Why Do People Give Charitable Giving Volunteering and Happiness René Bekkers October 18 2018 Stockholm October 18 2018 Stockholm 2 Thanks Coauthors Arjen de Wit Dave Verkaik Danique ID: 763877
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Why Do People Give? Charitable Giving, ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Why Do People Give?Charitable Giving, Volunteering, and Happiness René BekkersOctober 18, 2018, Stockholm
October 18, 2018Stockholm2
ThanksCo-authors: Arjen de Wit, Dave Verkaik, Danique Karamat Ali, Ashley Whillans, Michael Norton, and Paul SmeetsMark Ottoni-Wilhelm for suggestions on the interpretation of resultsThe ministry of Security and Justice (V&J) and Education, Culture and Science (OCW) for funding the GINPSJos van Hezewijk (Elite Research) for letting us use the HNW database October 18, 2018 Stockholm 3
Why do people give? People give (more) when:They perceive a clear need need They are asked to give solicitationCosts are lower, benefits are higher costs/benefitsPeople care about the recipients altruismGiving is rewarded socially reputationGiving reinforces their self-image self-rewardsCauses match their values valuesGifts are perceived as more effective efficacy October 18, 2018 4 Stockholm Bekkers , R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 40(5): 924-973. https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bekkers_wiepking_nvsq_11.pdf
Does helping make people happy? Helpers Recipients Intermediary organizations € grants programs Private benefit Public benefit October 18, 2018 Stockholm 5
Volunteering and Subjective Well-Being Arjen de WitRené BekkersDanique Karamat AliDave VerkaikCenter for Philanthropic StudiesVrije Universiteit Amsterdam
What is the impact of volunteering? To what extent does volunteering increase subjective well-being? De Wit, A., Bekkers, R., Karamat Ali, D. & Verkaik , D. (2015). Welfare Impacts of Participation. Deliverable 3.3 of the project: “Impact of the Third Sector as Social Innovation” (ITSSOIN), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme , Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. http://itssoin.eu/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ITSSOIN_D3_3_The-Impact-of-Participation.pdf October 18, 2018 Stockholm 7
Logic of AnalysisThe literature on volunteering clearly shows a higher level of well-being among volunteers.The exciting possibility emerges that volunteering may promote the well-being of participants.BUT…the higher level of well-being among volunteers may also be the result of a higher willingness to volunteer among citizens who have a higher level of well-being.In this case, pre-existing levels of well-being determine volunteer choices, but are not affected by them.October 18, 2018Stockholm 8
Research DesignIn the absence of experimental data that randomize people into volunteering, we analyze changes over time.We first graph the development in the lives of citizens as they move into and out of volunteering.However, these changes could still reflect influences of omitted variables.Therefore, we apply fixed effects regression models to eliminate influences of stable characteristics of citizens. This is a conservative test.October 18, 2018Stockholm 9
Six Longitudinal Panel Data Surveys German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) / Understanding Society Swiss Household Panel (SHP) Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS) Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam (LASA) October 18, 2018 Stockholm 10
In our analyses we use six large datasets covering fifteen countries in Europe. In total, we analyzed 845.733 survey responses from 154.970 different respondents. In all datasets, only respondents aged 18 and over who participated in more than one wave were selected.We rescaled all outcomes on a scale from 0 to 1.October 18, 2018Stockholm11
Six Longitudinal Panel Data Surveys SurveyYears Responses Respondents German Socio Economic Panel (GSOEP) 1984-2011 451,053 56,360 British Household Panel Survey / Understanding Society (BHPS) 1996-2012 111,062 20,798 Swiss Household Panel (SHP) 1999-2013126,63816,628Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS)2002-20148,9302,795Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE)2004-2011138,97155,657Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA)1993-20069,0692,732ALL1984-2014845,733154,970October 18, 2018Stockholm12
Measures Well-beingHealth GSOEP General life satisfaction (0-10) Satisfaction with health (0-10) BHPS Satisfaction with life (1-7)Subjective health (1-7)SHPSatisfaction with life (0-10)Subjective health (1-10)GINPSn/aSubjective health (1-5)SHARESatisfaction with life (0-10)Subjective health (1-5)LASACES-D depressive symptoms (reversed, 0-60)Subjective health (1-5)October 18, 2018Stockholm13
Results at a glance Well-beingHealth GSOEP + + BHPS + + SHP 0 + GINPS + SHARE++LASA+0October 18, 2018Stockholm14
Volunteers show higher well-being October 18, 2018 Stockholm 15
Well-being over time October 18, 2018Stockholm16
Well-being over time October 18, 2018Stockholm17
First difference models (18+) October 18, 2018 Stockholm 18
First difference models (55+)19 In Europe In the Netherlands October 18, 2018 Stockholm
Well-being benefits increase with age October 18, 2018Stockholm20
Well-being ‘effects’ in three modelsOctober 18, 2018Stockholm 21
Does giving make donors happy? Donor s Recipients Intermediary organizations € grants programs Private benefit Public benefit October 18, 2018 Stockholm22Match: x 2
The Joy of GivingEvidence from a Matching Experiment with Millionaires and the General Population René Bekkers – Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAshley Whillans – Harvard Business SchoolMichael Norton – Harvard Business School Paul Smeets – Maastricht University Preregistration , materials , data, code, paper, this presentation : posted at https://osf.io/bvs6t /
The Joy of GivingWhich areas of the brain are active when money given to participants is taken from them to benefit a charity or when they give it themselves?1. In all conditions giving was associated with activity in areas that are related to pleasure (caudate, right nucleus accumbens) 2. The activity is larger when the gift is voluntaryn = 19 female students @U OregonOctober 18, 2018Stockholm24
No Joy of Giving n = 261 students of unknown origin October 18, 2018 Stockholm 25
What price do donors care about?Their checkbook amount = what donors have to pay to make a giftThe amount that the charity receives as a result of their gift = the impact of the giftWith the match, we are increasing the amount the charity receives without additional cost to the donor. October 18, 2018Stockholm26
Matching: Who cares?Matches usually increase the amounts charities receive, and more so than mathematically equivalent rebates.Our impure altruism hypothesis was that matches would not increase the satisfaction of donors.Only pure altruists care about getting more money to the charity, even if it is for free. October 18, 2018Stockholm27
Design and analysis planWe preregistered this study at https://osf.io/x69ds/ Experiment conducted among a large population sample (n = 1,232) of participants in the 2015 Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS)And among a sample of 771 millionaires in the 2015 High Net Worth GINPS oversample October 18, 2018 Stockholm 28
Procedure: control groupAfter the survey, participants read:Among all participants in this survey we raffle five amounts of €100. If you are the winner, you can receive the amount in the form of a gift card, but you can also donate it to a charity of your choice. If you are one of the winners, would you like to: 1. receive €100 in the form of a voucher;2. receive €50 in the form of a voucher, and give €50 to a charity;3. donate €100 to a charity. Recipients were 12 popular charities in the Netherlands: Amnesty International - Doctors Without Borders (MSF) - Society for the protection of animals - Greenpeace - Netherlands Heart Association - Church in Action - National Cancer Foundation - Oxfam Netherlands - Stop Aids Now! – Unicef – Warchild - World Wild Life Fund - another charity, namely:……………………… October 18, 2018 Stockholm 29
The matchAfter the survey, participants read:Among all participants in this survey we raffle five amounts of €100. If you are the winner, you can receive the amount in the form of a gift card, but you can also donate it to a charity of your choice. Attention: the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam doubles the value of your gift to charity. If you are one of the winners, would you like to:1. receive €100 in the form of a voucher;2. receive €50 in the form of a voucher, and give €50 to a charity; the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam increases this amount by €50, so that he charity receives €100 3. donate €100 to a charity; the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam increases this amount by €100, so that he charity receives €200.Recipients were 12 popular charities in the Netherlands: Amnesty International - Doctors Without Borders (MSF) - Society for the protection of animals - Greenpeace - Netherlands Heart Association - Church in Action - National Cancer Foundation - Oxfam Netherlands - Stop Aids Now! – Unicef – Warchild - World Wild Life Fund - another charity, namely:………………………October 18, 2018Stockholm30
Measuring the joy of givingPost-test mood: After participants made their decisions, we asked: “Finally we have this question for you: how are you feeling at the moment?” Response options ranged from 1 (labeled ‘Very bad’) to 10 (labeled ‘Excellent’).October 18, 2018Stockholm31
Measuring the joy of givingPre-test satisfaction with life: During the survey, participants had responded to the question: “how would you evaluate your life in general on a scale from 1 to 10?”, with 1 labeled ‘very unhappy’ and 10 ‘very happy’.Mood benefits of giving: post-test mood minus pre-test satisfaction with life ( r = .59)October 18, 2018Stockholm 32
Giving in population sampleOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm33
Giving by millionairesOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm34
Amounts donated+41% +4%October 18, 2018Stockholm 35
Happy giversOctober 18, 2018Stockholm 36
ConclusionsHappiness makes people give and volunteer.Giving and volunteering does not make helpers much happier than they already were.We need experiments and stringent tests with panel survey data to eradicate selection biasOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm 37
SpeculationsGiving is more satisfying when it is more costly and provides a certain benefit to a close other.This makes giving money to charity less hedonically rewarding than keeping or giving to a specific other person.Mood benefits vary between donors: Effective altruists should care (more) about the impact of their gifts (to be tested).October 18, 2018Stockholm38
October 18, 2018Stockholm 39
October 18, 2018 Stockholm40
October 18, 2018 Stockholm41
October 18, 2018Stockholm 42
Methods Insights: Panel Data Panel survey analyses of volunteering typically reveal selection effects but little causation. Trust makes people volunteer, but volunteering does not make them more trusting. Bekkers, R. (2012). Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence from a Four Year Panel Study. Political Behavior, 32 (2): 225-247. https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bekkers_pobe_12.pdf Van Ingen, E. & Bekkers, R. (2015). Trust Through Civic Engagement? Evidence From Five National Panel Studies. Political Psychology, 36 (3): 277-294. https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/vaningen_bekkers_15.pdf October 18, 2018 Stockholm 43
Methods Insights: ExperimentsManipulations of the principle of care, empathic concern, and gratitude barely influence charitable giving. Dispositional measures of these constructs consistently predict generosity. Bekkers, R., Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., & Verkaik, D. (2015). Altruism, Warm Glow, and Charitable Giving: Three Experiments. Paper presented at the 3rd Science of Philanthropy Conference, Chicago, September 11-12, 2015. https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/15_09_30_spi_bekkers_verkaik_ottoni-wilhelm.pdf NDP ( 2009). Netherlands Donor Panel, September 2009. October 18, 2018 Stockholm 44
October 18, 2018 Stockholm 45 Published Unpublished?
Contact: René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies Department of SociologyVrije Universiteit Amsterdamr.bekkers@vu.nl Blog: http://renebekkers.wordpress.com Twitter: @ renebekkers
Mood effects in population sample: control groupOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm47
Population sample: match groupOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm48
Millionaires: control groupOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm49
Millionaires: match groupOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm50
Yes, we have regressions October 18, 2018Stockholm51
Gratitude Manipulation CheckOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm 52
Outcome: givingOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm 53
Outcome: givingOctober 18, 2018 Stockholm 54
Gratitute and giving results Happy memories (0-1).337 .100 .072 .055 -.221 Grateful memories (0-1) -.094 -.231 -.270 -.328 -.112 Optimism (1-4).585.238.267SWB (z).455.508Gratitude (z)***1.500*.826Joy of giving (z) ***1.989 Positive affect (z) .416 .296 *-.712 *-.811 Negative affect (z) **-.807 *-.675 -.359 -.428 Constant ***10.046 ***10.149 ***8.169 ***9.350 ***9.280 Adj. R Square -.001 .007 .008 .027 .069 *** p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05 October 18, 2018 Stockholm 55