Why Urban Poor Donate

Bennett, Roger

doi:10.1177/0899764011419518

Cited by 25 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar trend has been observed in the UK (Bennett, 2012;Bashir et al, 2013), and Ireland (Donoghue and Ruddle, 2000;Carroll et al, 2005).…”

supporting

confidence: 73%

Income, Charitable Giving, and Perception Bias

Su¹,

Wan²

2018

Prague Economic Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses income and charitable giving from the perspective of perception bias. We show that perception bias affects charitable giving through its effects on warm glow, while inequality aversion counteracts these effects. Donors' perception bias regarding a recipient's situation does not necessarily decrease their charitable giving. Specifically, perception bias regarding the recipients' effort and life shock decreases donors' charitable giving. Perception bias regarding the recipients' ability decreases donors' giving to charities designed to help low-ability recipients but increases their giving to charities designed to help high-ability recipients. We also show that perception bias increases with donors' income. Fundraising professionals shall allocate more efforts to those who do not care about inequality that much when correcting the donors' perception bias; focus their efforts on correcting the donors' perception bias, especially for rich donors, when raising money for charities with low-ability recipients; but increase donors' perception bias regarding the recipients' ability when raising money for charities with high-ability recipients.

show abstract

“…Similar trend has been observed in the UK (Bennett, 2012;Bashir et al, 2013), and Ireland (Donoghue and Ruddle, 2000;Carroll et al, 2005).…”

supporting

confidence: 73%

Income, Charitable Giving, and Perception Bias

Su¹,

Wan²

2018

Prague Economic Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study investigated absolute rather than proportional giving, whereas most studies on the topic of how wealth influences giving use adult participants and focus on proportional giving, that is, what one gives relative to what one possesses (Bennett, 2012;James & Sharpe, 2007). We believe our approach is most suitable to answering the question of whether children expect to reap material benefits from a given social relationship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Wealth Makes Many Friends”: Children Expect More Giving From Resource‐Rich Than Resource‐Poor Individuals

Ahl

Dunham

2017

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young children show social preferences for resource-rich individuals, although few studies have explored the causes underlying such preferences. We evaluate the viability of one candidate cause: Children believe that resource wealth relates to behavior, such that they expect the resource rich to be more likely to materially benefit others (including themselves) than the resource poor. In Studies 1 and 2 (ages 4-10), American children from predominantly middle-income families (n = 94) and Indian children from lower income families (n = 30) predicted that the resource rich would be likelier to share with others than the resource poor. In Study 3, American children (n = 66) made similar predictions in an incentivized decision-making task. The possibility that children's expectations regarding giving contribute to prowealth preferences is discussed.

show abstract

“…The associations reported above, however, are not universally observed (e.g., Andreoni, Brown, & Rischall, 2003;Bennett, 2012;Forbes & Zampelli, 1997;Helms & Thornton, 2012;Mesch, Osili, Ackerman, & Dale, 2015b;Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010;Piper & Schnepf, 2008). Inconsistencies in the associations between donor characteristics and giving suggest untested moderators, which I propose include characteristics of the beneficiary.…”

Section: Who Gives To Charity?mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Generally, as expected, people with more money are seen to give more to charity (e.g., Choi & DiNitto, 2012;Hughes & Luksetich, 2008;Korndörfer et al, 2015). However, poorer donors give a greater share of their income (e.g., Bennett, 2012;Piff et al, 2010) and sometimes no relationship between income and giving is found (Neumayr & Handy, 2017;Shier & Handy, 2012). So, despite the obvious connection between having money and being able to share it with others, the relationship between income and charitable giving remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Unsurprisingly, wealthier donors seem more likely to give to charity and may give more in absolute terms (Choi & DiNitto, 2012;Herzog & Yang, 2018;Hughes & Luksetich, 2008;Korndörfer et al, 2015;McGregor-Lowndes & Crittall, 2014;Mesch et al, 2006;Rajan et al, 2009;Sibley & Bulbulia, 2015;Tremblay-Boire & Prakash, 2017;Vaidyanathan et al, 2011;Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012;Wiepking & Maas, 2009). However, poorer donors give a greater proportion of their income to charity (Bennett, 2012;Breeze, 2006;Piff et al, 2010;Wiepking, 2007). Moreover, sometimes no relationship between income and giving is found (Neumayr & Handy, 2017;Shier & Handy, 2012).…”

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: how donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions

Chapman¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis applies social psychological theories about intergroup relations (e.g., Social Identity Theory, Tajfel, 1981; the Intergroup Helping Relations as Status Relations model, Nadler, 2002) to investigate the process and outcomes of charitable giving. Moving beyond the traditional focus on studying donors, this thesis uses a mixed-methods approach (surveys, experiments, thematic analysis, and literature review) to show that charitable giving is triadic, relational, and contextualized. That is, decisions about donations are informed by a triad of actors (donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers), the relationships between them, and the wider social context. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of previous scholarly work on charitable giving and key psychological theories identified as relevant to my approach. Findings from Chapters 2 and 3 confirm that beneficiaries affect donor choices and that the relationships (e.g., shared identities) between particular donors and particular beneficiaries are especially important. Chapter 2 comprises two surveys of confirmed (N = 675) and self-reported (N = 376) donors, which show that donors are not universally generous. Instead, consistent with the social identity approach (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), donors prefer to support charities that align with their social groups in meaningful ways. Chapter 3 goes on to present thematic analyses of responses to the question of why donors support their favorite charity (N = 1,849 from 117 countries). Results show a self/other dichotomy in donor motivation: donors are more likely to reference the self when explaining giving to religious and research charities, but are more likely to reference the other (i.e., beneficiary) when explaining giving to social service, animal, or international charities. In combination, Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate that social contexts affect charitable responses, in part by changing the perceived relations between donors and beneficiaries. Chapter 4 presents one survey (N = 189) and one experiment (N = 290) that show how government policy on foreign aid affects private giving by changing perceptions of national giving norms. Chapter 5 presents two experiments (combined N = 440) that demonstrate how political advocacy can affect charitable giving by changing donor emotions, perceptions of efficacy, and identification with beneficiaries. Chapter 6 highlights the importance of also considering fundraisers when studying charitable giving. Mediation analyses from two samples of peer-to-peer fundraisers (combined N = 1,647) show that when fundraisers identify more with their nominated charity they take more actions to raise money and that, in turn, results in more funds raised. In particular, results show that actions which make the fundraiser more salient (e.g., adding photos, sharing personal motivations) are most effective. Chapter 7 draws together evidence from my program of research and more than 300 articles from the interdisciplinary literature to generate a new mode...

show abstract

Why Urban Poor Donate

Cited by 25 publications

References 39 publications

Income, Charitable Giving, and Perception Bias

Income, Charitable Giving, and Perception Bias

“Wealth Makes Many Friends”: Children Expect More Giving From Resource‐Rich Than Resource‐Poor Individuals

Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: how donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About