role-modeling and conversations about giving in the

SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING 1

Role-modeling and Conversations about Giving in the Socialization of

Adolescent Charitable Giving and Volunteering

Mark Ottoni-Wilhelma,b,*

David B. Estellc

Neil H. Perdued

a Department of Economics, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), 425

University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Mobile: 001-765-277-1229. E-mail:

[email protected]

b The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 550 West North Street # 301, Indianapolis,

IN 46202, USA.

c Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University Bloomington,

201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA. Phone: 001-812-856-8308. E-

mail: [email protected]

d School of Psychological Sciences, University of Indianapolis, 1400 East Hanna Avenue,

Indianapolis, IN 46227, USA. Phone: 001-317-788-3353. E-mail: [email protected]

* Corresponding author.

mailto:[email protected]




Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between the monetary giving and volunteering behavior

of adolescents and the role-modeling and conversations about giving provided by their parents.

The participants are a large nationally-representative sample of 12-18 year-olds from the Panel

Study of Income Dynamics’ Child Development Supplement (n = 1,244). Adolescents reported

whether they gave money and whether they volunteered. In a separate interview parents reported

whether they talked to their adolescent about giving. In a third interview, parents reported

whether they gave money and volunteered. The results show that both role-modeling and

conversations about giving are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and volunteering. Knowing

that both role-modeling and conversation are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and

volunteering suggests an often over-looked way for practitioners and policy-makers to nurture

giving and volunteering among adults: start earlier, during adolescence, by guiding parents in

their role-modeling of, and conversations about, charitable giving and volunteering.

Keywords: prosocial behaviour; charitable giving; volunteering; positive behaviour; modeling;

socialization.


Role-modeling and Conversations about Giving in the Socialization of

Adolescent Charitable Giving and Volunteering

Educators, community leaders, and policy-makers expend considerable effort to

encourage adults to perform two particular prosocial behaviors – giving money to charities that

help people and giving time in voluntary service. Adult giving and volunteering are most likely

part of an ongoing pattern of behavior that began much earlier in development, and both theory

and laboratory-based experimental work suggest that role-modeling and conversations about

prosocial behavior will affect the development of prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes 1998).

Yet we know very little about the effectiveness of parental efforts to encourage these behaviors

in nationally-representative population studies that describe U.S. adolescents in their natural

settings. This represents a significant gap in our understanding. As Eisenberg and Mussen (1989,

p. 156) point out:

“It cannot be assumed that procedures that prove to be effective in laboratory

studies (such as modeling; see chapters 6 and 7) will necessarily have a

significant and lasting impact on behavior when introduced in a natural setting

such as the home or school. . . .Thus, it is important to test in natural settings the

effectiveness of those procedures that promote prosocial behavior in the laboratory.”

There are no nationally-representative studies of the effectiveness of parents’ role-

modeling of charitable giving, and although previous research has found evidence of an

association between parental modeling of volunteering and adolescents’ volunteering (McLellan

& Youniss 2003), including a nationally-representative study (U.S. Department of Education

1997), these studies could not control for conversations the parent may be having with the

adolescent about prosocial behavior. In short, to our knowledge no previous study has estimated

the strengths of role-modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior as separate influences

on adolescents’ giving and volunteering. Furthermore, no study has previously estimated role-

model and conversation associations while simultaneously controlling for parenting


dimensions—including parental warmth/support and behavioral control—that theoretically are

influences on prosocial behavior (Chase-Lansdale, Wakschlag, & Brooks-Gunn 1995). Finally,

little is known about whether the effectiveness of modeling, conversation, and parenting

dimensions differs by the sex of the adolescent (however see Carlo, McGinley, Hayes,

Batenhorst, & Wilkinson 2007).

Without this knowledge it is difficult to convince practitioners and policy-makers to shift

some of their effort toward the encouragement of parents in their role-modeling and talking

about giving and volunteering, thereby nurturing the giving and volunteering of tomorrow’s

adults. Moreover, it is not known whether any advice to parents should be tailored differently

depending on the sex of the adolescent. To address these gaps, the present research estimates the

relative strengths of role-modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior as separate

influences on adolescents’ charitable giving and volunteering using a large nationally-

representative sample. These effects are estimated while simultaneously assessing the association

of parental warmth and support and parental behavioral control.

Role-modeling, conversation, parenting dimensions, and prosocial behavior

The theoretical importance of role-modeling in the development of prosocial behavior

follows from social learning theory (Bandura 1976), as well as more recent neurological research

indicating that the basis of imitative behavior (mirror neurons) may provide the neural substrate

of empathy (Preston & de Waal 2002). The most robust evidence from the experimental

literature on children’s prosocial behavior is that having an adult experimenter role-model the

desired behavior increases children’s prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes 1998). If adult

strangers have an impact, the regular, long-term close relationships parents often have with their

children should make parents particularly effective modelers of prosocial behavior.


After role-modeling, the next strongest evidence from the experimental literature is that

children’s prosocial behavior can be increased through verbal communication (Eisenberg &

Fabes 1998). For example, most (though not all) experiments have found that other-oriented

induction has a positive effect on children’s donations (see, e.g., Dlugokinski & Firestone 1974,

Grusec, Sass-Kortsaak, & Simutis, 1978 and Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker 1979; cf. Lipscomb,

Bregman, & McAllister, 1983). Carlo, McGinley et al. (2007) find evidence that conversations

emphasizing empathy are positively associated with prosocial behavior among adolescents.

Beyond direct socialization through role-modeling and conversations about prosocial

behavior, theory suggests that broad parenting dimensions are determinants of prosocial

behavior. Two parenting dimensions—(a) warmth and support plus (b) behavioral control—in

combination form an authoritative parenting style (Crockett & Hayes 2011). Authoritative

parenting is thought to be an effective style for the development of prosocial behavior (Chase-

Lansdale et al. 1995). Supporting evidence has been found associating authoritative parenting, or

its separate dimensions, to adolescent empathy and perspective-taking (e.g., Laible & Carlo,

2004; Soenens, Duriez, Vansteenkiste, & Goossens 2007), children’s internalization of prosocial

values (Hardy, Padilla-Walker, & Carlo 2008; also see Hardy, Bhattacharajee, Reed, & Aquino

2010), social responsibility (Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss 1999), and prosocial behavior (e.g.,

Baumrind 1991; Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007; Wuthnow 1995).

The findings suggesting an association between parenting and prosocial development are

not universally supported. For example, some studies have not found an association (see the

reviews in Eisenberg, Morris, McDaniel, & Spinrad 2009 and Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad 2006;

also Soenens et al. 2007 found supporting evidence for maternal warmth/support, but not

behavioral control) while other studies have found indirect, but not direct, effects(e.g., Barry,


Padilla-Walker, Madsen, & Nelson 2008). Carlo, McGinley et al. (2007) suggest that the mixed

evidence may be because the dimensions of parenting styles are constructs that are too broad

when used to investigate specific prosocial behaviors, and that it may be more fruitful to examine

specific socialization techniques. They found several specific techniques—including

conversations about prosocial behavior—were associated with the Prosocial Tendency Measure

(PTM). PTM associations with role-modeling could not be investigated in their study because the

measurement of modeling did not survive exploratory factor analysis.

While warmth and control both may relate to a variety of child outcomes including

prosocial behavior, recent research has indicated that different forms of control have unique

effects on children. Psychological control—the use of manipulation, guilt, coercion, and

contingent love, for example—is an important construct that needs to be examined apart from

behavioral control (Barber 1996). Psychological control is related to lower levels of empathy,

teacher-reported altruism, and a variety of prosocial behaviors in children such as sharing and

helping with classmates (Krevens & Gibbs, 1996). However, Soenens et al. (2007) found that

psychological control, like behavioral control in their study, was not correlated with either

adolescents’ empathy or perspective taking.

Although there has been extensive work on sex differences in the amount of prosocial

behavior performed (see Eisenberg et al., 2006 for a review), fewer results are available about

sex differences in the effectiveness of socialization techniques. Stukas, Sitzer, Dew, Goycoolea,

and Simmons (1999) find evidence that parental modeling has a stronger effect on girls’ altruistic

self-image, suggesting perhaps a stronger effect on girls’ prosocial behavior. However, Carlo,

McGinley et al. (2007) find no evidence of sex differences in their PTM associations with

parenting techniques and styles.


Nationally representative studies of socializing adolescent prosocial behavior

Giving money to charity and volunteering are two key prosocial behaviors that receive

emphasis in adulthood because they are important components of civil society. Educators,

community leaders, and policy-makers expend much effort to encourage adults to give and

volunteer. There are extensive literatures about adults’ charitable giving (Vesterlund 2006) and

volunteering (Musick & Wilson 2008).

Volunteering in adulthood is part of an ongoing pattern of behavior that for many was

already underway during adolescence (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins 2007; Janoski,

Musick, & Wilson 1998). There is a large literature about adolescents’ volunteering examining

the influences of socio-economic status, extra-curricular activities, religion, and investigating

positive outcomes associated with volunteering (Eisenberg et al. 2009). This literature includes

nationally-representative studies (e.g., Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates 1999), but to our

knowledge there has been only one nationally-representative study that has estimated the

association between a parental role-model of volunteering and adolescent’s volunteering (U.S.

Department of Education 1997). This study concludes that an adolescent whose parent

volunteers is significantly more likely to volunteer, but did not examine parent-adolescent

conversations about prosocial behavior. The study also did not investigate whether the role-

modeling association was of similar magnitude for both girls and boys. Finally, and again to our

knowledge, there have been no nationally-representative studies of the association of

adolescents’ volunteering with parenting dimensions or styles.

Charitable giving observed in adulthood most likely was also underway during

adolescence, but charitable giving by adolescents has been studied much less intensively than

adolescents’ volunteering.1 While Kim, LaTaillade, and Kim (2011) found an association


between conversations about giving and adolescents’ giving, role-modeling was not considered

and differences in the associations between boys and girls were not examined.

The present study

The present research estimates two models—one for the probability that the adolescent

gives to charity and the other for the probability of volunteering—in which parental role-

modeling of volunteering and giving as well as conversations about giving are separate

influences. The models also contain parenting dimensions of warmth, behavioral control, and

psychological control as influences on adolescents’ giving and volunteering.

Our hypotheses are that adolescents’ giving and volunteering are positively associated

with (a) parental modeling and (b) conversations about giving. Because giving and volunteering

are often thought of as closely related prosocial behaviors, our third hypothesis is that there are

“cross-over” effects, specifically that parental modeling of giving is positively associated with

adolescents’ volunteering and vice versa. In light of the mixed evidence about broad parenting

dimensions and specific prosocial behaviors, our fourth hypothesis is that adolescents’ giving

and volunteering are more strongly associated with role-modeling and conversations about

giving than with parenting dimensions.

Our investigation of these hypotheses offers several contributions. First, as already noted

we investigate role-modeling, conversations about prosocial behavior, and parenting dimensions

as separate influences of adolescents’ giving and volunteering in a multiple regression

framework. For example, among parents who talk to their children about giving many also model

giving. Our analysis of separate associations avoids attributing to conversations about giving an

association that is really due to modeling giving. Equally important, our analysis will reveal the

importance of role-modeling, conversations about giving, and broader parenting styles. Second,


our analysis is based on a nationally-representative sample of U.S. adolescents. We can learn

whether results similar to those about modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior

obtained from experimental studies with non-parents and smaller, more homogeneous samples

also obtain in a population study. Finally, we investigate whether modeling, conversations about

giving, and parenting dimension associations differ by sex of the adolescent.

Method

Participants

Participants are from the Child Development Supplement (CDS) of the Panel Study of

Income Dynamics (PSID). The PSID is a long-term longitudinal study of household economics.

Economic, health, and demographic data have been collected annually 1968-1997 and biennially

since then in core main family interviews. Major funders of the PSID are the National Science

Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development (NICHD); the CDS is funded by NICHD. In 1997 the PSID families with

children age 12 and younger were selected for the first wave of the CDS (CDS-I) and 88%

participated. In 2002-2003 the CDS-I families who had continued in the core PSID (94%

continued) were selected for re-interview in the second wave (CDS-II) and 91% participated.

Among the CDS-II participating families our analysis focuses on adolescents 12-18 years of age

(n = 1,468) because the child-reported warmth/support and psychological control constructs are

asked only of adolescents. The response rate among adolescents is 89% (n = 1,312).

There are a few additional sample exclusions. We do not include adolescents if their

parent’s giving and volunteering data were not collected (n = 40). A few adolescents did not

answer questions about their giving and volunteering (n = 10) or had missing data on other


variables (n = 18). The final analysis sample is n = 1,244. Of these, 634 are girls and 610 are

boys. The number of African-American adolescents is 556.

Measures

Data for our study were collected in three separate interviews. First, adolescents were

interviewed in person using computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). For more sensitive

questions about warmth and support, as well as psychological control, the mode was audio-

computer assisted self-interviewing (ACASI). Second, the adolescent’s primary caregiver

(typically the mother or step-mother) were interviewed either in person or over the telephone

(CATI) based on the caregiver’s preference. Third, either the primary caregiver or her spouse

were interviewed in the PSID’s core main family interview using CATI.

Adolescents’ giving and volunteering. In CDS-II adolescents were asked “did you give

some of your money last year - if only a few pennies - to a church, synagogue, or another charity

that helps people who are not part of your family?” Adolescents also were asked “were you

involved in any volunteer service activities or service clubs in the last 12 months?” Responses to

both questions were a binary “yes/no.” The two questions parallel those asked of the

mother/step-mothers (or spouses) in the 2001 PSID core main family interview.

Role-modeling. Beginning in 2001, the PSID’s core main family interview contains data

on parents’ giving and volunteering that form the role-modeling variables central to our analysis.

The mother/step-mother/spouse reported if the family gave during the last calendar year more

than $25 to religious or charitable organizations. These organizations were defined to the

respondent to be non-profit organizations that “serve a variety of purposes such as religious

activity, helping people in need, health care and medical research, education, arts, environment,

and international aid.” Also reported was whether the mother/step-mother did 10 or more hours


of volunteer work through organizations, such as “coaching, helping at school, serving on

committees, building and repairing, providing health care or emotional support, delivering food,

doing office work, organizing activities, fundraising, and other kinds of work done for no pay.”

Past research has demonstrated that both measurements compare well with other nationally-

representative measures (Wilhelm 2006a,b). Note that the giving and volunteering questions

were about activity in calendar year 2000, implying that these variables describe role-modeling

one year (or more) prior to the measurement of adolescent giving and volunteering in CDS-II.

Conversations about giving. In CDS-II the primary caregiver was asked the binary

response question: “Do you ever talk to (NAME of CHILD) about giving some of (his/her)

money – if only a few pennies – to a church, synagogue, or another charity?” The question

obviously parallels the giving question asked to adolescents. Unfortunately the time budget of

CDS-II was not sufficient to add another question specifically about conversations concerning

volunteering. Therefore we use the “talk-about-giving” response as a proxy measurement of the

parent’s conversations about prosocial behavior in both models.

Parenting dimensions. In our main analysis we used the parenting dimension framework

with measurements of three dimensions: (a) warmth and support (b) behavioral control, and (c)

psychological control (Crockett & Hayes 2011). We also conducted analyses replacing the

dimension framework with parenting styles defined by interacting warmth/support with

behavioral control to classify authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged styles; this

follows the procedure from Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991).

Warmth and support was measured using 4 items developed from the Child Report of

Parent Behavior Inventory (Schaefer 1965). The adolescent reported the degree to which his/her

mother/step-mother (a) “cheers me up when I am sad” (warmth and emotional support), (b)


“gives me a lot of care and attention” (warmth and nurturance), (c) “often praises me” (support),

and (d) “enjoys doing things with me” (warmth and supportive involvement). Item responses

were on a 3-point scale: not like her, somewhat like her, a lot like her. To ensure privacy the

responses were collected during the ACASI portion of the adolescent interview. Cronbach’s =

.78.

Behavioral control was measured using the mother/step-mother report of the Household

Rules measure (Alwin 1997). The measure has 9 items, each using a 5-point scale, describing the

frequency that the mother/step-mother enforces rules specifically for the adolescent. The 9 items

are about which friends the adolescent can spend time with, how late the adolescent can stay up,

the use of time after school, when homework is done, if a place is set where homework is done,

whether homework is checked, the eating of snack foods, which TV programs can be watched,

and how much time can be spent watching TV ( = .84).

Psychological control was measured with the Psychological Control Scale-Youth Self

Report, a set of 6 items based on the CRPBI items used by Barber (1996). The items are the

adolescent’s report on the degree to which his/her mother/step-mother (a) “blames me for other

family members’ problems,” (b) “changes the subject whenever I have something to say,” (c)

brings up past mistakes when she criticizes me,” (d) “often interrupts me,” (e) “If I have hurt her

feelings, she stops talking to me until I please her again,” and (f) “is always trying to change how

I feel or think about things.” Item responses are on the 3-point not like her, somewhat like her, a

lot like her scale ( = .75).

Demographic and economic variables. Adolescents reported their race. In the present

study African-American adolescents were the only minority group with sufficient numbers in the

sample to include a variable designating their race. Race is coded as African-American =1 and


all others = 0. Sex and date of birth were collected when the participant was born. Sex is coded

male=0, female=1.

In the core main family interview, the mother/step-mother (or spouse) answered over 100

questions about components of family income. We use the PSID’s measure “total family

income” that includes income from all major sources (e.g., labor earnings from both parents,

business income, asset income, and transfers from the government). The PSID’s total family

income compares well with income measured in the Census Department’s Current Population

Surveys. (Gouskova & Schoeni 2007). To further improve the quality of the income data as a

measurement of the family’s long-run economic resources we took a five-year average of income

using the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001 core family interviews.

Empirical approach

We estimate two logit models, one for the probability the adolescent gave money to a

religious congregation or a charity and one for the probability the adolescent does volunteering.

From these models we report the marginal effects so that the reported estimates can be directly

interpreted as effects on the probabilities of giving and volunteering. The logit estimates are from

weighted maximum likelihood. The descriptive statistics also are weighted. The weights account

for differential probability of selection into the PSID due to the original 1968 sample design and

for subsequent attrition.

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and pairwise correlations of the analysis

variables. Among the adolescents, 72 percent gave and 41 percent volunteered. Similar

percentages of their parents role-modeled these two prosocial behaviors. Sixty-two percent of

parents talked to their adolescent about giving. The modeling and conversations about giving


variables are each significantly correlated with adolescent giving and volunteering. Warmth and

support is also significantly correlated with giving and volunteering, but the magnitudes are

lower than the associations with the socialization variables. Similarly, psychological control is

significantly (negatively) correlated with giving and volunteering, and the behavioral control–

giving correlation is significantly positive, but these correlations are smaller than the modeling

and conversations about giving correlations.

The parent’s model of giving and model of volunteering are correlated (the correlation is

among the strongest in the table) and both modeling variables are correlated with conversations

about giving. This justifies the cotemporaneous investigation of both types of modeling along

with conversations about giving in our empirical models. Not surprisingly, warmth and support

are negatively correlated (fairly strongly) with psychological control. Both parenting dimensions

are correlated with behavioral control, but the correlations are small (only one is significant). The

correlations between the parenting dimensions and modeling/conversations about giving are in

the anticipated direction with one exception (behavioral control–model of giving), and seven out

of nine are significant.

There are two other patterns to note. First, the fairly strong correlations between (the

logarithm of) family income and both types of role-modeling imply that controlling for income is

necessary to avoid misattributing an income association to a role-modeling association. Second,

parents talk about giving to older adolescents less and to girls more – the correlations are

significant but small.

Table 2 presents estimates of the logit models. In column 1, the logit model for

adolescent giving is significant (χ2

(12) = 63.08, p < 0.001). The estimates indicate that the parental

role-model of giving is associated with a 15 percentage point higher probability that the


adolescent gives (p = 0.001). Conversations about giving is associated with an 11 percentage

point higher probability (p = 0.003). The modeling association is large relative to the 72 percent

baseline probability that the adolescent gives: comparing two adolescents who are identical in

terms of the observed characteristics we control, except that one has a parent who gives and the

other has a parent who does not, the adolescent with the parent role-modeling giving has a

probability of giving that is 21% higher, relative to the baseline probability of giving (.15/.72 =

.21). The conversations about giving association also is large relative to baseline: an adolescent

whose parent talks to him about giving has a 15% higher probability of giving (.11/.72). Hence,

an adolescent whose parent both role-models and talks about giving has a probability of giving

that is 36% higher than an adolescent whose parent does neither.

In column 2, the logit model for adolescent volunteering is significant (χ2

(12) = 78.29, p <

0.001). The parental model of volunteering is associated with a 13 percentage point higher

probability that the adolescent volunteers (p = 0.002), and talking about giving is associated with

a 9 percentage point higher probability of volunteering (p = 0.035). These, too, are large

associations, representing 32% and 22% higher probabilities of volunteering relative to the

baseline 41 percent of adolescents who volunteer. Together these estimates imply that an

adolescent whose parent both role-models volunteering and talks about giving has a probability

of volunteering that is 54% higher than an adolescent whose parent does neither. The “cross-

over” parental model of giving is associated with a 17 percentage point higher probability that

the adolescent volunteers (p < 0.001) – corresponding to a 41% higher probability of

volunteering relative to baseline. The 13 percentage point association with the role-model of

volunteering is large even though role-modeling of, and talking about, giving are entered as


separate effects; however, if those effects are removed the role-model of volunteering association

rises to 18 percentage points (not shown in Table 2).

Although the parenting dimension associations with adolescent giving and volunteering

in columns 1 and 2 are in the expected direction, the estimates are small. The strongest evidence

of an association with a parenting dimension is behavioral control in the giving model (p = .059).

We also estimated models that replaced the parenting dimensions with authoritative,

authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged parenting styles as main effects, but the styles were not

significant. Because parenting dimensions/styles may act as moderators (Steinberg, Lamborn,

Dornbusch, & Darling 1992), we also estimated different versions of the models in which

dimensions (warmth, behavioral control, etc. ) and styles (authoritative, etc.) moderated the

effects of role-modeling and conversations about giving, but these interaction effects were also

not significant.

The estimates for demographic variables indicate that, controlling for role-modeling,

conversations about giving, and parenting dimensions, girls and African-American adolescents

have higher probabilities of giving by 8 percentage points (p = 0.002) and 10 percentage points

(p = 0.008), respectively. The age and giving were not significantly associated, but age and

volunteering was: 3 percentage points per year (p = 0.009). Adolescent girls have a 10

percentage point higher probability of volunteering (p = 0.006). Race was not related to

volunteering, and family was not significantly associated with giving or volunteering.

Table 3 presents estimates of the logit models separately by sex. Giving model estimates

in columns 1 and 2 show that the role-model association is much stronger for girls (20

percentage points, p = 0.003) than boys (12 percentage points, p = 0.061), but the opposite

pattern is evident for conversations about giving: for girls 8 percentage points (p = 0.115) and for


boys 16 percentage points (p = 0.003). Estimates for the parenting dimensions are not significant

for either girls or boys. As for the demographic variables, the giving associations with age and

African-American race were driven by significant patterns among girls, not boys.

The volunteering model in columns 3 and 4 shows a similar pattern: the role-model

association is much stronger for girls (17 percentage points, p = 0.003) than boys (9 percentage

points, p = 0.136), but the opposite for conversations about giving: for girls 5 percentage points

(p = 0.403) and for boys 14 percentage points (p = 0.009). The “cross-over” role-model of giving

association is a little less strong for girls (15 percentage points, p = 0.018) than boys (21

percentage points, p < 0.001), but significant for both. Warmth and support are significantly

associated with boys’ volunteering (.21, p < 0.001). The volunteering-age association is due to

the significant pattern among girls.

Discussion

The main results are that both parental role-modeling and conversations about giving

are associated with adolescents’ giving and volunteering. An adolescent whose parent role-

models giving and talks about giving has a probability of giving that is 36% higher than an

adolescent whose parent does neither. An adolescent whose parent role-models volunteering and

talks about giving has a probability of volunteering that is 54% higher than an adolescent whose

parent does neither. Additional evidence of modeling is the “cross-over” parental role-model of

giving association with adolescent volunteering: an adolescent whose parent models giving has a

41% higher probability of volunteering, and this is in addition to the associations due to the

parent’s model of volunteering and talking about giving.

Our findings are significant because they are the first validation using nationally-

representative data describing charitable giving by U.S. adolescents in their natural settings of


earlier laboratory evidence from smaller, more homogeneous samples regarding the impact of

modeling and conversations about giving. Similarly, the associations we obtain for adolescents’

volunteering validate earlier experimental evidence about prosocial behavior that involves

physical action, such as helping a confederate pick up dropped objects. Together the giving and

volunteering results extend earlier work that showed parents as strong influences on the prosocial

behavior exhibited by exemplars (e.g., Hart & Fegley 1995; Oliner & Oliner 1988): the new

evidence suggests that parents strongly influence the kinds of prosocial behavior exhibited by a

wider fraction of the population.

Our results have further significance because they imply that role-modeling has a strong

association with giving, even if conversations about giving is included in the analysis (and vice

versa). That is, parental role-modeling and conversations about giving have separate associations

with giving. Likewise, role-modeling and conversations about giving have separate associations

with volunteering. The present evidence deepens our understanding of the previous regression

evidence of the association between a parental role-model of volunteering and adolescent

volunteering (McLellan & Youniss 2003; U.S. Department of Education 1997) to say that the

association holds, albeit smaller in magnitude, even including role-modeling of, and talking

about, giving as separate effects.

These associations of adolescent giving and volunteering with the specific socialization

techniques are much stronger than associations with the broad parenting dimensions of warmth

and support, behavioral control, and psychological control. These results are in line with Carlo,

McGinley et al.’s (2007) similar findings regarding the PTM and more direct socialization as

compared to broader dimensions of parenting. Of course this does not imply that parenting

dimensions are unimportant to the development of prosocial behavior in earlier childhood; just


that in adolescence more direct socialization forces have a greater impact than broad parenting

dimensions. And in one analysis – that of adolescent boys’ volunteering – we found warmth and

support significantly related to volunteering. The implication is that the importance of warmth

and support in the development of volunteering documented by Wuthnow (1995) is especially

important for adolescent boys. Moreover, parenting dimensions may emerge as more important

influences on prosocial behavior when adolescents transition into adulthood. It may be that

parenting dimensions such as warmth and support affect the internalization of prosocial

behaviors, and that relationship is better revealed by the giving and volunteering chosen after the

adolescent establishes her/his independent household. Future work with data that include

assessments in emerging adulthood may be able to test this hypothesis.

The models estimated separately by sex provide additional evidence about differences in

the associations for girls and boys: role-model associations for girls are stronger than for boys,

and conversations about giving are more highly associated for boys. The stronger role-model

associations for girls is consistent with Stukas et al. (1999)’s evidence that parent modeling has a

stronger effect on girls’ altruistic self-image than on boys’. It may be that the higher-level moral

reasoning sometimes exhibited by girls (Eisenberg et al., 2006, p. 698) implies that girls are

more responsive to modeling, whereas boys have to be more explicitly, and verbally, encouraged

to give and volunteer. In any event, these results call for the theoretical development of

predictions about sex differences in the effectiveness of modeling and conversations about

prosocial behavior that can be tested in future research. Such predictions may need to be

situation dependent because effectiveness seems to depend on the type of role-modeling (Table 3

shows that the “cross-over” parental role-model of giving has a somewhat stronger association

with volunteering for boys than for girls). They may also depend on the type of prosocial


behavior: Ribar & Wilhelm (2006) find that role-modeling prosocial behavior that helps those

inside the family (co-residence with elderly parents and financial help of elderly parents) has

stronger effects on adult sons’ attitudes about the respective prosocial behavior than on adult

daughter’s attitudes.

There are a few limitations of our study that should be kept in mind while interpreting the

results. The most important is that the magnitudes of the associations we estimate using cross-

sectional data are rather weak evidence of any sort of causality. While the previous experimental

evidence leads us to think that some portion of the associations we estimate represent causal

effects, longitudinal data controlling for prior socialization and parenting would be stronger tests

of real-world influences. A second limitation has to do with measurement. Adolescent giving and

volunteering are binary variables, and the restricted variance can present problems for

estimation. Despite their limited range the associations with parental role-modeling and

conversations are strong enough that we obtained significant results. Nevertheless, the binary

range does mean that we do not know, for example, if larger amounts given by parents are

associated with larger amounts given by adolescents (see the studies in endnote 1 for results

about amounts, albeit for adult children, not adolescents). Another measurement limitation is that

we do not have a measurement that indicates whether the adolescent literally sees the parent’s

role-model. While we think that most adolescents are aware of whether or not their parents give

to charity or religious congregations – and parent volunteering would seem to be even harder for

the adolescent to miss – we cannot provide evidence of this. However, to the extent that any such

measurement errors are false negatives (adolescents do not know it, but their parents give), our

estimates of the associations are too small, implying the actual associations are even larger than

we have estimated. Finally, we did not have a direct measure of whether the parent talks to the


adolescent about volunteering. Had we had a direct conversation measure in the volunteering

model, rather than the conversation about giving we used as a proxy, the estimated association

may have been stronger.

Keeping these limitations in mind, the present study finds nationally-representative

evidence that parental role-modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior have relatively

strong associations with adolescents’ giving and volunteering. These population-based results, in

combination with the previous experimental results establishing causal effects of non-parental

modeling and verbal communication, have a significant practical implication: practitioners and

policy-makers, whose efforts traditionally have been to encourage present-day adults to give and

volunteer, should begin those efforts earlier by guiding parents in their role-modeling and talking

about giving and volunteering, in order to nurture potentially lifelong prosocial behavior among

their adolescents. A second practical recommendation derived from the results is that

conversations about giving and volunteering should be maintained during adolescence,

especially for boys. Given that the percentage of parents that talk to their children about giving

declines through adolescence – from 72 percent among parents of 10-12 year-olds to 60 percent

among of 16-18 year olds in our data– our findings strongly imply that shifting this pattern may

lead to significant increases in prosocial behavior among older adolescents.


References

Alwin, D. F. (1997). Detroit Area Study, 1997: Social Change in Religion and Child Rearing.

ICPSR04120-v1. Ann Arbor, MI.

Bandura, A. 1976. Social Learning Theory. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child

Development, 67(6), 3296-3319. doi: 10.2307/1131780

Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and

autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 12(2), 287-315. doi:10.1177/0743554897122008

Barry, C., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Madsen, S. D., & Nelson, L. J. (2008). The impact of maternal

relationship quality on emerging adults' prosocial tendencies: Indirect effects via

regulation of prosocial values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 581-591.

doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9238-7

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R.M.

Lerner, A.C. Peterson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence: Vol. 2. Interpersonal and

Sociocultural Factors (pp. 746-758). New York, NY US: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Bekkers, R. (2007). Intergenerational transmission of volunteering. Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 99-

114. doi: 10.1177/0001699307077653

Bekkers, R. (2011). Charity begins at home: How socialization experiences influence giving and

volunteering. Unpublished manuscript. Amsterdam: VU Amsterdam.

Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2007). A latent growth curve analysis

of prosocial behavior among rural adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,

17(2), 301-324. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00524.x

Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Parenting styles or

practices? Parenting, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal

of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 168(2), 147-176.

doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147-176

Chase-Lansdale, P.L., Wakschlag, L.S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). A psychological perspective

on the development of caring in children and youth: The role of the family. Journal of

Adolescence, 18(5), 515-556. doi: 10.1006/jado.1995.1037

Crockett, L.J., & Hayes, R. (2011). Parenting practices and styles. In B. Brown, M. Prinstein

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence: Vol. 2. Interpersonal and Sociocultural Factors

(pp. 241-248). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-373915-

5.00077-2


Dlugokinski, E. L., & Firestone, I. J. (1974). Other centeredness and susceptibility to charitable

appeals: Effects of perceived discipline. Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 21-28.

doi:10.1037/h0035560

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, N.

Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and

personality development (pp. 701-778). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial Development. In N. Eisenberg,

W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social,

emotional, and personality development (6th ed.) (pp. 646-718). Hoboken, NJ US: John

Wiley & Sons Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Eisenberg, N., Morris, A., McDaniel, B., & Spinrad, T. L. (2009). Moral cognitions and

prosocial responding in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg, R. M. Lerner, L.

Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol 1: Individual bases of

adolescent development (3rd ed.) (pp. 229-265). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons

Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New York,

NY US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571121

Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Geisheker, E. (1979). Content of preachings and power of the

model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 15(2),

168-175. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.15.2.168

Gouskova, E. & Robert F. Schoeni, R. F. (2007). Comparing estimates of family income in the

Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey, 1968-2005.

Technical Series Paper #07-01. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social

Research. http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2007-

01_Comparing_Estimates_PSID.pdf

Grusec, J.E., Sass-Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978b). The role of example and moral

encouragement in the training of altruism. Child Development, 49(3), 920-923. doi:

10.2307/1128273

Gunnoe, M. L., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Parental religiosity, parenting style, and

adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence 19(2), 199-225. doi: 10.1177/0272431699019002004

Hardy, S. A., Bhattacharjee, A., Reed, A., & Aquino, K. (2010). Moral identity and

psychological distance: The case of adolescent parental socialization. Journal of

Adolescence, 33(1), 111-123. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.008

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2007-01_Comparing_Estimates_PSID.pdf

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2007-01_Comparing_Estimates_PSID.pdf


Hardy, S. A., Padilla-Walkera, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2008). Parenting dimensions and adolescents'

internalisation of moral values. Journal of Moral Education, 37(2), 205-223.

doi:10.1080/03057240802009512

Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a

predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal 44:

197- 219. doi:10.3102/0002831206298173

Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to self-

understanding and social judgment. Child Development, 66(5), 1346-1349. doi:

10.2307/1131651

Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to voluntarism: Family socialization and status

transmission models. Social Forces, 74(1), 271-292. doi:10.2307/2580632

Janoski, T., Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1998). Being volunteered? The impact of social

participation and pro-social attitudes on volunteering. Sociological Forum, 13(3), 495-

519. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/684699

Kim, J, LaTaillade, J., & Kim, H. 2011. Family processes and adolescents’ financial behaviors.

Journal of Family Economic Issues, published on-line. doi:10.1007/s10834-011-9270-3

Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's

empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67(6), 3263-3277.

doi:10.2307/1131778

Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and

control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 19(6), 759-782. doi:10.1177/0743558403260094

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of

competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,

indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049-1065. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01588.x

Lipscomb, T. J., Bregman, N. J., & McAllister, H. A. (1983). The effect of words and actions on

American children's prosocial behavior. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and

Applied, 114(2), 193-198. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service: Determinants of voluntary

and required youth community service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32(1) , 47-58.

doi:10.1023/A:1021032407300

Musick, M. A. & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/684699

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/docview.issuebrowselink:searchpublicationissue/23494/Journal+of+Youth+and+Adolescence/02003Y02Y01$23Feb+2003$3b++Vol.+32+$281$29/32/1?site=psycinfo&t:ac=619816892/abstract/130AE610F0D2EF7F928/3&t:cp=maintain/resultcitationblocks

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/docview.issuebrowselink:searchpublicationissue/23494/Journal+of+Youth+and+Adolescence/02003Y02Y01$23Feb+2003$3b++Vol.+32+$281$29/32/1?site=psycinfo&t:ac=619816892/abstract/130AE610F0D2EF7F928/3&t:cp=maintain/resultcitationblocks


Mustillo, S., Wilson, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2004). Legacy volunteering: A test of two theories of

intergenerational transmission. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 530-541.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00036.x

Oliner, S.P. & Oliner, P.M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe.

New York: The Free Press.

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral

and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1-20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018

Ribar, D.C. and Wilhelm, M.O. (2006). Exchange, role modeling and the intergenerational

transmission of elder support attitudes: Evidence from three generations of Mexican-

Americans. Journal of Socio-Economics 35 (3), 514-531. doi:

10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.014

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development

6(2), 417-424.

Soenens, B., Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goossens, L. (2007). The intergenerational

transmission of empathy-related responding in adolescence: The Role of Maternal

Support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 299-311.

doi:10.1177/0146167206296300

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial

maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60(6), 1424-

1436. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.ep9772457

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling N. (1992). Impact of parenting on

adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and

encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63(5), 1266-1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8624.1992.tb01694.x

Stukas, A. R., Switzer, G. E., Dew, M., Goycoolea, J. M., & Simmons, R. G. (1999). Parental

helping models, gender, and service-learning. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the

Community, 18(1-2), 5-18. doi:10.1300/J005v18n01_02

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Student Participation in

Community Service Activity, NCES 97-331, by Mary Jo Nolin, Bradford Chaney, and

Chris Chapman. Project Officer, Kathryn Chandler, Washington, DC: 1997. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97331.pdf

Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give? In R. Steinberg & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The

nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd

edition) (pp. 568-590). New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97331.pdf


Wilhelm, M. O. (2006a). New data on charitable giving in the PSID. Economics Letters 92(1):

26-31. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.009

Wilhelm, M. O. (2006b). The 2001 Center on Philanthropy Panel Study User’s Guide.

Indianapolis, IN: IUPUI.

https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/mowilhel/Web_page/data.htm

Wilhelm, M. O., Brown, E., Rooney, P.M., & Steinberg, R. (2008). The intergenerational

transmission of generosity. Journal of Public Economics 92 (10-11): 2146-2156. doi:

10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.004

Wuthnow, Robert. 1995. Learning to care: Elementary kindness in an age of indifference. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of community service in

identity development: Normative, unconventional, and deviant orientations. Journal of

Adolescent Research 14(2): 248-261. doi: 10.1177/0743558499142006

Endnote

1Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, and Steinberg (2008) provide evidence of an association between the

dollar amounts contemporaneously given to charitable organizations by adult-aged children and

their parents. There also is evidence of an association between the volunteering of adult-aged

children and their parents: Bekkers (2007) analyzes a binary volunteering variable; Janoski and

Wilson (1995) analyze the ordinal intensity of volunteering; Mustillo, Wilson, and Lynch (2004)

analyze the amount of hours volunteered. Bekkers (2011) finds evidence that adult’s

volunteering and giving are associated with their parents’ past volunteering, retrospectively

reported by the adults.

https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/mowilhel/Web_page/data.htm


Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Adolescent giving .72 .45 –

2. Adolescent volunteering .41 .49 .22** –

3. Role-model giving .69 .46 .18** .23** –

4. Conversation about

giving

.62 .48 .18** .13** .12** –

5. Role-model volunteering .38 .49 .13** .23** .40** .16** –

6. Warmth and support 1.44 .54 .07* .10** .10** .11** .13** –

7. Psychological control .48 .45 –.07* –.06* –.06* –.06 –.10** –.44** –

8. Behavioral control 1.76 1.12 .08** –.03 –.08** .24** .03 .08** –.04 –

9. Age 15.3 1.93 .02 .08** –.01 –.06* –.04 –.06* .11** –.49** –

10. Female .50 .50 .08** .12** .00 .07** .04 .03 .03 –.07* .07* –

11. African-American .22 .41 .06* –.10** –.18** .01 –.18** –.08** .08** .20** –.01 –.07* –

12. Log family income 10.79 .78 .09** .19** .48** .07** .35** .17** –.08** –.14** .04 .03 –.39**

Notes: The estimates use sample weights. * p < .05, ** p < .01.


Table 2

Logit models of the probability that the adolescent gives, volunteers

Adolescent giving Adolescent volunteering

Role-model giving .15*** (.05) .17*** (.04)

Conversation about giving .11** (.04) .09* (.04)

Role-model volunteering .04 (.04) .13** (.04)

Warmth and support .01 (.04) .05 (.04)

Psychological control -.05 (.04) -.02 (.05)

Behavioral control .03 (.02) .01 (.02)

Age .02 (.01) .03** (.01)

Female .08* (.03) .10** (.04)

African-American .10** (.03) -.04 (.05)

Log family income .01 (.03) .03 (.03)

Log-likelihood -12,322 -13,793

N 1,244 1,244

Notes: The estimates are marginal effects from logit models, estimated using the sample weights.

Each model contains a dummy variable indicating when the adolescent did not live with a

mother/step-mother and a dummy variable indicating that the adolescent’s race is missing.

Standard errors are in parentheses. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.


Table 3

Logit models of the probability that the adolescent gives, volunteers by sex

Adolescent giving Adolescent volunteering

Girls Boys Girls Boys

Role-model giving .20** (.07) .12 (.06) .15* (.07) .21*** (.06)

Conversation about giving .08 (.05) .16** (.05) .05 (.06) .14** (.05)

Role-model volunteering .04 (.05) .05 (.06) .17** (.06) .09 (.06)

Warmth and support -.03 (.05) .04 (.06) -.08 (.06) .21*** (.06)

Psychological control -.02 (.06) -.09 (.06) -.07 (.07) .04 (.07)

Behavioral control .03 (.02) .04 (.03) .01 (.03) .01 (.03)

Age .03* (.01) .01 (.02) .04* (.02) .02 (.02)

African-American .15*** (.04) .04 (.06) -.02 (.07) -.05 (.06)

Log family income .03 (.04) -.02 (.04) .03 (.04) .04 (.04)

Log-likelihood -5,699 -6,442 -7,234 -6,251

N 634 610 634 610

Notes: See notes to Table 2.

role-modeling and conversations about giving in the

Documents