Not all empathy is equal: How empathy affects charitable giving

Similar documents
INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX (IRI)

2 nd INT L SOCIAL ANADOLU CONFERENCE Anadolu University - Eskişehir

Twenty Years of Generosity in the Netherlands. We analyze all the data from the Giving in the Netherlands survey among households (n =

International Journal of Educational Advancement (2011) 10, doi: /ijea

WORKING PAPER. Empathy as Added Value in Predicting Donation Behavior

Toward the Measurement of Interpersonal Generosity (IG): An IG Scale Conceptualized, Tested, and Validated Conceptual Definition

PROSOCIAL CONFORMITY: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS. devoted to a wide range of issues, including environmental conservation, politics, culture,

Words and Deeds of Generosity. Are Decisions About Real and Hypothetical Money Really Different? DRAFT COMMENTS WELCOME.

The State of Giving Circles Today: OVERVIEW OF NEW RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM A THREE-PART STUDY

UNDERSTANDING GIVING: ACROSS GENERATIONS

CHARITABLE GIVING IN THE USA An overview of individual giving in the USA

The Helping Orientations Inventory Open Materials 1

CANADA GIVING An overview of charitable giving in Canada

Be Your Donors Favorite Charity: Why Engagement Matters. Thursday, January 31 st 2013

Charitable Giving Andreoni & Payne. Comments by Louis Kaplow

Consumer Reports. Market Intelligence Research. December 3, 2015

Subjective Well-Being Study

Giving and Volunteering in Quebec

growing a community Executive Summary of the 2000 Giving and Volunteering Study

The Future of Philanthropy Beyond the Bottom Line Conference March 30, 2015 Presented by Dr. Lilya Wagner, CFRE Director, PSI

(C) Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Empathetic vs. Cynical Orientations among New Zealand and Hong Kong Undergraduates

WHAT does the Community Foundation do? Connect People Who Care With Causes That Matter

SOUTH AFRICA GIVING 2017

RUSSIA GIVING An overview of charitable giving in Russia

DISPOSITIONAL POSITIVE EMOTIONS SCALE (DPES) COMPASSION SUBSCALE.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING 1/4/18. Hypothesis. Hypothesis. Potential hypotheses?

When does it matter how you ask? Cross-subject. heterogeneity in framing effects in a charitable donation. experiment

NONRESPONSE ADJUSTMENT IN A LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS

Using Visible Thinking and Global Thinking Routines to Nurture Empathy in Young Children Daniela Fenu Foerch, PhD, Paula Luzzi Panno, Andrea Muñoz

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR. What is Prosocial Behavior? Prosocial Behavior is voluntary behavior that is carried out to benefit another person

Categories of Strengths

Appendix D: Statistical Modeling

Casual Reading Habits and Interpersonal Reactivity: A Correlational Study

UNIT 1 The Integral Dimension of Personal Life. The Individual and Citizenship

The Relationship Between Level of Empathy and Stress Contagion

2014 Hong Kong Altruism Index Survey

RUNNING HEAD: MOTIVES TO DONATE. The Development and Validation of the Motives to Donate Scale. Sara Konrath 1,2,3 and Femida Handy 4

What is your age? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent. Under 20 years to 37 years

Do Danes and Italians rate life satisfaction in the same way?

The relation of approach/avoidance motivation and message framing to the effectiveness of charitable appeals

CONCEPT OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Helping Your Asperger s Adult-Child to Eliminate Thinking Errors

Food Labels and Weight Loss:

EMPATHY WEEK 2019 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. Issued October 30, 2018 by Humainologie

COUNTY LEVEL DATA FROM PWB POLLING BOULDER

Substance Abuse Affects Families

Psychological motives for giving and volunteering

A REPORT OF THE COLORADO

Layers of Diversity. Part II

Factors Associated with Philanthropic Giving and their Correlation with Donation Amount: A Case Study of the Indianapolis Zoo 2014 Donor Survey

24/10/13. Surprisingly little evidence that: sex offenders have enduring empathy deficits empathy interventions result in reduced reoffending.

Professor Tony Ward. Empathy, altruism and the treatment of sex offenders.

Youth Social Action Survey Wave 2 Topline results

ACHIEVING MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH. Chapter 3

Combating the Negative Effects of Stereotypes: Improving Minority Performance with a Values- Affirmation Intervention

COUNTY LEVEL DATA FROM PWB POLLING JEFFERSON COUNTY

Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics February 2008, Volume 10, Number 2:

COUNTY LEVEL DATA FROM PWB POLLING BROOMFIELD COUNTY

Wave 1 Panel Survey. May Dr Liz Graveling, Ministry Division, Church of England Dr Olga Cara, UCL Institute of Education

Horizon Research. Public Trust and Confidence in Charities

Why do donors give? Answers from science

5 Quick Tips for Improving Your Emotional Intelligence. and Increasing Your Success in All Areas of Your Life

Discovering Diversity Profile Individual Report

Gender Differences in Prosocial Behaviour

(Weighted sample of 98 respondents) How serious are these issues to Boulder residents? Extremely serious Very serious Somewhat serious 38% 44% 31%

CREATING ALLIES WITHIN SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS THROUGH INTERSECTION

empower youth mentor

Wendy Palmer Patterson, MSW Wanda C. Faurie, Ph.D. You too want to be An Imago Therapist. What is Imago Relationship Therapy?

Operationalizing and Measuring Role identity and Charitable Giving Behaviors of College and. University Alumni: The Instrumentation Process

Four Fund-Raising Ideas You Can Use Today and See Results Tomorrow

UCLA Social Support Inventory * (UCLA-SSI) Christine Dunkel-Schetter. Lawrence Feinstein. Jyllian Call. University of California, Los Angeles

SOUTH AFRICA GIVING 2019

Weekly Paper Topics psy230 / Bizer / Fall xxarticles are available at idol.union.edu/bizerg/readings230xx

American Views of Contraception Coverage. Survey of 1,191 American Adults

Introduction to Stages of Change and Change Talk in Motivational Interviewing Lisa Kugler, PsyD. March 29, 2018

Adjustment to Retirement: The Moderating Role of Attachment. Dikla Segel, Peter Bamberger

Agency & Empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators

Receiving from Family, Friends, and Non-Profits

Respect Handout. You receive respect when you show others respect regardless of how they treat you.

THE SOCIALABILITY QUESTIONAIRE: AN INDEX OF SKILL

DO I CARE IF YOU ARE PAID? A FIELD EXPERIMENT ON CHARITABLE DONATIONS

Catalog Addendum

A Case- Control comparison of mental burden across and within different types of cancers in Nepal

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Communication Tools. Paul Deslauriers

Americans Current Views on Smoking 2013: An AARP Bulletin Survey

Resilience of the Elderly throughout Widowhood

God and Society in North America, 1996 Generosity Questions From

Doing High Quality Field Research. Kim Elsbach University of California, Davis

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Do Voters Live Vicariously Through Election Results?

Table of Contents. YouthLight, Inc.

Self-Awareness SEL. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) at MPS: Social and Emotional Learning is a priority area for Minneapolis

Empathy Experiment. Reprinted with permission from FINCA (FINCAImpact.com)

EMPATHY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE ARTS. Xiaonan Kou

Reasons for cooperation and defection in real-world social dilemmas

Chapter 4 Anonymous gifts: personal decisions, social backgrounds *

Alliance for Aging Research Key Findings from Public Survey on Early Alzheimer's Diagnosis

The Story and Song Centered Pedagogy: Teaching Empathy in the classroom

Transcription:

Not all empathy is equal: How empathy affects charitable giving Xiaonan Kou (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy) Sung-Ju Kim (Monmouth University School of Social Work) Workshop in Multidisciplinary Philanthropic Studies April 23, 2013

Presentation Overview Background and research question Data and methodologies Findings Discussion

Definitions What Is Empathy Affective reaction to another s emotional experience or Sharing the perceived emotion of another (Unger & Thumuluri, 1997)

Dimensions of Empathy Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980, 1983) Component Characteristic Motive Empathic Concern Affective Altruistic Perspective Taking Cognitive Altruistic Personal Distress Affective Egoistic

Empathic Concern Components Characteristic Motive Empathic Concern Affective Altruistic o o o I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

Perspective Taking Components Characteristic Motive Perspective Taking Cognitive Altruistic o o o When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in their shoes" for a while. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. I try to look at everybody s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.

Personal Distress Components Characteristic Motive Personal Distress Affective Egoistic o o o When I see someone who badly needs help in an emergency, I go to pieces. Being in a tense emotional situation scares me. I tend to lose control during emergencies.

Research Question What roles do different dimensions of empathy play in charitable giving? Perspective Taking Empathic Concern

Conceptual Framework Empathic Concern Empathy Other Influencing Factors Perspective Taking Personal Distress Socio-demographics Principle of Care Charitable Giving Decision to Give Amount Given Principle of care: E.g. People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate.

Hypotheses H1: Higher empathic concern increases both the likelihood and the amount of charitable giving. H2: Higher perspective taking increases both the likelihood and the amount of charitable giving. H3: Higher personal distress increases the likelihood of charitable giving, but does not influence the amount donated to charities.

Data Data: 22nd wave of the 2008-2009 American National Election Studies (ANES) Panel Study Survey questions include: Charitable giving Empathy Principle of care Religious similarity and giving Sample: 2,266 respondents aged 18+

Analyses: Factor analysis Probit regression Tobit regression Dependent variables: Methodology Charitable giving: % of giving, $ donated Independent variables: Empathic concern Perspective taking Personal distress

Control variables: Methodology Gender, Age Ethnicity Religious affiliation and attendance Education, Marital status Household income, Home ownership Principle of care

Descriptive Statistics Respondent Profile (N=2,266) Female 59% Married 54% Religious 83% White 86% College graduate or above 55% Charitable Giving Probability % 87% Average $ (if > $0) $1,667 Median $ (if > $0) $700 HH income ($50K - $100K) 53%

Empathy and Total Giving 0.039 *** Probability of Giving 0.024 ** -0.034*** 163.903 * Dollar Amount Given 74.214-211.631*** Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Research Question Does the impact of empathy on giving vary across different types of nonprofits?

Empathy and Giving to Basic Needs 0.043 Probability of Giving -0.021-0.079 *** Dollar Amount Given 44.002 ** -51.69** -153.331 *** Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to Education 0.099 *** Probability of Giving 0.045 *** 0.002 65.335 *** Dollar Amount Given 61.679 *** -0.842 Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to Health Probability of Giving 0.108 *** 0.071 *** 42.042 *** -0.084*** Dollar Amount Given -2.174-33.312 ** Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to Environment 0.046 *** Probability of Giving 0.007-0.022 *** 149.495 *** Dollar Amount Given 28.423-237.734 *** Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to Youth/Family 0.087 *** Probability of Giving 0.075 *** -0.065 *** Dollar Amount Given 45.033 *** 24.453 ** -20.568 *** Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to Arts 0.055 *** Probability of Giving 0.001-0.006 33.525 *** Dollar Amount Given -5.619-11.687 Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to International Probability of Giving 0.021 *** -0.003-0.003 Dollar Amount Given 16.738 12.117 4.964 Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Empathy and Giving to Religion Probability of Giving -0.009-0.039-0.14*** Dollar Amount Given -14.524-6.224-252.793 *** Notes: Marginal effects are estimated with conditional marginal effect. Tobit regressions are examined with donors only. Outliers for total giving were excluded. Probit N = 2,034; Tobit N = 1,849. Significance levels: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.10.

Summary of Key Findings Not all empathy is equal

Discussion Implications for fundraising Limitations: self-report survey data

Thank you! Questions and Comments?