ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Blood donors and their changing engagement
in other prosocial behaviors
Sinika Studte,1,2 Michel Clement ,1,2 Meikel Soliman,1,3 and Silke Boenigk1,3
BACKGROUND: Increasing competition by nonprofit
organizations provides blood donors with many options to
engage themselves prosocially (e.g., by donating money or
time). While most previous studies focused only on one form
of donation, only a few studies analyzed two or more forms.
This research gap is remarkable, as prior research has
shown that a substantial portion of donors engage in more
than one form of donation. In addition, studies have shown
that donors’ main reason for lapsing is switching to another
donation form.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study relies
on longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic
Panel. In total, 5640 (non)blood donors are analyzed
over a period of 5 years, alongside their engagement in
four forms of prosocial behavior: money donations,
taking care of persons in need, volunteer work, and
citizens’ initiatives. We control for sociodemographic,
psychographic, and health-related factors and rely on
propensity score matching to reduce selection effects
often observed in the blood donation context.
RESULTS: There are significant differences between
blood donors and nondonors in their engagement in
prosocial behaviors. Blood donors (vs. nondonors) are
more likely to engage in other prosocial behavior forms,
namely, donating money, volunteering, and participating
in citizens’ initiatives. If people start donating blood, they
also are more likely to act in other prosocial ways,
namely, donating money and volunteering. If people stop
donating blood, they also are more likely to stop other
forms of prosocial behavior, namely, volunteering and
participating in citizens’ initiatives.
CONCLUSION: This study provides new insights into
blood donors’ prosocial behavior. While most previous
studies neglected blood donors’ engagement in other
prosocial behaviors, this study highlights the fact that blood
banks need to be aware of blood donor switching behavior
between all prosocial behavior forms. As most blood banks
also are providing other types of donations forms, they can
use this knowledge and cross-recruit blood donors to
engage in other forms of prosocial behavior.
I
nducing more people to donate blood and increasing
blood donations of current donors is and remains a high
priority for blood banks worldwide.1 This management
task is challenging for blood banks as the increasing com-
petition among nonprofit organizations provides (potential)
blood donors with many options to engage themselves proso-
cially. “Prosocial behavior covers the broad range of actions
intended to benefit one or more people other than oneself—
actions such as helping, comforting, sharing, and cooperation,
p. 463”2 and thus includes blood, money, and time donations.3
Despite this challenge for blood banks, little is known
about blood donors’ behavior in other prosocial domains.
While most previous studies focused only on one donation
form,1,4 only a few studies analyzed two or more forms. Pril-
ler and Schupp,5 for example, described the social and eco-
nomic characteristics of financial and blood donors in
Germany, and Shehu et al.6 defined donor profiles based on
their former donation behavior for blood, money, and time
donations. This research gap is remarkable, as prior research
indicates that a substantial portion of donors engage in more
than one donation form.3,7 In the case of blood, tissue, and
organ donations, research shows that various donation forms
affect each other. For example, money donors are more likely
to also be blood donors but not organ or body donors.8
Simultaneously, time donors are also significantly more likely
to be organ, blood, and body donors.8 While donation forms
ABBREVIATIONS: SOEP = socioeconomic panel; PSM =
propensity score matching.
From the 1University of Hamburg, Research Group on Health
Marketing, Hamburg, Germany; 2Institute for Marketing, University
of Hamburg, Moorweidenstr. 18, Hamburg, 20148, Germany; and
the 3Department of Socioeconomics, University of Hamburg,
Von-Melle-Park 9, Hamburg, 20146, Germany.
Address reprint requests to: Michel Clement, University of
Hamburg, Institute for Marketing, Moorweidenstr. 18, Hamburg
20148, Germany; e-mail: michel.clement@uni-hamburg.de
Received for publication July 16, 2018; revision received
October 31, 2018; and accepted October 31, 2018.
doi:10.1111/trf.15085
© 2018 AABB
TRANSFUSION 2018;9999;1–14
TRANSFUSION 1
STUDTE ET AL.

can positively influence other forms, studies addressing pro- and private households.17 The data are collected annually
social behavior have also shown that donors’ main reason for by the market research institute TNS Infratest Sozial-
lapsing in their donation behavior is switching to another forschung and has a long-standing tradition in disciplines
donation form.9 Bauer et al.10 find that people substitute time such as the social sciences,18 economics,19 and medi-
donations for money donations when the time consumed by cine.20,21 Since 1984, this paper-and-pencil survey has
volunteering increases. Feldman11 supports this finding. The shown a high stability over time, with 50% of households
author concludes, however, that this relationship needs to be still participating in the past 15 years. The SOEP contains
tested using other donation forms, as there are no reasons information on demographics, psychographics, health fac-
for it to hold in other donation contexts as well. Hence, some tors, and prosocial behavior.22 Previous research has used
donation forms may crowd out other donation forms,12 the 2010 wave to study blood donation and analyzed donors
according to region, gender, age, and education5 or quanti-
increasing the need to analyze blood donors’ engagement in
fied selection effects related to blood donation behavior and
other prosocial behaviors.
their impact on donors’ perceived health status.14
Given these caveats, the focal point of this paper is to
The blood-donation-related questions from 2010 are
understand better how blood donation behavior changes to
repeated in 2015: 1) Have you donated blood in the past
facilitate blood donors’ recruitment and retention.13 This
10 (5) years? 2) Did you donate blood at least once last year,
research focuses on blood donors’ prosocial behavior and rig-
that is, in 2009 (2014)? 3) Are there any medical reasons
orously controls for potential selection effects of blood donors
why you cannot donate blood? Participants can answer all
to compare donors to nondonors and behavioral changes over
three questions with either yes or no. These years thus serve
time. The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), which is an
as the basis for our analyses. A total of 14,278 individuals
annual representative longitudinal study of more than 20,000
(2010: n = 26,720; 2015: n = 27,183) participated in both
individuals and private households, provides information
waves (2010 and 2015).
about individuals’ prosocial behavior. Specifically, the SOEP
covers whether the individuals 1) donate blood, 2) donate
money to charities, 3) take care of persons in need, 4) engage Blood donor classification
in volunteering, and 5) participate in citizens’ initiatives.
We analyzed both waves jointly (n = 14,278) to observe
The nature of the SOEP provides the unique opportunity
changes in a blood donor’s status. We restricted the sample
to understand what donors are likely to do if they start or stop
to the German population that was eligible to donate blood
donating blood. We study blood donors’ engagement in other
based on German legislation. Thus, we excluded respon-
forms of prosocial behavior and report a generalization and
dents older than 71 or younger than 18 years (n = 5991).
new aspects of the effects presented by Shehu et al.14 and Pril-
Next, 116 participants were dropped from further analysis,
ler and Schupp5 by relying on data from two waves of the
as they did not answer these questions. Additionally, we
SOEP panel that allow us to analyze behavioral changes. Spe-
excluded 20 participants who indicated living in a homosex-
cifically, as people tend to change their donation behavior
ual relationship, who most likely are not eligible to donate
over time, we use the panel structure of the SOEP to study
in Germany. Beyond that, we excluded 2511 participants
changes between 2010 and 2015 with respect to engagement
who reported medical reasons prohibiting them from
in other prosocial forms when (a) former blood donors
donating. Thus, we derived a final sample of 5640 individ-
become nondonors and (b) former nondonors become
uals who participated in both waves and who either were
donors. We analyze the behavior of 5640 (non)blood donors
active blood donors or nondonors (but would be eligible)
over a period of 5 years overall and focus, beyond blood dona-
in 2015.
tions, on their engagement in four forms of prosocial behavior:
The SOEP gives information about inactive donors.
money donations, taking care of persons in need, volunteer
They are defined as individuals indicating that they donated
work, and citizens’ initiatives. We control for sociodemo-
blood at least once in the past 5 (10) years, but not in 2009
graphic, psychographic, and health-related factors and rely on
(2014). We defined these as nondonors, as the proposed
propensity score matching to reduce selection effects often
period is too broad to declare them as active donors. Thus,
observed in the blood donation context.14–16 Our findings pro-
we defined a blood donor as an active donor in 2015
vide notable implications for blood banks and their recruit-
(or 2010). A nondonor is defined as an individual who did
ment and retention programs. Specifically, our results help
not donate blood or donated at least once in the past
define cross-recruitment strategies across a donor’s life cycle.
5 (10) years who had no medical reasons prohibiting them
from donating. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics
MATERIALS AND METHODS across the various groups of donors and nondonors.
Generally, scales such as satisfaction with life have
Database: the German Socio-Economic Panel been verified by research.23 However, large-panel data sets
The German SOEP is a well-described and recognized rep- usually do not include the whole scale, which is why the
resentative panel that includes more than 20,000 individuals SOEP relies on subscales (see the Discussion section).

2 TRANSFUSION
 TABLE 1. Descriptives
Sample Active donors Nondonors Still-active Former-active Newly active Never
(n = 5640) 2015 (n = 647) 2015 (n = 4993) donors (n = 389) donors (n = 331) donors (n = 258) donors (n = 4662)
Factor group Explanatory variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Treatment Active donors 11.47%
Nondonors 88.53%
Sociodemographic Gender (female) 48.87% 47.91% 48.99% 44.73% 55.59% 52.71% 48.52%
factors Age 48.270 (12.871) 44.983 (12.898) 48.696 (12.807) 47.147 (12.527) 44.650 (13.781) 41.721 (12.786) 48.983 (12.688)
Married 64.84% 61.05% 65.33% 65.81% 61.33% 53.88% 65.62%
Children 41.33% 43.12% 41.10% 40.87% 40.48% 46.51% 41.14%
New federal state 15.62% 20.56% 14.98% 19.79% 22.66% 21.71% 14.44%
Hours of job (per weekday) 6.432 (4.112) 7.208 (3.713) 6.332 (4.151) 7.207 (3.769) 6.629 (3.944) 7.210 (3.634) 6.311 (4.164)
Psychographic Satisfaction with life 7.343 (1.562) 7.584 (1.503) 7.312 (1.567) 7.573 (1.537) 7.416 (1.429) 7.601 (1.452) 7.305 (1.576)
factors Positivity 5.568 (1.238) 5.707 (1.154) 5.550 (1.247) 5.685 (1.158) 5.541 (1.277) 5.740 (1.150) 5.551 (1.245)
Being helpful 5.803 (1.153) 5.878 (1.062) 5.794 (1.164) 5.848 (1.086) 5.795 (1.176) 5.922 (1.026) 5.794 (1.163)
Return favors 6.388 (0.900) 6.385 (0.941) 6.388 (0.895) 6.340 (1.018) 6.356 (0.916) 6.453 (0.808) 6.390 (0.894)
Worrying about life 2.014 (0.383) 1.970 (0.359) 2.020 (0.386) 2.008 (0.350) 1.987 (0.361) 1.913 (0.364) 2.022 (0.388)
Mood (negative) 2.301 (0.740) 2.216 (0.668) 2.312 (0.748) 2.217 (0.667) 2.309 (0.745) 2.216 (0.672) 2.312 (0.748)
Not achieved what I deserved 3.124 (1.688) 2.998 (1.659) 3.141 (1.691) 3.055 (1.650) 2.954 (1.616) 2.914 (1.672) 3.154 (1.696)
Little control over my life 2.618 (1.378) 2.512 (1.296) 2.632 (1.388) 2.535 (1.259) 2.650 (1.443) 2.477 (1.353) 2.631 (1.384)
Risk affinity 4.867 (2.225) 5.238 (2.115) 4.819 (2.234) 5.319 (2.017) 5.191 (2.023) 5.116 (2.253) 4.792 (2.247)
Political interest 2.317 (0.788) 2.372 (0.792) 2.309 (0.787) 2.429 (0.811) 2.327 (0.732) 2.287 (0.756) 2.308 (0.791)
Health-related Satisfaction with health 6.911 (1.931) 7.331 (1.728) 6.856 (1.950) 7.334 (1.718) 6.970 (1.887) 7.327 (1.746) 6.849 (1.954)
factors Hours of sleep 6.899 (1.051) 6.796 (0.987) 6.912 (1.059) 6.787 (1.025) 6.882 (1.013) 6.810 (0.929) 6.914 (1.062)
Compulsory health 85.01% 84.40% 85.08% 81.06% 87.08% 89.52% 84.94%
insurance (normal tariff )
Still-active donors = donation in 2010 and 2015; former-active donors = donation in 2010 but not in 2015; newly active donors = no donations in 2010 but donated in 2015; never donors = no
donation in 2010 and 2015.

TRANSFUSION 3
BLOOD DONORS AND THEIR CHANGING ENGAGEMENT
STUDTE ET AL.

Similarly, and regarding the outcome variables, there are a affinity (p < 0.01). Regarding subjective health-related factors,
variety of scales measuring prosocial behavior across a active donors are more satisfied with their health (p < 0.01)
range of disciplines,24 which are equivalent to those in the and get significantly fewer hours of sleep per week (p < 0.01).
SOEP. For example, Steele et al.25 phrased items on previ-
ous blood donations similarly. Additionally, research on Blood donation behavior changes over time
volunteering and citizens’ initiatives also measured items
The three blood donation behavior questions—1) Have you
along the lines of the SOEP.26 Finally, the SOEP scales have
donated blood in the past 10 (5) years? 2) Did you donate
a long-standing tradition of being used in various disci-
blood at least once last year, that is, in 2009 (2014)? and 3)
plines ranging from social sciences,18 economics,19 and
Are there any medical reasons why you cannot donate
medicine,20,21 which have been used since its inception and
blood?—allow us to classify participants into six different
are included regularly. As previous research has shown,
groups based on their stated blood donation behavior and
these scales are of high relevance for the blood donation
changes in their donation status from 2010 to 2015. As Figs. 1
context. Indeed, other panel data such as the National Char-
and 2 show, our six groups are 1) active donors 2015, 2) non-
ity Survey from 1989,27 Giving in the Netherlands Panel
donors 2015, 3) still-active donors (donated in 2010 and 2015),
Data,28 and the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study29 rely
4) former-active donors (donated in 2010 but not in 2015), 5)
on similar scales. In case variables are not measured as a
newly active donors (no donations in 2010 but donated in
dummy variable, SOEP measured items on 3-point, 5-point,
2015), and 6) never donors (no donations in both waves).
7-point or 10-point scales with varying anchor points (see
As Fig. 1 shows, movements within the group of active
Appendix 1).
donors is interesting because only 389 donors who partici-
Concerning sociodemographic factors, we see an even
pated in the 2010 wave continued to donate blood in 2015
distribution of sex in both groups of active donors and nondo-
(54.03%); we call them still-active donors. A total of 331 partici-
nors (chi-squared = 0.265, ns). However, active donors are on
pants in the 2010 donor group became nondonors in 2015,
average 44.983 years old, which makes them significantly
called former-active donors. On the other hand, as Fig. 2
younger than nondonors (48.696 years; p < 0.01). Moreover,
shows, 258 nondonors in 2010 became active donors in 2015,
while 65.33% of nondonors are married, only 61.05% of active
called newly active donors. Finally, 4662 participants did not
donors have a spouse (p < 0.05). Concerning the demographic
donate in 2010 as well as in 2015, called never donors. Despite
distribution, active donors are living significantly more often
this buffering effect, there is still a loss of donors, making
in East Germany (20.56% vs. 14.98%; p < 0.01). In addition,
donor management an essential topic for blood banks.
active donors work significantly more hours than nondonors
(7.208 vs. 6.432; p < 0.01). Referring to the psychographic fac-
tors in our sample, active donors are significantly more satis- Measurement of prosocial behavior
fied with their lives than nondonors (p < 0.01) and have a Beyond blood donations, the SOEP includes four other forms
more positive attitude toward their lives (p < 0.01) and worry of prosocial behavior that serve as our outcome variables.
less about it (p < 0.01). Active donors also tend to be in a bet- Over the panel waves, the SOEP measured four prosocial
ter mood than nondonors (p < 0.01), feel that they have behavior forms as follows: 1) money donations: Did you
achieved less than they deserve (p < 0.05), feel that they have donate money last year, in 2014 (2009), not counting mem-
less control over their life (p < 0.05), and have a higher risk bership fees?; 2) taking care of persons in need: What does a

Fig. 1. Movement of active donors from 2010 to 2015. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

4 TRANSFUSION

Fig. 2. Movement of nondonors from 2010 to 2015. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
typical weekday look like for you? How many hours per day
do you spend on the following activities? Care and support
for persons in need of care; 3) volunteer work: Which of the
following activities do you take part in during your free time?
Volunteer work in clubs or social services; and 4) involve-
ment in a citizens’ initiative: “Which of the following activities
do you take part in during your free time? Involvement in a
citizens’ group, political party, local government.” We coded
all questions as dummy variables, as Appendix 1 shows.
Statistical analysis
We compare active donors to nondonors with respect to
their prosocial behavior in 2015. Upon that, we specifically
study behavioral changes in active donors and nondonors
between 2010 and 2015 by analyzing the four subgroups 1)
still-active donors, 2) newly active donors, 3) former-active
donors, and (4) never donors. Their engagement in proso-
cial behavior serves as the outcome variable in our study.
First, we compare group differences using chi-squared
tests between active donors and nondonors with respect to
our four relevant outcome variables: 1) money donations, 2)
taking care, 3) volunteer work, and 4) citizens’ initiative. Sec-
ond, by relying on t tests, we also analyze differences between
the respective groups. We use 1) sociodemographic, 2) psy-
chographic, and 3) health-related factor explanatory variables
based on previous research that uniquely characterizes blood
donors.5,14,30 Appendix 1 gives an overview of the variables
included in our analysis and their operationalization.
Adjustment for selection effects (propensity score
matching)
As shown in previous studies, comparing blood donors to
nondonors requires rigorous controlling for potential selec-
tion effects (e.g., healthy donor effect).14,15,31 In line with pre-
vious research, we apply propensity score matching (PSM) to
reduce selection effects in all of our analyses.32 PSM sepa-
rates the selection effect caused by demographic,
BLOOD DONORS AND THEIR CHANGING ENGAGEMENT
psychographic, or health-related factors from the unbiased
effect of prosocial outcomes attributable to donation behav-
ior. Identifying individual pairs of donors and nondonors
who are similar regarding relevant characteristics from the
SOEP data reduces this bias. The estimated propensity score
indicates (if normalized) the probability that a person
becomes a blood donor given his or her characteristics.14
We estimate propensity scores using a logit model that
incorporates explanatory variables of three variable groups:
sociodemographic factors,33–35 psychographic factors,4,35 and
health-related factors.36 We analyze the robustness of the pro-
pensity score matching by 1) comparing pre- and postmean
differences in the respective matching variables, 2) comparing
the mean bias before and after matching, and 3) by running
sensitivity tests by using different matching algorithms. We
imply a common support condition to ensure that only
respondents whose propensity scores overlap to a certain
extent are compared.37 In particular, we rely on a kernel-
matching algorithm with common support (Epanechnikov
kernel function and a bandwidth parameter of 0.06).38 In total,
we estimate the following three PSM models with sociodemo-
graphic, psychographic, and health-related factors and use
four prosocial behavior forms as outcome variables:
• Model 1: Active donors versus nondonors 2015 (n = 5640).
• Model 2 (change over time): Still-active donors versus
former-active donors
(n = 720).
• Model 3 (change over time): Newly active donors ver-
sus never donors (n = 4920).
RESULTS
Descriptive analysis of prosocial behavior
We followed 5640 (non)blood donors over a period of 5 years.
Table 2 shows the results of the chi-squared tests in the
unmatched sample with respect to the four outcome
TRANSFUSION 5
STUDTE ET AL.
variables. Active donors are more likely than nondonors to
donate money (56.88% vs. 46.40%), to engage in volunteering
(58.27% vs. 37.01%), and to take part in citizens’ initiatives
(16.23% vs. 9.23%). We observe no significant differences
regarding taking care of persons in need (6.49% vs. 5.57%).
By comparing still-active donors and former-active
donors, the results reveal that still-active donors are more
likely to donate money (60.41% vs. 52.27%), to volunteer
(61.18% vs. 46.83%), and to participate in citizens’ initiatives
(21.08% vs. 11.78%) when compared to former-active
donors. We again observe no significant differences regard-
ing taking care of persons in need (6.17% vs. 5.44%).
Comparing never donors and newly active donors
reveals similar patterns. There are significant differences in
money donations (45.99% vs. 51.55%) and volunteering
(36.31% vs. 53.88%), where newly active donors are signifi-
cantly more likely to engage in these prosocial behaviors.
Both groups do not significantly differ with respect to taking
care of persons in need (5.58% vs. 6.98%) and participating
in citizens’ initiatives (9.05% vs. 8.91%).
Propensity score matching results
Table 3 reports the significance levels of the respective
mean differences when comparing all sociodemographic,
psychographic, and health-related factors across the two
main and four subgroups (see Table 1) with respect to the
four outcome variables. In general, active donors appear to
be systematically different from nondonors.
Table 3 also indicates that the matching procedure
(comparing before and after chi-squared test significance
indicators) substantially reduces pre- and postmatching
mean differences. Hence, after matching active donors and
nondonors, all significant mean differences largely disap-
pear with respect to the four outcome variables. Thus, PSM
reduces the selection effects based on the data very well.
Table 4 reveals the results of the logit estimations, which
are in line with the mean comparisons shown in Table 3.
Exemplarily, we discuss the significant findings of the PSM
logit models for active donors and nondonors with regard to
the four donation forms: Being a blood donor is related to
being female (B = 0.228), being younger (B = −0.017), living in
East Germany (B = 0.322) and working longer hours
(B = 0.030). Concerning the psychographic factors, being a
blood donor is related to being helpful (B = 0.096), less related
to reciprocating favors (B = −0.098), related to having a higher
risk affinity (B = 0.082), and being interested in politics
(B = 0.168). The health-related factors show that being a blood
donor is related to being more satisfied with his or her health
(B = 0.097) and getting fewer hours of sleep (B = −0.097). Fur-
ther findings are discussed in Appendix 2 with regard to the
remaining donor groups still-active donors, former-active
donors, newly active donors, and never donors.
We conducted several robustness tests by using the alter-
native nearest-neighbor and caliper-matching algorithm.39,40
6 TRANSFUSION
We also used alternate bandwidth sizes (0.02, 0.04). These
results are largely consistent with our estimation using a band-
width size equal to 0.06. Besides that, we tested the assump-
tion of conditional independence, which is essential for the
validity of the PSM results. This assumption implies that all
variables that simultaneously influence the propensity of a
person to be a donor versus a nondonor must be observable.32
Specifically, we investigated whether our results were robust
regarding the unobserved heterogeneity of donors by applying
the bounding approach.41
Outcome results: prosocial behavior changes from
2010 to 2015
By comparing the four different prosocial behavior out-
comes between the three matched and nonmatched sam-
ples, that is, 1) active donors versus nondonors 2015
(n = 5640), 2) still-active donors versus former-active donors
(n = 720), and 3) newly active donors versus never donors
(n = 4,920), we can quantify the prosocial behavior effect in
the respective domains. We present the outcome results in
Table 5, differentiated in a mean comparison before and
after matching.
Active donors versus nondonors 2015
Compared to current nondonors, the PSM results show that
active donors are significantly more likely to be engaged in
1) donating money (0.545 vs. 0.425), 2) volunteer work
(0.577 vs. 0.360), and 3) citizens’ initiatives (0.162 vs. 0.090).
We do not find any significant differences regarding taking
care of persons in need.
Still-active donors versus former-active donors
We compare still-active donors to former-active donors.
Here, we find that still-active donors are significantly more
likely to be engaged in volunteering (0.609 vs. 0.461) and
citizens’ initiatives (0.209 vs. 0.115). We do not find any sig-
nificant differences regarding money donations and taking
care of persons in need.
Newly active donors versus never donors
We compare newly active donors to never donors and find
that newly active donors also are significantly more likely to
be engaged in 1) donating money (0.492 vs. 0.395) and 2)
volunteer work (0.519 vs. 0.346). We do not find significant
differences in their engagement in taking care of persons in
need and citizens’ initiatives.
DISCUSSION
Existing blood donor research looked only scarcely at blood
donors’ engagement in various prosocial behaviors as a
form of understanding how it relates to blood donation
behavior. This is surprising, given that one of the main
 BLOOD DONORS AND THEIR CHANGING ENGAGEMENT

reasons why donors generally lapse is their engagement in

Chi-squared
other prosocial behaviors.9 Ideally, blood banks also present

31.722***
2.966*
0.948

0.010
diverse opportunities (money and time donations) to
engage prosocially, exemplifying the need to shed light on
this issue. Hence, this study first presents an update on the
effects reported by Shehu et al.6 and Priller and Schupp5

donors (n = 258)
133 (51.55%)

139 (53.88%)
Newly active and then provides a more thorough understanding of why

18 (6.98%)

23 (8.91%)
Comparison of changes in prosocial behavior between 2010 and 2015

donors are likely to stop or start donating and how it relates

to their engagement in other prosocial behavior forms.
Following a large sample (n = 5640) over the course of
5 years, this study used longitudinal SOEP data to investi-
gate how blood donors’ behavior changed from 2010 to
2,144 (45.99%)

1,693 (36.31%)
Never donors

260 (5.58%)

422 (9.05%)

2015 regarding their engagement in other prosocial behav-

(n = 4662)

ior forms, namely, donating money, volunteering, taking

care of persons in need, and participation in citizens’ initia-
tives. As previous research has demonstrated, this analysis
uses propensity score matching to account for selection
Chi-squared

effects. Using PSM is necessary because blood donors and

15.180***
11.045***
4.832**
0.273

nondonors significantly differ, as has been shown by previ-

ous research.15,16,31
TABLE 2. Chi-squared test outcome variables

This study finds that active donors are significantly

more likely to be engaged in other prosocial behavior forms
donors (n = 331)

than nondonors, namely, money donations, volunteering,

Former-active

173 (52.27%)

155 (46.83%)
39 (11.78%)
18 (5.44%)

and participation in citizens’ initiatives. We do not find sig-

nificant differences regarding the outcome variable “taking
care of persons in need.” This finding might result from the
possibility that taking care of others reflects a different form
of prosocial behavior that is not always voluntarily (e.g., in
Still-active donors

the case of family members) and is merely a type of infor-

235 (60.41%)

238 (61.18%)
82 (21.08%)
24 (6.17%)
(n = 389)

mal caregiving because not everyone has a person for

whom to care.
Blood donors’ engagement in other prosocial behaviors
is also likely to suffer when they change their donation
behavior and stop donating, namely, volunteering and par-
Chi-squared

107.672***

ticipation in citizens’ initiatives. In contrast, when people

24.868***

30.718***
1.108

become blood donors, they also are more likely to start

engaging in other prosocial behaviors, such as donating
money and volunteering. Peoples’ engagement in other pro-
Analysis of donors in 2015

social behaviors thus heavily affects the likelihood of donat-

2,317 (46.40%)

1,848 (37.01%)
278 (5.57%)

461 (9.23%)

ing blood.
Nondonors
(n = 4993)

Our findings suggest that blood banks should establish

a rigorous donor life cycle perspective to improve their
recruiting and retention programs. The donor life cycle per-
Notes: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

spective allows blood banks to assess blood donors’ dona-

tion behavior over the life course. In turn, this allows blood
Active donors

368 (56.88%)

377 (58.27%)
105 (16.23%)
(n = 647)

42 (6.49%)

banks to target their efforts more precisely to blood donors

and nondonors with respect to their changing engagement
in prosocial behaviors. Improving the recruitment and
retention of blood donors is increasingly important, as sup-
plying enough blood products poses an ongoing challenge
Citizens’ initiative
Money donation

Volunteer work

for blood banks.42

Taking care

By adopting the donor life cycle perspective, blood

Outcome
variable

banks should particularly monitor those who stop donating

blood. Many blood banks (e.g., the German Red Cross
Blood Donation Services) offer other prosocial behavior

TRANSFUSION 7
 TABLE 3. Mean differences pre- and postmatching.
Newly active Still-active
Still-active donors donors donors vs. Newly active
Active donors vs. former-active vs. never Active donors former-active donors vs. never
vs. nondonors donors donors vs. nondonors donors donors
STUDTE ET AL.

8 TRANSFUSION
Factor group Explanatory variables pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
(A)
Money donation Taking care
Sociodemographic factors Sex (female) *** ***
Age *** *** *** * *** *** *** *
Married ** *** ** ***
Children * **
New federal state *** *** *** ***
Hours of job (per weekday) *** ** ** *** ** **
Psychographic factors Satisfaction with life *** *** *** **
Positivity *** ** *** **
Being helpful
Return favors
Worrying about life *** *** *** ***
Mood (negative) ** * ** *
Not achieved what I deserved ** ** *** **
Little control over my life * **
Risk affinity *** ** *** **
Political interest ** ** *
Health-related factors Satisfaction with health *** *** *** ***
Hours of sleep *
Compulsory health * ** *
insurance (normal tariff )

(B)
Volunteer work Citizens’ initiative
Sociodemographic factors Sex (female) *** ***
Age *** *** *** * *** *** *** *
Married ** *** * ***
Children * *
New federal state *** *** *** ***
Hours of job (per weekday) *** ** ** *** ** **
Psychographic factors Satisfaction with life *** *** *** ***
Positivity *** ** *** **
Being helpful
Return favors
Worrying about life *** *** *** ***
Mood (negative) ** * ** *
Not achieved what I deserved ** ** ** **
Little control over my life * *
Risk affinity *** ** *** **
Political interest ** **
Health-related factors Satisfaction with health *** *** *** ***
Hours of sleep * *
Compulsory health * * *
insurance (normal tariff )
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
 TABLE 4. Results of propensity score estimation (logit model)
Still-active Newly Still-active
donors vs. active Active donors vs. Newly active
Active donors former-active donors vs. donors vs. former-active donors vs.
vs. nondonors donors never donors nondonors donors never donors
Factor group Explanatory variables Coef. SE Coef. SE Coef. SE Coef. SE Coef. SE Coef. SE
(A)
MONEY DONATION TAKING CARE
Sociodemographic Gender (female) 0.228** 0.108 −0.302 0.199 0.474*** 0.168 0.235** 0.111 −0.297 0.202 0.517*** 0.173
factors Age −0.017*** 0.005 0.029*** 0.009 −0.040*** 0.007 −0.016*** 0.005 0.031*** 0.009 −0.039*** 0.008
Married 0.037 0.116 −0.325 0.223 −0.007 0.180 0.014 0.119 −0.384* 0.228 −0.022 0.184
Children −0.063 0.108 0.158 0.197 0.008 0.165 −0.066 0.111 0.118 0.201 0.031 0.170
New federal state 0.322*** 0.122 −0.305 0.223 0.534*** 0.181 0.335*** 0.126 −0.318 0.228 0.546*** 0.187
Hours of job (per weekday) 0.030** 0.014 0.059** 0.026 0.018 0.022 0.028* 0.014 0.064** 0.026 0.015 0.022
Psychographic Satisfaction with life 0.035 0.044 0.006 0.080 −0.007 0.067 0.005 0.045 −0.024 0.083 −0.049 0.068
factors Positivity 0.025 0.047 0.016 0.082 0.085 0.075 0.033 0.049 0.011 0.083 0.107 0.077
Being helpful 0.096** 0.048 0.106 0.084 0.103 0.075 0.092* 0.049 0.098 0.085 0.112 0.077
Return favors −0.098* 0.059 −0.059 0.098 −0.014 0.100 −0.102* 0.060 −0.060 0.099 −0.014 0.103
Worrying about life −0.152 0.133 0.090 0.261 −0.592*** 0.204 −0.115 0.137 0.182 0.265 −0.569*** 0.209
Mood (negative) −0.022 0.080 0.079 0.158 −0.053 0.121 −0.047 0.082 0.041 0.161 −0.094 0.125
Not achieved what I deserved −0.020 0.032 0.029 0.063 −0.042 0.050 −0.035 0.033 0.003 0.065 −0.049 0.051
Little control over my life 0.020 0.039 −0.045 0.075 0.050 0.061 0.012 0.041 −0.068 0.077 0.051 0.062
Risk affinity 0.082*** 0.023 0.004 0.045 0.045 0.035 0.091*** 0.024 0.006 0.046 0.051 0.036
Political interest 0.168*** 0.065 0.012 0.127 0.178* 0.098 0.192*** 0.066 0.067 0.129 0.198** 0.100
Health-related Satisfaction with health 0.097*** 0.033 0.096* 0.057 0.098* 0.051 0.115*** 0.034 0.107* 0.061 0.106** 0.053
factors Hours of sleep −0.097** 0.049 −0.040 0.090 −0.128* 0.074 −0.086* 0.050 −0.032 0.092 −0.110 0.076
Compulsory health insurance 0.046 0.139 −0.272 0.256 0.357 0.243 −0.005 0.141 −0.309 0.258 0.363 0.254
(normal tariff )
Constant −2.473*** 0.803 −2.115 1.456 −2.001 1.264 −2.485*** 0.827 −2.083 1.474 −2.124 1.302
Goodness of fit Observations 4389 553 3836 4221 532 3689
Pseudo-R2 before 0.035 (χ2 = 108.02) 0.040 (χ2 = 30.55) 0.069 (χ2 = 107.55) 0.038 (χ2 = 111.92) 0.046 (χ2 = 34.03) 0.071 (χ2 = 104.32)
p < 0.0001 p < 0.0500 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0500 p < 0.0001
Pseudo-R2 after 0.002 (χ2 = 3.25) 0.002 (χ2 = 1.41) 0.013 (χ2 = 6.87) 0.002 (χ2 = 3.08) 0.003 (χ2 = 2.03) 0.014 (χ2 = 7.31)
p < 1.0000 p < 1.0000 p < 1.0000 p < 1.0000 p < 1.0000 p < 1.0000
Mean bias before 12.5 9.3 18.2 13.5 10.2 18.6
Mean bias after 2.6 2.0 6.2 2.7 2.3 6.5

(B)
Volunteer work Citizens’ initiative
Sociodemographic Sex (female) 0.228** 0.108 −0.302 0.199 0.474*** 0.168 0.227** 0.108 −0.307 0.199 0.473*** 0.168
factors Age −0.017*** 0.005 0.029*** 0.009 −0.040*** 0.007 −0.017*** 0.005 0.029*** 0.009 −0.040*** 0.007
Married 0.037 0.116 −0.325 0.223 −0.008 0.180 0.039 0.116 −0.319 0.223 −0.006 0.180
Children −0.063 0.108 0.158 0.197 0.007 0.166 −0.064 0.108 0.148 0.197 0.007 0.166
New federal state 0.322*** 0.122 −0.305 0.223 0.534*** 0.181 0.322*** 0.122 −0.307 0.223 0.535*** 0.181
Hours of job (per weekday) 0.030** 0.014 0.059** 0.026 0.018 0.022 0.030** 0.014 0.059** 0.026 0.019 0.022
Psychographic Satisfaction with life 0.034 0.044 0.006 0.080 −0.008 0.067 0.034 0.044 0.012 0.080 −0.008 0.067
factors Positivity 0.025 0.047 0.016 0.082 0.085 0.075 0.024 0.047 0.006 0.083 0.084 0.0745
Being helpful 0.096** 0.048 0.106 0.084 0.102 0.075 0.096** 0.048 0.102 0.084 0.103 0.0746
Return favors −0.098* 0.059 −0.059 0.098 −0.015 0.100 −0.097* 0.059 −0.053 0.098 −0.014 0.0997
Worrying about life −0.154 0.133 0.090 0.261 −0.595*** 0.204 −0.155 0.133 0.091 0.261 −0.596*** 0.204
Mood (negative) −0.025 0.080 0.079 0.158 −0.056 0.121 −0.024 0.080 0.093 0.158 −0.057 0.121
Not achieved what I deserved −0.019 0.032 0.029 0.063 −0.042 0.050 −0.020 0.032 0.027 0.063 −0.043 0.050
Little control over my life 0.020 0.039 −0.045 0.075 0.049 0.061 0.020 0.040 −0.048 0.075 0.050 0.061
Risk affinity 0.082*** 0.023 0.004 0.045 0.044 0.035 0.082*** 0.023 0.004 0.045 0.045 0.035
Political interest 0.168*** 0.065 0.012 0.127 0.178* 0.098 0.167** 0.065 0.005 0.127 0.178* 0.098
Health-related Satisfaction with health 0.097*** 0.033 0.096* 0.057 0.098* 0.051 0.097*** 0.033 0.095* 0.057 0.098* 0.051
factors Hours of sleep −0.097** 0.049 −0.040 0.090 −0.128* 0.074 −0.097** 0.049 −0.043 0.090 −0.129* 0.074
0.046 0.139 −0.272 0.256 0.358 0.243 0.046 0.139 −0.266 0.256 0.358 0.243

(Continues)

TRANSFUSION 9
BLOOD DONORS AND THEIR CHANGING ENGAGEMENT
 STUDTE ET AL.

forms, such as time (e.g., volunteering) and money dona-

p < 0.0001

p < 1.0000
(χ2 = 107.50)
tions. If this is not the case, blood banks should offer and

(χ2 = 6.87)
1.263
SE
communicate different forms of prosocial engagements (like
money donations or volunteering) to former blood donors to
provide opportunities to help. Independent of donation form,
never donors
Newly active
donors vs.

−1.972
blood banks then can keep donors in their donor pool. Orga-
0.069

0.013
Coef.

3832

18.2
6.2
nizations thus can cross-recruit blood donors to engage in
other prosocial behavior forms. For example, former active
p < 0.0500

p < 1.0000
(χ2 = 30.04)

donors might be interested in donating money or taking care

(χ2 = 1.27)
1.456
SE

of persons in need (time donation). In addition, blood banks

can target former blood donors, asking if they are willing to
former-active

donate money instead. This is in line with previous research

donors vs.
Still-active

−2.094

showing that prior donation behavior has a self-commitment

0.040

0.002
Coef.
donors

552

9.2
1.9

impact that increases the likelihood of future donations. This

effect even expands to other donation forms.43–45
p < 0.0001

p < 1.0000
χ2 = (107.88)

(χ2 = 3.25)

The results also offer insights into people’s initial efforts

0.803
SE

as blood donors. Becoming a blood donor means that the

likelihood to donate money and volunteer also increases. In
other words, money donors and those who volunteer are
nondonors

−2.453***
donors vs.

0.035

0.002
Coef.

4384

more likely to also start donating blood, allowing blood

12.5
2.6
Active

banks to target those and recruit them as blood donors.

Cross-recruitment and targeting their recruitment and
p < 0.0001

p < 1.0000
(χ2 = 107.49)

(χ2 = 6.87)

retention programs again can be powerful for increasing the

1.263
SE

blood donor pool.

TABLE 4. Continued

As with other studies, this study has limitations that offer

never donors

directions for further research. We recognize that using panel

donors vs.

−1.980

0.069

0.013
Coef.

data does not provide a valid control group. Consequently,

3834

18.2
6.2
Newly
active

we relied on propensity score matching to address this chal-

lenge. Moreover, by relying on a large-panel data set, com-
p < 0.0500

p < 1.0000
(χ2 = 30.55)

(χ2 = 1.41)

promises must be made with respect to the used scales. Even

1.456
SE

though panel data usually rely on subscales, the SOEP scales

have a long tradition of being used in a wide range of disci-
former-active

plines. The sample in this study is based on Germany and

donors vs.
Still-active

−2.115

0.040

0.002
Coef.
donors

therefore centers on European donors. Prior research has

553

9.3
2.0

shown that cross-cultural differences in prosocial behavior

exist, limiting the generalizability of our findings.46,47 Simi-
p < 0.0001

p < 1.0000
χ2 = (107.91)

(χ2 = 3.25)

larly, this study focuses on prosocial behavior forms that are

0.803
SE

implemented in the SOEP (donating blood, donating money,

taking care of persons in need, volunteering, engaging in citi-
vs. nondonors
Active donors

zens’ initiatives), knowing that our analysis does not contain

−2.461***

0.035

0.002
Coef.

4387

12.5

all existing forms of prosocial behavior.

2.6

In conclusion, this study shows that blood donors’

engagement in other prosocial behavior heavily affects the
Compulsory health insurance

likelihood of donating blood and thus presents an important

Explanatory variables

research avenue. Individuals’ engagement in other prosocial

Pseudo-R2 before

behaviors is likely to change when they start and stop donat-

Mean bias before
(normal tariff )

Pseudo-R2 after

Mean bias after

ing blood. This carries notable implications for blood banks

Observations

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Constant

and their recruitment and retention programs. Cross-

recruitment seems especially applicable for blood banks. As
previous research has shown, and as our data in this study
also suggest, a thorough control for selection effects is impor-
Goodness of fit

tant when looking at donation behavior. This study thus

Factor group

identifies changes in blood donors’ prosocial behaviors and

proposes strategies for how blood banks can use this knowl-
edge to improve their recruitment and retention programs.

10 TRANSFUSION
 BLOOD DONORS AND THEIR CHANGING ENGAGEMENT

TABLE 5. Outcome analysis

Outcome variable Logits Mean treated Mean control Difference SE t value
Money donation Active donors, 2015 (treated) Before matching 0.545 0.421 0.124 0.023 5.28 ***
vs. nondonors, 2015 (control) After matching 0.545 0.425 0.120 0.024 5.05 ***
Still-active donor (treated) Before matching 0.578 0.496 0.082 0.043 1.92
vs. former-active donor (control) After matching 0.575 0.535 0.040 0.045 0.89
Newly active donor (treated) Before matching 0.495 0.416 0.079 0.036 2.20 ***
vs. never donor (control) After matching 0.492 0.395 0.097 0.037 2.63 ***
Taking care Active donors, 2015 (treated) Before matching 0.072 0.054 0.017 0.011 1.54
vs. nondonors, 2015 (control) After matching 0.072 0.049 0.023 0.013 1.83
Still-active donor (treated) Before matching 0.070 0.041 0.029 0.020 1.44
vs. former-active donor (control) After matching 0.071 0.040 0.031 0.021 1.47
Newly active donor (treated) Before matching 0.075 0.055 0.019 0.017 1.12
vs. never donor (control) After matching 0.076 0.049 0.027 0.020 1.33
Volunteer work Active donors, 2015 (treated) Before matching 0.577 0.345 0.232 0.023 10.23 ***
vs. nondonors, 2015 (control) After matching 0.577 0.360 0.217 0.024 9.21 ***
Still-active donor (treated) Before matching 0.614 0.448 0.166 0.042 3.94 ***
vs. former-active donor (control) After matching 0.609 0.461 0.147 0.045 3.29 ***
Newly active donor (treated) Before matching 0.520 0.338 0.182 0.035 5.27 ***
vs. never donor (control) After matching 0.518 0.346 0.172 0.037 4.68 ***
Citizens’ initiative Active donors, 2015 (treated) Before matching 0.162 0.083 0.079 0.014 5.79 ***
vs. nondonors, 2015 (control) After matching 0.162 0.090 0.072 0.017 4.18 ***
Still-active donor (treated) Before matching 0.215 0.112 0.102 0.032 3.21 ***
vs. former-active donor (control) After matching 0.209 0.115 0.095 0.032 2.93 ***
Newly active donor (treated) Before matching 0.081 0.081 0.000 0.020 0.01
vs. never donor (control) After matching 0.081 0.080 0.001 0.020 0.04
Kernel matching (Epanchenikov kernel function, bandwidth 0.06, with common support condition); ***p < 0.01.

APPENDIX 1 – OPERATIONALIZATION

Category Variable Description Operationalization

Treatment Active donor Did you donate blood in 2014? Dummy variable,
Nondonor (No donation in the past 5 years) 1 = yes; 0 = no
Still-active donor (Donation in 2009 and in 2014)
Former-active donor (Donation in 2009 but not in 2010–2014)
Newly active donor (No donation in 1999–2009 but donated in 2014)
Never donor (No donation in the past 15 years)
Outcome Money donation Did you donate money last year, in 2014, not counting Dummy variable,
membership fees? 1 = yes; 0 = no
Taking care What is a typical day like for you? Care and support for
persons in need of care
Volunteer Work Which of the following activities do you take part in during
your free time? Volunteer work in clubs or social services
Citizens’ initiative Which of the following activities do you take part in during
your free time? Involvement in a citizens’ group, political
party, local government
Sociodemographic Sex Your sex Dummy variable,
factors 1 = female;
0 = male
Age Year and month of birth
Married What is your marital status? Dummy variable,
1 = married;
0 = not married
Children Are there children in your household? Dummy variable,
1 = yes; 0 = no
New federal state Former East Germany Dummy variable,
1 = yes; 0 = no
Hours of job (per weekday) How many hours per day do you spend on the following 0–24 hours
activities? Job, apprenticeship, second job (including travel
time to and from work)

(Continues)

TRANSFUSION 11
STUDTE ET AL.

Continued
Category Variable Description Operationalization
Psychographic Satisfaction with life How satisfied are you with your life, all things considered? 0 = completely
factors dissatisfied to
10 = completely
satisfied
Positivity I have a positive attitude toward myself. 1 = does not apply to
Being helpful I go out of my way to help somebody who has been kind to me at all to
me before. 7 = agree
Return favors If someone does me a favor, I am prepared to return it. completely
Worrying about life What is your attitude toward the following areas—are you 1 = not concerned at
concerned about them? General economic development, all; 3 = not
your own economic situation, your retirement benefits, your concerned at all
health, environmental protection, the impact of climate
change, maintaining peace, global terrorism, crime in
Germany, immigration to Germany, hostility toward
foreigners or minorities in Germany, your job security, or
anything else you are concerned about?
Mood (negative) I will now read to you a number of feelings. Please indicate 1 = very rarely to
for each feeling how often or rarely did you experience this 5 = very often
feeling in the past 4 weeks. How often have you felt …
angry/worried/sad?
Not achieved what I deserved Compared to other people, I have not achieved what I 1 = disagree
deserve. completely to
7 = agree
completely
Little control over my life I have little control over things that happen in my life. 1 = disagree
completely to
7 = agree
completely
Risk affinity How do you see yourself: are you generally a person who is 0 = risk averse to
fully prepared to take risks or do you try to avoid taking 10 = fully prepared
risks? to take risks
Political interest Generally speaking, how interested are you in politics? 1 = not at all
interested to
4 = very interested
Health-related Satisfaction with health How satisfied are you with your health? 0 = totally unhappy;
factors 10 = totally happy
Hours of sleep How many hours of sleep do you average on a normal day
during the working week?
Compulsory health insurance In compulsory health insurance at the normal rate Dummy variable,
(normal tariff ) 1 = yes; 0 = no

APPENDIX 2 – RESULTS OF THE PSM
LOGIT MODELS
MONEY DONATION
Still-Active Donors Versus Former-Active Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Still-active donors who also
donate money are likely to be younger (B = 0.029; p < 0.01)
and work more hours a week (B = 0.059; p < 0.05).
Psychographic factors. Concerning psychographic fac-
tors, we do not find any significant differences between still-
active donors and former-active donors.
Health-related factors. Regarding health-related factors,
Table 4 reveals that still-active donors who also donate
money are significantly more satisfied with their health
(B = 0.096; p < 0.1).
Former-Active Donors Versus Never Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Former-active donors who also
donate money are more likely to be female (B = 0.474;
p < 0.01), younger (B = −0.040; p < 0.01), and work more
hours (B = 0.059; p < 0.01).
Psychographic factors. Former-active donors who also
donate money are less worried about their lives
(B = −0,592; p < 0.01) and are more interested in politics
(B = 0.178; p < 0.1).
Health-related factors. Former-active donors who also
donate money are more satisfied with their own health
(B = 0.098; p < 0.1) and get fewer hours of sleep
(B = −0.128; p < 0.1).
TAKING CARE OF PERSONS IN NEED
Still-Active Donors Versus Former-Active Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Still-active donors who are also
taking care of persons in need are more likely to be older
(B = 0.031; p < 0.01), are less likely to be married
(B = −0.384; p < 0.1) and work more hours a week
(B = 0.064; p < 0.05).

12 TRANSFUSION

Psychographic factors. No significant findings.
Health-related factors. Concerning health-related fac-
tors, still-active donors are more likely to be satisfied with
their health (B = 0.107; p < 0.1).
Former-Active Donors Versus Never Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Former-active donors who are
also taking care of persons in need are more likely to be
female (B = 0.517; p < 0.01), younger (B = −0.039; p < 0.01),
and from East Germany (B = 0.546; p < 0.01).
Psychographic factors. Former-active donors who are
also taking care of persons in need are less likely to worry
about their lives (B = −0.569; p < 0.01) and are more inter-
ested in politics (B = 0.198; p < 0.05).
Health-related factors. Former-active donors who are
also taking care of persons in need are more likely to be sat-
isfied with their health (B = 0.106; p < 0.05).
VOLUNTEER WORK
Still-Active Donors Versus Former-Active Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Still-active donors who also engage
in volunteer work are more likely to be older (B = 0.029;
p < 0.01) and work more hours a week (B = 0.059; p < 0.05).
Psychographic factors. No significant differences.
Health-related factors. Concerning the health-related fac-
tors, still-active donors who also engage in volunteer work are
more likely to be satisfied with their health (B = 0.096; p < 0.1).
Former-Active Donors Versus Never Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Former-active donors who also
engage in volunteer work are more likely to be female
(B = 0.474; p < 0.01), younger (B = −0.040; p < 0.05), and
from East Germany (B = 0.534; p < 0.01).
Psychographic factors. Former-active donors who also
engage in volunteer work are less likely to worry about their
lives (B = −0.595; p < 0.01). However, they are more inter-
ested in politics than never donors (B = 0.178; p < 0.1).
Health-related factors. Former-active donors who also
engage in volunteer work are more likely to be satisfied with
their health (B = 0.098; p < 0.1) and sleep fewer hours a
week (B = −0.128; p < 0.1).
CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES
Still-Active Donors Versus Former-Active Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Still-active donors who also
engage in citizens’ initiatives are more likely to be younger
(B = 0.029; p < 0.01).
Psychographic factors. Concerning psychographic fac-
tors, we do not find any significant differences between still-
active donors and former-active donors.
BLOOD DONORS AND THEIR CHANGING ENGAGEMENT
Health-related factors. Still-active donors who also
engage in citizens’ initiatives are more likely to be satisfied
with their health (B = 0.095; p < 0.1).
Former-Active Donors Versus Never Donors
Sociodemographic factors. Former-active donors who also
engage in citizens’ initiatives are more likely to be female
(B = 0.473; p < 0.01), younger (B = −0.040; p < 0.01), and
from East Germany (B = 0.535; p < 0.01).
Psychographic factors. Former-active donors who also
engage in citizens’ initiatives are less likely to worry about
their lives (B = −0.596; p < 0.01) and are more interested in
politics (B = 0.178; p < 0.1).
Health-related factors. Former-active donors who also
engage in citizens’ initiatives are more likely to be satisfied
with their health (B = 0.098; p < 0.1) and sleep fewer hours
a week (B = −0.129; p < 0.1).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Glynn SA, Kleinman SH, Schreiber GB, et al. Motivations to
donate blood: demographic comparisons. Transfusion 2002;42:
216-25.
2. Weiner IB, Millon T, Lerner MJ, editors. Handbook of psychol-
ogy. 1st ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2003.
3. Veldhuizen IJ, Doggen CJ, Atsma F, et al. Donor profiles:
demographic factors and their influence on the donor career.
Vox Sang 2009;97:129-38.
4. Nguyen DD, DeVita DA, Hirschler NV, et al. Blood donor satis-
faction and intention of future donation. Transfusion 2008;48:
742-8.
5. Priller E, Schupp J. Social and economic characteristics of
financial and blood donors in Germany. DIW Econ Bull 2011;1:
23-30.
6. Shehu E, Langmaack A-C, Felchle E, et al. Profiling donors of
blood, money, and time: a simultaneous comparison of the
German population. Nonprofit Manage Leadership 2015;25:
269-95.
7. Bekkers R. Traditional and health-related philanthropy: the role
of resources and personality. Soc Psychol Q 2006;69:349-66.
8. Meslin EM, Rooney PM, Wolf JG. Health-related philanthropy:
toward understanding the relationship between the donation of
the body (and its parts) and traditional forms of philanthropic
giving. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Q 2008;37(1 suppl):44S-62S.
9. Sargeant A. Relationship fundraising: how to keep donors loyal.
Nonprofit Manage Leadership 2001;12:177-92.
10. Bauer TK, Bredtmann J, Schmidt CM. Time vs. money — the
supply of voluntary labor and charitable donations across
Europe. Eur J Political Econ 2013;32:80-94.
TRANSFUSION 13
STUDTE ET AL.
11. Feldman NE. Time is money: choosing between charitable
activities. Am Econ J Econ Policy 2010;2:103-30.
12. Sargeant A, Jay E. The fundraising performance of charity web-
sites: a US/UKcomparison. Interact Mark 2003;4:330-42.
13. Ferguson E, France CR, Abraham C, et al. Improving blood
donor recruitment and retention: Integrating theoretical
advances from social and behavioral science research agendas.
Transfusion 2007;47:1999-2010.
14. Shehu E, Hofmann A, Clement M, et al. Healthy donor effect
and satisfaction with health: the role of selection effects related
to blood donation behavior. Eur J Health Econ 2015;16:733-45.
15. Atsma F, de Vegt F. The healthy donor effect: a matter of selec-
tion bias and confounding. Transfusion 2011;51:1883-5.
16. Ullum H, Rostgaard K, Kamper-Jørgensen M, et al. Blood
donation and blood donor mortality after adjustment for a
healthy donor effect. Transfusion 2015;55:2479-85.
17. Krupp H-J. Das sozio-oekonomische panel (SOEP): genese und
implementation [The socio-economic panel (SOEP): genesis
and implementation]. SOEP papers on multidisciplinary panel
data research (No. 25). DIW Berlin, The German Socio-
Economic Panel (SOEP); 2007. p. 2–16.
18. Giesecke J. Socio-economic risks of atypical employment rela-
tionships: evidence from the German labour market. Eur Sociol
Rev 2009;25:629-46.
19. Clark AE, Diener E, Georgellis Y, et al. Lags and leads in life satis-
faction: a test of the baseline hypothesis. Econ J 2008;118:F222-43.
20. Hakulinen C, Jokela M. Alcohol use and personality trait change:
pooled analysis of six cohort studies. Psychol Med 2018;48:1-8.
21. Moor I, Günther S, Knöchelmann A, et al. Educational inequal-
ities in subjective health in Germany from 1994 to 2014: a
trend analysis using the German socio-economic panel study
(GSOEP). BMJ Open 2018;8:e019755.
22. Gerstorf S, Schupp J, editors. SOEP wave report 2015. Berlin:
DIW Berlin; 2016.
23. Pavot W, Diener E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. In:
Diener E , editors. Assessing well-being. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer; 2009. p. 101-17.
24. Böckler A, Tusche A, Singer T. The structure of human prosoci-
ality: differentiating altruistically motivated, norm motivated,
strategically motivated, and self-reported prosocial behavior.
Soc Psychol Pers Sci 2016;7:530-41.
25. Steele WR, Schreiber GB, Guiltinan A, et al. The role of altruistic
behavior, empathetic concern, and social responsibility motiva-
tion in blood donation behavior. Transfusion 2008;48:43-54.
26. Gagné M. The role of autonomy support and autonomy orien-
tation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motiv Emotion 2003;
27:199-223.
27. Lee L, Piliavin JA, Call VRA. Giving time, money, and blood:
similarities and differences. Soc Psychol Q 1999;62:276.
14 TRANSFUSION
28. Bekkers R, Wiepking P. Accuracy of self-reports on donations
to charitable organizations. Qual Quant 2011;45:1369-83.
29. Alexander J, Brudney JL, Yang K, et al. A comparison of volunteer-
ing data in the panel study of income dynamics and the current
population survey. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Q 2010;39:753-61.
30. Andaleeb SS, Basu AK. Explaining blood donation: the trust
factor. J Health Care Mark 1995;15:42-8.
31. Atsma F, Veldhuizen I, Verbeek A, et al. Healthy donor effect:
its magnitude in health research among blood donors. Transfu-
sion 2011;51:1820-8.
32. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the
implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv
2008;22:31-72.
33. Tscheulin DK, Lindenmeier J. The willingness to donate blood:
an empirical analysis of socio-demographic and motivation-
related determinants. Health Serv Manage Res 2005;18:165-74.
34. Duboz P, Cunéo B. How barriers to blood donation differ
between lapsed donors and non-donors in France. Transfus
Med 2010;20:227-36.
35. Oswalt RM, Hoff TE. The motivations of blood donors and
nondonors: a community survey. Transfusion 1975;15:68-72.
36. Boulware LE, Ratner LE, Ness PM, et al. The contribution of
sociodemographic, medical, and attitudinal factors to blood
donation among the general public. Transfusion 2002;42:669-78.
37. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P. Matching as an econometric
evaluation estimator. Rev Econ Stud 1998;65:261-94.
38. Silverman B. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis.
London: Chapman & Hall; 1986.
39. Black DA, Smith JA. How robust is the evidence on the effects
of college quality? Evidence from matching. J Econometrics
2004;121:99-124.
40. Lechner M. Some practical issues in the evaluation of hetero-
geneous labour market programmes by matching methods. J R
Stat Soc A 2002;165:59-82.
41. Rosenbaum PR, editors. Observational studies. 2nd ed. -
New York: Springer; 2010.
42. Armitage J. Giving the donor his (or her) due. Transfusion
2014;54(3 Pt 2):750-2.
43. Mount J. Why donors give. Nonprofit Manage Leadership 1996;
7:3-14.
44. Monin B, Miller DT. Moral credentials and the expression of
prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;81:33-43.
45. Rosen HS, Sims ST. Altruistic behavior and habit formation.
Nonprofit Manage Leadership 2011;21:235-53.
46. Inglehart R, Baker WE. Modernization, cultural change, and
the persistence of traditional values. Am Sociol Rev 2000;65:19.
47. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. Culture and the evolution of human
cooperation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009;364:
3281-8.