influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on …
TRANSCRIPT
aInternational Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Available online at: http://euroasiapub.org Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.) 1167
INFLUENCE OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC FACTORS ON CHARITABLE GIVING: A
STUDY OF BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
Ms. Nayona Banerjee1
Student, BA Economics(Honours), Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 560029
Greeshma Manoj2
Assistant Professor, Dept of Economics, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 560029
Abstract
In today's modern world where scientific and technological development is highlights of any given field,
philanthropy and market related to it is no different. With change in time, a dire need has come to
reconsider and analyze our assumptions and knowledge with regard to factors influencing charitable
giving. This research is focused on analyzing the effect of various extrinsic and intrinsic factors on shaping
up the intricate behavior or mindset that leads to charity. The research is based on primary survey collected
with the help of structured questionnaire. A diverse sample population in terms of gender, marital status,
income, educational qualifications and age was taken with sample strength of 100. Results of the factor
analysis indicates that among the various factors, warm glow was found to be the most dominant factor in
influencing charity giving.
Key Words: Charitable giving, charitable behavior, philanthropy, altruism and warm glow.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1168
1. Introduction
Economics is based on the assumption that people are self-interested, and as they are rational beings
they make the choice that suits the best at that time. This phenomenon is called the 'axiom of rationality'.
This asserts that pursuit of self-interest is the only thing that is done by rational individuals and anything
else is irrational. Thus many economists have been trying to analyze the individual‘s behavior towards
philanthropy through this framework.
Due to the aforementioned assumption, a fundamental question which arises usually in various
disciplines is concerns regarding the motivations underlying voluntary and involuntary donations to
charitable activities and other forms of charitable behavior. One hypothesis states that an individual‘s
behavior is generally governed though altruism where an individual is concerned over the well-being of
the recipients of the charity. But also noting that people derive private enjoyment from the act of giving,
several economists have also considered the warm glow motive in their study of the charitable behavior.
Giving to charities broadly undertakes two major forms: volunteering and monetary donation. The
investigation of how and why people donate has been extensive and has uncovered plethora of variables
that may influence the decision to give. A vast array of literature determining the characteristics of
individual giving exists which indicates that the potential factors behind charitable giving can be
distinguished into extrinsic and intrinsic determinants. The extrinsic determinants represent the socio
economic profiles of the donors, and intrinsic determinants address the underlying psychographic and
attitudinal factors for supporting a charity.
The existing literatures also show that the charitable motive arises from various motives, attributes and
demographic attributes. Some may give for altruism or egoism whereas other might give for tax
deductions, humility, obligation or mercy. Some of the major motivations being age, education, gender,
etc., the positive giving rates have given rise to the search of new economic models which heavily
influences decision-making behavior of individuals. Furthermore, examining the relationship between
affinity to a religious congregation and charitable giving is also of a particular interest. However the
motivations and attributes of the charitable givers are not very clear. The central question which arises
through the literatures is that what are the determinants of positive charitable behavior and what are
the disparate characteristics of the potential givers.
To understand the charitable behavior of individuals, a multi-disciplinary perspective of it plays an
important role. Although the economic analysis of charitable giving gives a satisfactory insight into the
charitable market along with an economic perspective, psychological inclinations of individuals also
influence an individual‘s decision making. Various psychologists have come up with disparate theories
to understand the behavior, the approach of scope insensitivity showing its dominance. The theory of
scope insensitivity puts forward that an individual‘s compassion, generosity and willingness to give
decreases as the number of people suffering rises because the individuals fail to grasp the intensity of
the number of people and hence lose the power to comprehend. The donors tend to experience
compassion for single identified person in need. As the number of people increases, active feelings and
action may begin to diminish. Hence ‘compassion fade’ has some major implications on the welfare of
the society.
A brief history of giving reflects that even through unconventional methods, the practice of charitable
giving has been popular since thousands of years. It has its place in the history books since ages and is
still growing in popularity. Reviews, research and conduction of various studies in the field in social
psychology have dealt with helping behavior (Batson 1998; Piliavin & Charng 1990; Schroeder et al
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1169
1995; Schwartz 1975). Charitable giving occupies a major part in applied social psychological studies.
The subject gained its popularity in 1970 and is currently growing in importance. (Halfpenny, 1999)
also tried to explore this concept through an interdisciplinary approach. Due to his social inclination, his
study explores whether a sociological approach complements or contradicts the economic approach
towards the understanding of this field. It accounts for how the different paradigms influence an
individual‘s behavior. By giving the economic analysis a macroeconomic perspective and the
sociological analysis a societal perspective, he tends to draw parallel among the two and concludes that
overall social outcome depends on the system of interdependencies of the individual actors.
Following the overall framework, the paper emphasizes on the giving behavior of the individuals, both
observed and the predicted behavior. Identifying the dominance of the economic approaches and
motivations along with the analysis of psychological theory of scope insensitivity provides for the basis
of this study.
2. Theoretical Framework
The previous researches and studies notice that the most common motivator for giving is altruism
(Andreoni, 1990) and social pressure (Akerlof & Kranton, 2000). In Altruistic approach, the donors are
concerned with what the recipient receives irrespective of the source thus considering it as a public
good. Another important approach put forward by (Andreoni, 1989) is the warm glow approach. It has
also been noticed that individuals gain utility from the act of giving, although their contributions may be
entirely anonymous. The utility is the positive emotional feeling that an individual gains from the act of
giving, thus considering it as a private good. However, other studies suggest that there are several other
factors other than altruism and warm glow and they are not the primary motivations for observed
behavioral differences among individuals.
Accompanying altruism, social pressure is another major factor and acts as another common motivation
when people give to others. Studies of (DellaVigna, List and Malmendier, 2012) show that social
pressure plays an important role in fundraising for charity. For instance individuals might give more
when they are solicited by friends as they might share similar beliefs. Individuals here might give despite
not liking to give to charity because solicitor might have placed them under social pressure thereby
pressurizing to give. This kind of giving might be utility reducer for the giver and is usually demand
driven thereby affecting personal solicitation. Several economists have tried various ways to analyze
this behavior. One of the most common games that most economists apply is the dictator game of
experimental economics. It was first developed by Daniel Kahneman which puts forward evidence
against the rationality of self-interested economic individuals.
3. Review of Literature
This section gives an overview about the studies pertaining to disparate factors influencing behavior of
the individuals towards charitable giving thereby also focusing on factors affecting the philanthropic
market. The review lays its emphasis on several themes giving an economic, social and psychological
perspective to the charitable behavior of individuals.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1170
3.1 Price and income effect on giving
Economists consider the practice of charity similar to purchase of any other commodity, which hence
depends on the price of giving i.e how costly is it to give. Price of an object simply refers to what we pay
in order to purchase a commodity to gain utility in return. Thus individuals with higher income due to
lower marginal utility of money tend to contribute more towards charity. Since amount of charity is
deductible for those who itemize, the amount of charity also depends on the individual tax rate
(Vesterlund, n.d).Thus tax rates sometimes act as a motivation to giving as those in the higher tax
brackets often receive higher exemptions. Study reveals that among the significant factors, awareness
of tax advantages is one of the most important motivator or incentive for charitable behavior which gets
influenced by the changing tax rates (Prince and File, 1994). When the tax rate influences the price of
the charitable donation, giving one dollar actually costs less than 1 dollar when the marginal tax rate is
high. The exemption pushes up giving significantly and thus acts as an effective tool to increase
contribution and thus social well being.
3.2 Gender
Gender as well plays a major role in influencing the behavior for charity. Many previous studies have
explored the gender effect with contradictory results. The growing body of research literature witnesses
an increasing role of women as donors. The CAF/NCVO UK giving reports (CAF/NCVO 2006) reveal UK
indices that in the year 2005-06 the women percentage was 61% whereas the 53% of men gave each
month. In the experiments performed by Eckel and Grossman (1998), women tend to be more generous
than men; i.e women donate twice as much as men on an average. However the experiments performed
by Bolton and Katok (1995) show contradictory results. On testing through a dictator game, it concluded
that men and women have similar influence in making their choices. As per the similar reports, the mean
amount of money given by women was 25$ whereas that of men was 29$. Here, household decision
making plays an important role in the context of giving which can be categorized into single households
or married households.
Wiepking et al. (2005) identifies that traditional norms increasingly influence the decision making
behavior of the households. In married households with more traditional values the decision making
lies with the men rather than women. Andreoni et al (2001) recommends that men react all the more
firmly to the price of giving (with men being more altruistic when giving is less expensive), though Meier
(2005) contradicts they don't. This inquiry turns out to be especially critical in the connection of tax
incentives for giving, (for example, Gift Aid in the UK) and in investigations of the impact of salary on
giving. The discoveries introduced in Bolton et al. (1994) depend on a dictator game which tries
recommending that there are actually no gender differences in generosity. Giving an account of another
dictator game examination, Ben-Ner et al. (2003) proposes that women are less generous when giving
to other women and that they might give less overall.
3.3 Characteristics of the Individual Recipients
The spatial, time and psychological distance among social groups are also the major characteristics of
individual recipients described through social distance‘. If the social distance decreases, the other
individual does not seems to be an anonymous stranger rather an identified individual. With a higher
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1171
degree of social kinship people tend to respond more favorably. Bohnet and Frey in (1998), reflect that
the identification of the recipients is important in charities which also influences the other related
behaviors. The idea of fairness gets motivated more when the other individual is less anonymous. The
communication with the donors strongly motivates the intrinsic altruistic behavior and thus alters the
decision making behavior of the donors. Hoffman, McCabe, Shachat, and Smith (1994) have reasoned
that high level of anonymity will expand the social separation.
The age and gender of the beneficiary also influences and is one of the major concerns of the donors.
The donors tend to be more generous towards a woman and child‘s welfare (Micklewright and Schnepf,
2009). Thus we can see much evidence from the previous studies conducted that both the donor and
recipient‘s characteristic influences donors decisions.
3.4 Social Resources
Mass and Wiepking (2009) examine the effect of human and social resources on charitable giving. They
claim that large extended social networks influences generosity as they are often exposed to solicitation
by charitable organizations. Thus the media strongly influences charitable giving. In recent years, social
media not only sends and receive information rather also connects and mobilizes the public. The study
conducted by Saxton and Wang (n.d) substantiates this fact. He claims that the social media has been
successful in reducing the spatial distance among the donors and recipients which in turn influenced
the giving through a social network effect, i.e. the increasing circle ultimately increases charitable
contributions.
Government programmers also looks after the social needs of the society through their finance but the
higher the public expenditure it is noted that lower is the contribution of private donors. As the
individual donors are taxpaying individuals they view government donation as a perfect substitute of
individual donation hence private donation decreases i.e public spending Crowds Out private giving.
The classical model of crowding out, as furnished in Warr (1982), Roberts (1984), and Bergstrom,
Blume, and Varian (1986), is derived from the assumption that economic individuals see their own
contribution as a perfect substitute for money given by the government. However the new model and
‘warm glow’ theory (Andreoni, 1990) contradicts this classical model and presents that the individual
experiences joy by giving and hence self satisfaction thereby providing with a ‘warm glow’ approach.
This crowding out effect provides with a two way scenario. The theoretical framework provided by
Andreoni and Payne (2013) predict that charities receiving grants from governmental institutions as
well as donation from the individuals would reduce fund raising efforts in response to the grant thus
leading to substitution effect. Thus contribution of the government towards public good has a two way
approach. The substitution effect is noticed both from the donor‘s perspective as well as the recipient‘s
perspective.
3.5 Public Recognition
(Becker, 1974) in his theory claims that charitable behavior gets influenced by the desire to get social
acclaim. (Harbaug, 1998) believes that prestige is a strong driving force behind donation giving due to
public recognition of donations. The public recognition is only received when the organization publishes
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1172
a public report on the amount of donation. Through his econometric models and utility function he
predicts that donors have a taste for prestige and a substantial amount of donation is attributed to it.
3.6 Peer Effect
On analyzing the effect of giving by reference groups, such as individuals with similar incomes, Feldstein
and Clotfelter [1976] considered mean of giving by these groups as an explanatory variable for an
individual giving. One contemporary study that thoroughly analyzes peer effects in charitable behavior
using empirical data is Carman [2004]. She identified non-self-selected groups of people who are likely
to know each other and shows that increased average giving within a group of individuals leads to higher
contributions overall.(Meer, 2009) paper also examines that several social motives importantly social
pressure influences the allocation of public goods. His data accounts to reflect the effect personal
solicitation has on the decision and size of the gift.
According to the Kantian Rule, instead of free riding he claims that that every individual contributes to
the socially optimum level and instead of individual‘s contribution decreasing with increase in others,
the rule predicts that individuals contribute to the level independent of others (Vesterlund, 2009).On
contrary, (Sugen, 1984) claims that individuals follow a norm that influence them to contribute
depending of the decision ofothers. His model predicts that the individual‘s contribution rather
increases when other people in the same reference group donate. Hence giving decisions are often
guided by social norms and rules.
Interestingly, another effect has been examined by Andreoni and Scholz (1998).By examining the data
from1885 consumer expenditure survey; they found a positive effect of an increase in donation by
others in the same reference group in the socio economic perspective. That is on the parameters being
age, occupation, education and residence.
3.7 Other Areas of Research
The previous researches have also shown that donations grow increasingly with wealth and education
(Schervish and Havens 2001; Brown and Lankford 1992; Kingma 1989; Schwartz 1970). The study
conducted by Mass and Wiepking (2009) claims that having a higher formal education provides greater
access to large financial resources. Not only the financial situation but also better verbal abilities which
in turn helps in better understanding of the needs of the distant people increases the frequency and
amount of charitable donations. Also awareness and exposure to the need and information of charity
are likely to be higher among those who have higher verbal abilities and among the higher educated (
Bekkers, 2006). Despite these motivators, lower socio economic standing increases the probability of
sect affiliation which generates a strong incentive towards charitable giving. The study by James and
Sharpe (2007) predicts that lower income, less education and racial status thereby leading to fewer
societal opportunities leads to increased likelihood of exclusively religious charitable giving.
Most of the reviewed studies have identified the various behaviors and attributes of the charity donors.
Studies have also identified factors like tax deductions, education, gender and several others as the
motivations behind charitable giving. As an individual is a rational being, private enjoyment from the
act of giving has a significant influence in charitable behaviors. Beside this rationalistic behavior, an
individual is also guided by altruistic behavior, ie, the joy from the recipients‘welfare. But the dominance
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1173
of any one of the approaches that guides the individual towards donation has not been probed in the
previous studies. Absence of media reports behave as a bottleneck to the Indian market for philanthropy
with mere 1000 reports compared to 11,000 media reports in UK. The absence of published reports
leads to substantial amount of lack of data. There are several aspects of charitable giving which is still
not covered or published by the surveys conducted by few organizations. The survey also fails to reflect
the major motivations behind charitable giving like income, education, gender and several others.
India is a secular country with a lot of religious dominance over charity. Majority of the people are
believed to donate money due to their affiliation to religious congregations. However, the absence of
published media reports act as a bottleneck towards understanding the philanthropic scenario of India
which make the motivations of the individuals specially the religious giving unclear. There is also a
dearth of studies regarding the gender differences in terms of charity giving. Analyzing the generosity
of gender and it‘s interrelationship with amount and frequency of giving which is a matter of concern.
The present study tries to fill this gap by analyzing the influence of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators on
charitable giving and ascertain the dominant intrinsic behavior.
4. Operationalization of the Key Constructs
Donation: A donation is a gift typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause. It may
take various forms including cash, cloth, food and vehicles. It also may consists of emergency,
relief or humanitarian aid items, development aid support and can also relate to medical care
needs i.e blood or organs for transplant. An individual might also contribute or donate in the
form of time through volunteering.
Extrinsic and Intrinsic motivators- Extrinsic motivations refer to those factors which are
determined by extrinsic variables such as age, gender, education and marital status whereas
intrinsic motivations are those determinants which include psychographic or attitudinal based
factors.
Warm glow approach: This approach refers to the personal satisfaction and utility that one
derives from the act of charity. It is the purely internal satisfaction that an individual derives
from giving to a recipient which he benefits from.
Prestige: It refers to the utility that one derives from having the amount of a donation publicly
known.
Altruistic approach: Through this approach, an individual is concerned about the well being of
the recipient and hence involves in charitable giving.
5. Data & Methodology
Data for this exploratory study was obtained with the help of a structured questionnaire. A sample size
of 100 was taken through purposeful random sampling from the charity donors of Bangalore Urban
district. Factor analysis and ordinal regression method have been used to understand the influence of
the factors influencing the charity giving behaviour. Chi square test has been used to identify
relationship among gender, motivation, frequency of giving and planned donations with amount of
giving.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1174
6. Empirical Results
This section analyzes the inter relationship among different aspects in terms of the external and intrinsic
behaviour and its influence on the charity giving. In this study, factor analysis was used to evaluate factors
influencing charity giving. In order to extract the number of variables, Principal component extraction
method with Varimax rotation has been used
The result of factor analysis to find the factors loaded on the extrinsic and intrinsic factors have been
given in Table 1.
Table 1 : Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance
Cumulative %
Total % of Variance
Cumulative %
Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.871 35.885 35.885 2.871 35.885 35.885 2.102 26.275 26.275
2 1.652 20.647 56.531 1.652 20.647 56.531 1.963 24.532 50.807
3 1.163 14.542 71.073 1.163 14.542 71.073 1.621 20.266 71.073
4 .714 8.922 79.995
5 .483 6.035 86.029
6 .404 5.053 91.082
7 .393 4.914 95.997
8 .320 4.003 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The components are extracted into the final solution by checking the eigen values (variables that exceed
1) and choosing only the components that satisfy the criteria. It is evident from Table 1 that components
1,2 and 3 1satisfies this criteria and account for 71.07 percentage of the variance cumulatively. The
extracted factors were then rotated using Varimax (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization) rotation. These
rotated factors with their variable constituents and factor loadings are given in Table 2.
1 Component 1 – Religious giving, Component 2- Personal gain and Component 3- Altruism
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1175
Table 2 : Rotated Component Matrixa
Motivations Component
1 2 3
1) I want to help a cause which I personally believe
-.111 -.084 .881
2)I would like to help people in need
.114 -.111 .870
3)Supporting religious institutions
.796 .126 .032
4)Supporting religious based charities beyond the maintenance of the organization
.844 .069 -.053
5) Charitable giving is a part of my religious obligation or belief
.766 .235 .009
6) Peer Pressure .223 .706 -.241
7)Tax Benefit -.009 .850 .064
8)Receiving recognition at the events
.307 .804 -.151
Source: Field Survey
The rotated components matrix shows the factor loadings for each variable. It is evident from Table 2
that the variables ‘supporting religious institutions’, ‘supporting religious charities beyond the
maintenance of the organization’ and ‘ charitable giving as a part of religious obligation’ load on
component 1 ( values above 0.7), variables ‘ peer pressure’ ‘tax benefit’ and ‘prestige’ load on component
2. Variables ‘I want to help a cause which I personally believe in’ and ‘ I would like to help people in need’
load on component 3. These components can be clubbed into: Religious Giving ( motivation 3,4 and 5),
Personal Gain ( motivation 6,7 and 8) and Altruism (motivation 1 and 2 ).
Furthermore, to identify the importance of certain major influential factors, the sum of the responses
given by the respondents are analyzed and given in Table 3.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1176
Table 3 : Summation of individual responses
1 )I want
to help a
cause
which i
personally
believe
2)I
would
like to
help
people
in
need
3)Supporting
religious
institutions
4)Supporting
religious
based
charities
beyond the
maintenance
of the
organization
5)Charitable
giving is a
part of my
religious
obligation or
belief
6)Peer
Pressure
7)Tax
Benefit
8)Receiving
recognition
at the
events
N
Valid 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 133.00 135.00 297.00 301.00 322.00 342.00 320.00 348.00
Source: Field Survey
The variable levels were weighted as follows: 1-Very Important, 2-Somewhat important, 3-Not very
important and 4-Not at all important. In Table 4, the sum of the weights for 100 cases is calculated. The
minimum sum reflects the most important motivational factor whereas the highest sum denotes the
least important motivational factor. It can be inferred from Table 4 that the variables ‘I want to help a
cause which I personally believe in’ and ‘I would like to help people in need’, are considered as equally
important motivation to charitable giving. This result is in conformity with the altruism approach which
states that an individual is concerned about the well being of the recipient and hence involves in
charitable giving.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1177
Frequency of giving and gender
To find the association among Frequency of Giving and Gender, ordinal regression test is applied and
the result is given in Table 4
Table 4: Parameter Estimates
Estimate Std. Error Wald Df Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
[frequencyn = 1.00] -2.829 .461 37.685 1 .000 -3.733 -1.926
[frequencyn = 2.00] -1.342 .304 19.523 1 .000 -1.937 -.747
Threshold
[frequencyn = 3.00] .085 .268 .099 1 .752 -.441 .611
[frequencyn = 4.00] 1.250 .301 17.278 1 .000 .661 1.839
Location
[gendern=1] -.150 .358 .175 1 .676 -.851 .552
0a
[gendern=2] . . 0 . . .
Source: Field Survey;
Link function: Logit. a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
In the above Table 42, under the variable ‘Gender’, ‘males’ are taken to be the reference category. Since
the odds ratio for females is 0.83 (exp -.150) which is less than 1 and also parameter estimate for females
2 Gender 1: Female and Gender 2: Male
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1178
in the table 8 is negative, it can be concluded that females would be less likely to donate as frequently
as compared to males.
Amount of Giving and Gender
The test aims to find out if there is any significant relationship between Gender and Amount of Giving.
Table 5 : Chi-Square Test between Amount of Giving and Gender
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.762a 5 .025
Likelihood Ratio 8.999 5 .109
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.715 1 .054
N of Valid Cases 100
a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is 1.50.
It is evident from Table 5 that there is a signifying relationship among the amount of giving and gender
i.e. between males and females (P is less than 0.05)
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1179
Table 6: Gender * Amount of Giving Cross tabulation
Amount of Giving Total
Less than 5,000 Rs- 15,000 Rs- 25,000 Rs- 35,000 Rs-
More than
5000 Rs 15,000 Rs 25,000 Rs 35,0000 Rs 50,000 Rs 50,000 Rs
Count 20 19 6 2 0 3 50
Female Expected
18.5 15.0 7.5 3.5 1.5 4.0 50.0
Count
Gender
Count 17 11 9 5 3 5 50
Male Expected
18.5 15.0 7.5 3.5 1.5 4.0 50.0
Count
Count 37 30 15 7 3 8 100
Total Expected
37.0 30.0 15.0 7.0 3.0 8.0 100.0
Count
Source: Field Survey
The cross tabulation results given in Table 6 denote the relationship among gender and amount of
giving. It is clear that compared to males females contribute a lesser amount when it comes to donations
to charity giving if the amount is below Rs. 15000 i.e 39 females as compared to 28 males. However, as
the amount of giving increases, males tend to donate more in the higher brackets than females which
implies that more males donate higher amounts than females.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1180
Frequency of giving and salary
The study also tried to find out whether there is any association between the frequency of giving and
salary3 with the help of ordinal regression and the result is given in Table 7
Table 7: Parameter Estimates
Estimate Std. Error Wald Df Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
[frequencyn = 1.00] -2.706 .488 30.760 1 .000 -3.662 -1.750
[frequencyn = 2.00] -1.219 .345 12.448 1 .000 -1.896 -.542
Threshold
[frequencyn = 3.00] .210 .320 .428 1 .513 -.418 .837
[frequencyn = 4.00] 1.379 .352 15.349 1 .000 .689 2.068
[salaryn=1.00] .210 .497 .179 1 .672 -.764 1.184
[salaryn=2.00] -.113 .483 .054 1 .816 -1.059 .834
Location
[salaryn=3.00] .161 .490 .108 1 .742 -.798 1.121
0a
[salaryn=4.00] . . 0 . . .
Source: Field Survey
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
3 Salary 1=Upto Rs 2, 50,000; Salary2=Rs 250000-500000 ; Salary3=Rs 500000-1000000; Salary 4=above Rs
10,00,000 [reference category.
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1181
It is evident from table 7 that people in the salary brackets 1 and 3 are more likely to have a higher
frequency of donations. They donate more frequently than the people in the salary bracket 4 (people
whose income is above Rs 10, 00,000). However, it is also to be noted that salary2 is negative. This
further denotes that people in the salary bracket of Rs 2, 50,000- Rs 5, 00,000 are less likely to donate
more frequently than the reference category [salary4].
Frequency of attendance and amount of giving
To establish a relationship between frequency of attendance to religious meetings, functions and
gatherings and amount of giving, a chi square test is applied and the result is given in Table 8.
Table 8: Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 32.382a 20 .039
Likelihood Ratio 24.983 20 .202
Linear-by-Linear
1.730 1 .188
Association
N of Valid Cases 100
a. 25 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .03.
It can be seen from Table 8 that there is a positive relationship between the frequency of attending
religious gathering and the amount of giving. Since the Pearson coefficient sign is poisitve, it can be
inferred that the amount given for donations tends to increase as a person tends to increasingly attend
religious meetings, functions and gatherings.
7. Results and Discussion
Factor analysis and Bartlett's Test results shows that individuals were motivated to donate to the causes
which they personally believed in and because they wanted to help people who were in need (Sums
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1182
were 133 and 135 respectively)4. Although religion based factors did have an impact on the decision
making, they can be considered as secondary motivators rather than the primary. Chi square results
show that amount of donation increases with an increase in the frequency of attendance of religious
meetings or events. It was also observed that people, who donated often, donated more. Analysis of
gender and amount of giving through ordinal regression and chi square test showed that males donated
more than females, implying that gender has a significant effect on the charitable giving.
Results of analysis of salary with other factors such as motivations for giving and frequency of giving
through the aforementioned tests, results of other tests and other observed data such as preferred
avenue of donation, preferred method of donation etc. when viewed as a whole, lead us to believe that
pure altruism is very rare in modern day society. Extrinsic factors such as education, income, social
status etc. have led to the crowding out of intrinsic factors eventually resulting in the decline of altruism
as primary motivator.
8. Conclusion
The present study has made an attempt to determine the dominant intrinsic factor, i.e, the approach out
of three base approaches which leads to charitable giving and the effect of social, economic and
psychological factors which acts as extrinsic factors in influencing the charity giving behavior. Although
not much can be inferred on the dominance of giving for social status as a motivator as it would require
intricately crafted psychological tests and analysis. Results of empirical analysis show that out of the
three basic approaches for giving, i.e, altruism, warm glow or giving for social status or prestige, warm
glow is the most dominant one. Even though warm glow may be the primary motivator, altruism and
giving for social status are present as secondary and even in some cases as additional motives which
together with the primary factors help in shaping up the charitable behavior of an individual and hence
importance of the their effect cannot be overlooked.
References
1. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2003). Economics and Identity. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 115(3).
2. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow
giving. The economic journal, 100(401), 464-477.
3. Andreoni, J., Payne, A., & Smith, S. (2014). Do grants to charities crowd out other income?
Evidence from the UK. Journal of Public Economics, 114, 75-86.
4. Andreoni, J., & Scholz, J. K. (1998). An econometric analysis of charitable giving with
interdependent preferences. Economic inquiry, 36(3), 410-428.
5. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 293-312.
6. Becker, Gary S. (1974). 'A theory of social interactions,' Joumal of Political Economy, vol, 82, pp.
1063
7. Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., & Putterman, L. (2004). Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality,
and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 581-589.
4 Refer Table 3
International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS) Vol. 7 Issue 12, December- 2017 ISSN(o): 2249-7382 | Impact Factor: 6.939 |
International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences Email:- [email protected], http://www.euroasiapub.org
(An open access scholarly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, monthly, and fully refereed journal.)
1183
8. Bergstrom, Theodore, Lawrence Blume, and Hal Varian. 1985. On the Private Provision of Public
Goods.‖ Journal of Public Economics, 29 (February): 25-49.
9. Bohnet, I. (1999). The Sound of Silence in Prisoner‘s Dilemma and Dictator Games. Economics as
a Science of Human Behaviour, 177-194.
10. Bolton, G.E. and Katok, E. (1994). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent
behaviour, Economics Letters 48, pp. 287-292
11. Brown, E., & Lankford, H. (1992). Gifts of money and gifts of time Estimating the effects of tax
prices and available time. Journal of Public Economics, 47(3), 321-341.
12. Carman, K. G. (2003). Social influences and the private provision of public goods: Evidence from
charitable contributions in the workplace. Manuscript, Stanford University.
13. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are Women Less Selfish Than Men? Evidence From Dictator
Experiments. Economic Journal The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726-735.
14. Feldstein, M., & Clotfelter, C. (1976). Tax incentives and charitable contributions in the United
States: A microeconometric analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 5(1-2), 1-26.
15. Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). What do donations buy? : A model of philanthropy based on prestige
and warm glow. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 269-284.
16. Hoffman, E., K. McCabe, K. Shachat, and V. Smith (1994) ―Preferences, property rights and
anonymity in bargaining games,. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346-80.
17. James, R. N., & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving
profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 218-238.
18. Kingma B R 1989 An accurate measurement of the crowd-out effect, income effect, and price
effect for charitable contributions. Journal of Political Economy 97: 1197–207
19. Meer, J., & Rosen, H. S. (2011). The ABCs of charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics,
95(5), 363-371.
20. Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2009). Who gives charitable donations for overseas
development?. Journal of Social Policy, 38(02), 317-341.
21. Meier, S. (2005, May). Information on social comparison and price of giving: Gender differences
in two field experiments. In Georgia State University Conference ‘‘Experimental Public
Economics.’’Available online: http://isp-aysps. gsu.
edu/academics/conferences/conf2005/presentation7. pdf.
22. Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (n.d.). Seven Faces of Philathrophy [Scholarly project].
23. Saxton, G. D., & Wang, L. (2013). The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving Through
Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 850-868.
24. Schervish, Paul G. and John J. Havens. 2002. "The Boston Area Diary Study and the Moral
Citizenship of Care." Voluntas: International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations.
13(1):47-71.
25. Warr, P.G. 1982. "Pareto Optimal Redistribution and Private Charity." Journal of Public
Economics, 19 (October):131-138.
26. Wiepking, P. and Bekkers, R. (2005). Does who decides really matter? Causes and consequences
of financial decision making in households: The case of charitable donations
27. Wiepking P, Maas I. (2006). Resources that Make You Generous: Effects of Human, Financial, and
Social Resources on Charitable Giving. Working paper, Department of Philanthropy, Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam.
28. Wiepking, P., & Maas, I. (2009). Resources That Make You Generous: Effects of Social and Human
Resources on Charitable Giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 1973-1995.