gender differences in giving in the netherlands rené bekkers center for philanthropic studies vu...

Gender Differences in

Giving in the Netherlands René Bekkers

Center for Philanthropic Studies

VU University AmsterdamNovember 8, 2011 1Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic

Studies

When life was still nasty, brutish, and short…

November 8, 2011 Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies 2

Roles were different…


…and they still are• Gender roles are still clearly

different: • Men hold power positions;• Women fulfill more empathic roles.• This distinction seems to be even

stronger in the Netherlands than in the US.

November 8, 2011 4Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

There’s the glass ceiling.


14 men, 4 women


4/46 in Paris, October 2011


But things may change.• My daughter, when biking to school:

“Dad, you know, girls are just better in everything!”

• In the Netherlands, girls are doing better in schools than boys these days.

• The male advantage on labor market may be reduced or even disappear in the future.

• And women outlive men.November 8, 2011 8Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic

Studies

The big literature review• September 2007: background paper for Science of Generosity

RFP: Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). ‘Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review’.

• October 2011: Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). ‘A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving’. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40: 924‐973.

• November 2011: Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). ‘Who Gives? A Literature Review of Predictors of Charitable Giving. I – Religion, Education, Age, and Socialization’. Voluntary Sector Review.

• March 2012 (?): Wiepking, P. & Bekkers, R. ‘Who Gives? A Literature Review of Predictors of Charitable Giving, II – Gender, Marital Status, Income and Wealth’. Voluntary Sector Review.


Thanks, Pamala


Pamala Wiepking is the first author of the Voluntary Sector Review paper looking at gender. She works at the department of Sociology and the Erasmus Center for Strategic Philanthropy (ECSP) at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The part about gender• Some studies have looked at gender

in particular, but usually gender is just a control variable.

• From these studies it seems that females tend to give more often, but lower amounts per donation.

• Females favor health, education; males religion, adult recreation.


Theories• Personality development• Moral development• Socialization theory• Role theory• Resource theory• Stratification and mobility theory• Dominant status model• Biological evolutionismNovember 8, 2011 Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic

Studies 12

Giving models• Impure altruism model: people

derive utility from the act of giving as well as from their contribution to the public good.

• Perhaps the act of giving generates more warm glow for women than it does for men.

• But male budgets are larger.


Empirical strategy


Empirical strategy• Try to establish mediation and

moderation.• Mediation: when we control for

intermediary variables, the gender difference should change.

• Controlling for a factor that explains the higher level of giving among women should reduce the difference to (approach) zero.


Suppressor variables• There are also factors that will lead

women to give less then men, such as education and income.

• Controlling for these factors will increase the gender difference.

• When the bivariate difference is (near) zero, controlling for suppressor variables will enhance the differences.


Evidence for mediation and suppression

• Brown & Ferris (NVSQ, 2007): • Men give more to religion, in part

because of their higher level of social capital.

• No bivariate difference in secular giving, but higher giving emerges when controlling for social capital.

• Females give more than expected from their levels of social capital.


Female score Relation with giving

Mediation or suppression

Age - + Suppression

Education - + Suppression

Income - + Suppression

Religious affiliation + + Mediation

Church attendance + + Mediation

Married - + Suppression

Children + + Mediation

Asked + + Mediation

Empathy + + Mediation

Principle of care + + Mediation


Moderation• Males and females may react

differently to the same giving situation because they are sensitive to different cues and influences.

• The same mechanisms work differently for males and females.

• Is female giving driven by other motives than men’s giving?


Mechanisms• Solicitation: females are asked more often.• Costs: are men more sensitive to price?• Altruism: is female giving more altruistic?• Reputation: are women more sensitive to

social influence?• Values: females have higher levels of

empathy and care.• Psychological benefits: stronger for F?


Social desirability in stereotypes

• As a response set:• You would be crazy to admit you’re a

warm-hearted man or a cold-hearted woman (even if you are one)

• As a substantive phenomenon:• You would be crazy to act in contrast

to current stereotypes


Data sources• Surveys: – self-reports, correlational, large samples,

youth and adults• Experiments: – observation, manipulation, large samples

(in our case), youth and adults• Tax records: – self-reports, very large samples, tax

payers giving large amountsNovember 8, 2011 22Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic

Studies

Surveys• GINPS (2008 and 2010 waves)

• FSDP (2009 wave)

• SLS (2009)


FSDP 2009• Family Survey of the Dutch

Population 2009• Cross-sectional survey of households• Preferably including both adult

members• Personal interview + written

questionnaire


FSDP 2009• Questionnaire included an extensive

module measuring empathy constructs and principle of care

• Interview included participation module with questions on volunteering and helping behaviors, translated from the GSS02/04 Topical Altruism Module


Donated in 2009


Donated in 2009 (singles only)


GINPS

• GINPS (2008 and 2010 waves)• Signature research project of our

Center for Philanthropic Studies, www.giving.nl

• Fieldwork conducted online by TNS/NIPO, like Knowledge Networks

• Preselected pool: high response rates• Quota sample: age, gender, education,

home ownership, regionNovember 8, 2011 28Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic

Studies

http://www.giving.nl/

Donated in 2009


Amount donated (ln) in 2009


Log odds by genderFemales Males

Empathy 0,89** 0,34

Principle of care 0,32 0,57**

Being asked 1,33** 1,36**

Tertiary education 1,37** 1,17**


In logistic regressions

B coefficients by genderFemales Males

Empathy 0,07 0,05

Principle of care 0,15** 0,19**

Being asked 0,11** 0,04

Tertiary education 0,20** 0,21**


In OLS regression of log transformed amounts donated among donors only

Validity of self-reports• Women score higher in empathy and the

principle of care.• Some have argued that this difference is

in part due to a social desirability bias.• We found that self-reports on donations

to a cancer charity by women are less accurate, but not higher than recorded.

• Source: Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). ‘Accuracy of Self‐reports on Donations to Charitable Organizations’. Quality & Quantity, 45(6): 1369‐1383.


Social desirability


Experiments• Designed to test effects of mechanisms

driving philanthropy: costs, reputation, efficacy

• Not designed specifically to test or explain gender differences

• But the experiments show whether girls/ women are more generous than boys/men

• And whether girls/women are more or less sensitive to costs, reputation, efficacy


SLS 2009• Service Learning Study• Survey among 2,826 students in 29

schools offering secondary education• Research funded by Ministry of

Education + Ministry of Health, Wellbeing & Sports

• Measuring civic-mindedness: prosocial values, civic skills and behaviors

• Online survey completed in classNovember 8, 2011 38Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic

Studies

Celebrity endorsements


Differences NS, n≈200 per condition

Fundraising costs


Your name added to donor list


Social information: “56% gives”


Social info: “43% never gives”


Social information: “95% gives”


Social info: “5% never gives”


Implicit anonymity: eyes


Donated in experiment (Fall 08)


Donated (Spring 09)


Price


Price effect does not vary with gender

Matching frame


Matching frame effect is stronger among women

Social information


Social information effect does not vary with gender

Tax Records• Called “Income Panel Survey” (IPS)• Sample of 0.61% of all income tax forms• Includes charitable deductions: amounts

donated exceeding 1% of gross income• Data on demographics, income and

wealth, but not education or religion• Analysis of data from 2000-2005


Giving >1% of income


Amount donated


Giving >1% of income


Amount donated


Giving >1% by income quintile


Amounts by income quintile


Summing up• Women are more likely to give, but give

lower amounts in the Netherlands.• The higher likelihood of giving is due to

their stronger predisposition to empathize with others, and their stronger endorsement of the principle of care.

• The lower amounts donated by females are the result of their lower level of resources.


Differential correlates• Empathy is more strongly related to the

incidence of giving among females.• The principle of care is more strongly

related to giving incidence among males.• No such differences for amounts donated,

where the principle of care rules.• Being asked is associated with higher

donations among females, but not among males.


Differences in mechanisms• Females are more sensitive to

framing than males.• But females are not more sensitive

to price.• Results for reputation and social

information are mixed.


Credits• Arjen de Wit: conducted the GINPS

analysis on empathy and the principle of care

• Pamala Wiepking: reviewed the literature

• Chris Einolf: came up with the values/resources hypothesis

• Mark Ottoni Wilhelm: came up with the principle of care hypothesis


Contact• ‘Giving in the Netherlands’, Center

for Philanthropic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam: www.geveninnederland.nl

• René Bekkers, [email protected]• Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.com• Twitter: @renebekkers

http://www.geveninnederland.nl/

mailto:[email protected]

http://renebekkers.wordpress.com/

gender differences in giving in the netherlands rené bekkers center for philanthropic studies vu...

Documents