leverage technology to collect data from a wide range and types of participants.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Data source
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fielding (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The higher the emotional utility (emotions felt out of giving) and familial utility (link to family), the greater the degree of commitment and the greater the level of giving that is exhibited by the donor to that charitable organization (Sargeant et al., 2006).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Commitment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sargeant et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis would help confirm that the data was not skewed.The sample was also analyzed for donation behavior.The amount donated, the type of charitable organization donated to and the frequency of donation to the concerned charitable organization was to be examined.This helped reconfirm that the data had a good spread and thus the findings would be generalizable to the population.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Step 1 : Sample profile
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median gift amount was $40, with 46% of the respondents indicating donations of less than $25 and 14% with relatively large amounts (more than $150).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, this model takes the intention to donate as the proxy for giving behavior.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, as argued in chapter three, personal nostalgia results in emotional benefits for the donor.This finding is key as it confirms that even in the charitable giving context personal nostalgia results in emotional engagement with the donors.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sixthly, this study did not study the influence of personal nostalgia on the emotional engagement of non donors.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As per the Index of National Fundraising Performance of the Target Analysis Group (Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2007) the number of donors has declined by 1.3% in 2006 over 2005 and by 1.7% in the first half of 2007 over 2006.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > CLOSING REMARKS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As per Cohen (1992), in models using multiple independent variables, an effect size of 2% is considered small, around 15% is considered medium and 35% or more is considered large.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cohen (1992) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these scales do not measure the intensity of the cognitive and emotional elements of the experience of personal nostalgia.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Scale to measure the intensity of the personal nostalgia experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Holbrook and Schindler (1991) concluded that high nostalgia prone consumers are more open to nostalgia appeals than low nostalgia prone individuals.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Holbrook and Schindler (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“a review of the psychology literature shows that nostalgia is just one type of time orientation and that there are five types of time orientation: past negative, past positive (nostalgia), present fatalistic, present hedonistic and future (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Time orientation influences how consumers think, act and behave (Bergadaa 1990, Gonzalez andZimbardo, 1985), and influences values, behavior and emotions.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bergadaa 1990 source
- Not matchedcites Gonzalez andZimbardo, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bennett (2006) argues that there is a positive impact of”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bennett (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 502- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus it can be argued that when a person experiences stimulus that makes him feel negative emotions, he would feel motivated to overcome the negative emotions.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Sadness is frequently accompanied by feelings to be comforted.
In the paper
“People tend to maintain positive mood states and focus on moving away or changing their negative mood states (Isen et al., 1987).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Isen et al., 1987 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the branding literature Woodside et al. (2008) state that brands tell stories and consumers want to be involved in these stories and want their roles reconfirmed.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Woodside et al. (2008) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Schindler and Holbrook (2003) stated that since nostalgic appeals evoking the past may not be successful among the low nostalgia prone individuals, they recommend that more progressive appeals need to be used which could evoke the heritage of the product or brand but also cue modernity.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schindler and Holbrook (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Roseman et al. (1990) have demonstrated that the most discrete emotions occur in response to appraisals of events happening to persons or experiences they have.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Roseman et al. (1990) source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
plainconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the context of NPOs, it can also be argued that the NPO brand tells the donor a story (e.g. World Christian Fund, Operation Smile etc).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the context of charitable giving, appeals that generate negative emotions (e.g.figure 5-2) and urge donors to help are likely to take the donor through different emotional stagesemotions preceding giving to charity, the emotions anticipated by giving and the emotions experienced after giving to charity.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
No prior study has linked personal nostalgia to charitable giving.
“The author has not found any study that has linked personal nostalgia to giving to charity.”
“However, we are not aware of any research that has been done to understand the relationship between the experience of nostalgia and charitable giving and the factors that influence this relationship.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No prior study has comprehensively examined the role of potential factors influencing nostalgia in the context of charitable giving.
“Secondly, the author has also not found any study that has comprehensively looked at the role of the potential factors that influence nostalgia, and in particular the context of charitable giving would be a new and relevant dimension.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The relationship between recovery from grief and nostalgia and its potential influence on giving to charity has not been studied.
“Though other researches have looked at this construct, how it relates to nostalgia and its potential influence on giving to charity is an area which has also not yet been studied by other researches in this area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The relationships estimated in the structural model are causal.
“Hypothesis 1: This states that there is a positive causal link between Discontinuity and Personal Nostalgia.”
“there is a significant causal link between Personal Nostalgia and Emotional Utility”
The paper relies on this without support.
Respondents' self-reported donation behavior and psychological states are accurate.
“The respondent was asked to furnish information such as the type of charitable organization he or she last donated money to, how many times in the past they had donated and which type of charitable organization he or she regularly donated money to”
The paper relies on this without support.
The additional questions added to the Emotional Utility and Recovery from Grief scales validly capture the intended constructs.
“The following statements were added to the Emotional Utility scale (Sargeant et al., 2007):”
The paper relies on this without support.
The online consumer panel respondents are not systematically different from the target population of U.S. donors.
“This panel was constructed and selected in line with the U.S. census.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The model assumes a single direction causal relationship between emotional engagement and commitment.
“Fourthly, the model in this study assumes a single direction causal relationship between emotional engagement and commitment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Emotional utility and familial utility are extremely complex and are influenced by multiple other psychological constructs.
“Since both the constructs (EU and FU) are extremely complex and are influenced by a multiple other psychological constructs the variance explained can be considered acceptable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are a host of other factors that influence personal nostalgia which have not been modeled in this study.
“This also means that there are a host of other factors that influence personal nostalgia which have not been modeled in this study and can be opportunities of future researches in this area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sadness is frequently accompanied by feelings to be comforted.
“Sadness is frequently accompanied by feelings to be comforted.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Abstract
“It shows that age, discontinuity, loneliness, past experiences and recovery from grief positively influence the donor's personal nostalgia.”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
“Hypothesis 4: Contrary to what was hypothesized, this study found that Aging does not have a significant impact on Personal Nostalgia, hence hypothesis 4 is not supported.”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
“Personal Nostalgia and Emotional Utility (path coefficient =0.218, t=3.611) is significant at p<0.001) and Personal Nostalgia and Familial Utility (path coefficient = 0.170, t=3.314) is significant at p<0.001).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Hypothesis 3:
“Between Endogenous Variables Personal Nostalgia-* Familial Utility Personal Nostalgia-* Emotional Utility Familial Utility-* Commitment Emotional Utility-* Commitment Commitment-* Intention to donate Hypothesis HI H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 Standardized Estimate 0.261 0.134 0.151 -0.071 0.191 0.218 0.170 0.279 0.589 • 0.865”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“measured using 63 items -Personal Nostalgia (20 items), Loneliness (20 items), Recovery from Grief (4 items), Intention to Donate (4 items), Commitment (4 items), Emotional Utility (4 items), Familial Utility (3 items) and Past Experiences associated with the NPO (2 items).”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Measurement Model
Reported 63 · recomputed 61
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Profile of the respondents
“77.7% of the respondents in the sample indicated that they had given to that charitable organization over four times ever before”
§ HOW PERSONAL NOSTALGIA INFLUENCES GIVING TO CHARITY > Additional information
“Table 4-8 How many times EVER donated to the charitable organization Frequency Just once Twice Thrice Four times More than four times Percentage 9.7 7.0 5.6 4.2 73.5”
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,801
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800302 · Cited by 22,355
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
Qu, X. (2007) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2007.s455 · Cited by 14,759
The social readjustment rating scale
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4 · Cited by 11,560
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving
Andreoni, J. (1990) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234133 · Cited by 5,825
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Belk, 1979, Gift giving behavior, vol. 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Hepper, E. G., & Zhou, X. (2015) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.10.001 · Cited by 348
Back to the Future: Nostalgia Increases Optimism
Cheung, W.-Y., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hepper, E. G., Arndt, J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2013) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167213499187 · Cited by 320
Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2009) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013 · Cited by 210
Self-citationCollective nostalgia: A group-level emotion that confers unique benefits on the group.
Wildschut, T., Bruder, M., Robertson, S., van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Sedikides, C. (2014) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037760 · Cited by 197
Remembering the real me: Nostalgia offers a window to the intrinsic self.
Baldwin, M., Biernat, M., & Landau, M. J. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0038033 · Cited by 169
Metadata
- Authors
- Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Rose, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington Tacoma (US)
- Old Dominion University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Merchant, Altaf
- Venue
- Journal of Business Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 610-616
- ISSN
- 0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066042777
- Semantic Scholar
- e136e220c637a89ef012f3ab58e3a0bbfd983aee
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Business Research (publishedVersion)
- ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Old Dominion University
- Funders
- Academy of Marketing
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Nostalgia and Consumer Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
- Keywords
- personal nostalgia, charitable giving, donor commitments, grief recovery, loneliness, discontinuities, life experience
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
