1. Gender Differences in Giving in the Netherlands René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam November 8, 20111Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

2. When life was still nasty, brutish, and short… November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies2

3. Roles were different… November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies3

4. …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, 20114Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

5. There’s the glass ceiling. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies5

6. 14 men, 4 women November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies6

7. 4/46 in Paris, October 2011 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies7

8. 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, 20118Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

9. 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. November 8, 20119Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

10. Thanks, Pamala November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies10 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.

11. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies11

12. Theories Personality development Moral development Socialization theory Role theory Resource theory Stratification and mobility theory Dominant status model Biological evolutionism November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies12

13. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies13

14. Empirical strategy November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies14

15. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies15

16. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies16

17. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies17

18. Female scoreRelation 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 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies18

19. 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? November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies19

20. 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? November 8, 201120Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

21. 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 November 8, 201121Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

22. 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 amounts November 8, 201122Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

23. Surveys GINPS (2008 and 2010 waves) FSDP (2009 wave) SLS (2009) November 8, 201123Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

24. FSDP 2009 Family Survey of the Dutch Population 2009 Cross-sectional survey of households Preferably including both adult members Personal interview + written questionnaire November 8, 201124Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

25. 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 November 8, 201125Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

26. Donated in 2009 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies26

27. Donated in 2009 (singles only) November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies27

28. GINPS GINPS (2008 and 2010 waves) Signature research project of our Center for Philanthropic Studies, www.giving.nlwww.giving.nl Fieldwork conducted online by TNS/NIPO, like Knowledge Networks Preselected pool: high response rates Quota sample: age, gender, education, home ownership, region November 8, 201128Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

29. Donated in 2009 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies29

30. Donated in 2009 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies30

31. Amount donated (ln) in 2009 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies31

32. Amount donated (ln) in 2009 November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies32

33. Log odds by gender FemalesMales Empathy0,89**0,34 Principle of care0,320,57** Being asked1,33**1,36** Tertiary education1,37**1,17** November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies33 In logistic regressions

34. B coefficients by gender FemalesMales Empathy0,070,05 Principle of care0,15**0,19** Being asked0,11**0,04 Tertiary education0,20**0,21** November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies34 In OLS regression of log transformed amounts donated among donors only

35. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies35

36. Social desirability November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies36

37. 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 November 8, 201137Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

38. 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 class November 8, 201138Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

39. Celebrity endorsements November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies39 Differences NS, n≈200 per condition

40. Fundraising costs November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies40

41. Your name added to donor list November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies41

42. Social information: “56% gives” November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies42

43. Social info: “43% never gives” November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies43

44. Social information: “95% gives” November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies44

45. Social info: “5% never gives” November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies45

46. Implicit anonymity: eyes November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies46

47. Donated in experiment (Fall 08) November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies47

48. Donated (Spring 09) November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies48

49. Price November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies49 Price effect does not vary with gender

50. Matching frame November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies50 Matching frame effect is stronger among women

51. Social information November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies51 Social information effect does not vary with gender

52. 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 November 8, 201152Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

53. Giving >1% of income November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies53

54. Amount donated November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies54

55. Giving >1% of income November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies55

56. Amount donated November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies56

57. Giving >1% by income quintile November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies57

58. Amounts by income quintile November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies58

59. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies59

60. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies60

61. 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. November 8, 2011Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies61

62. 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 November 8, 201162Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies

63. Contact ‘Giving in the Netherlands’, Center for Philanthropic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam: www.geveninnederland.nl www.geveninnederland.nl René Bekkers, r.bekkers@vu.nlr.bekkers@vu.nl Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.comrenebekkers.wordpress.com Twitter: @renebekkers