Examining the Association of Religious Context with Giving to Non-Profit Organizations

Abstract

Why do citizens in religious groups and more religious countries give money to charitable causes? In this article we aim to theoretically and empirically unravel the influence of religious composition on giving to non-profit organizations across countries. Building on theories and research in sociology, social psychology, and economics we formulate hypotheses about individual-and contextuallevel differences in engagement in religious and secular charitable giving. We test our hypotheses with multi-level analyses using data from the European Social Survey that include 21 European countries complemented with matching data from the United States (N 1 ¼ 41,314; N 2 ¼ 22). The results show no relationship between country-level devoutness and engagement in religious or secular giving. We do find that citizens in countries with a higher level of religious heterogeneity are more likely to engage in religious giving but not secular giving. We test two explanations for the relationship between giving and religious heterogeneity. We find support for the minority hypothesis that people belonging to a religious minority have a higher likelihood of giving but not for the group size hypothesis that the relative size of the religious denomination to which people belong to decreases their engagement in charitable giving.

Religion, Altruism, and Helping Strangers: A Multilevel Analysis of 126 Countries

“…If this effect predominates, then members of minority religious groups would be more likely to help strangers. Wiepking, Bekkers, and Osili () find support for this theory for both secular and religious charitable giving, and Bennett () finds this effect in terms of formal volunteering. Although the theoretical literature could support either a negative or positive effect of membership in a religious minority group, the two studies prior to ours found that members of minority religious groups were more likely to be prosocial, so we test this hypothesis: H3:People who belong to a religious minority group in a society will have a higher likelihood of helping a stranger. …”

“…However, higher levels of religious activity in a society may lead to a greater diffusion of prosocial norms that would increase the prosocial behavior of all people within a society, irrespective of whether they are religious or not. Cross‐national studies by Ruiter and De Graaf () and Lam () find that religious norms affect volunteering even among the nondevout, and Wiepking, Bekkers, and Osili () find a similar effect on religious and secular giving. Borgonovi () finds an effect of religious norms on the nondevout in a U.S. study.…”

“…Many studies find that religious individuals are more likely to help others, and this distinction is particularly strong regarding formal volunteering and charitable giving (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011;Musick and Wilson 2008;Putnam 2000;Wiepking, Bekkers, and Osili 2014;Wuthnow 1991Wuthnow , 2004. Religion influences people's internal norms and values and therefore may help develop an internal motivation to help others.…”

Social Capital and Generosity

“…However, it is important to recognize that overall rates of volunteering and donating may be inflated in self-report surveys (Abraham, Helms, & Presser, 2009;Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a). It may also be the case that incidental and irregular giving is underreported in the ESS (Wiepking, Bekkers, & Osili, 2014). 8.…”

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

“…Broadly speaking, donors are more likely to be female, older, married, religious, educated, and wealthy (Bègue, 2014;Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011c;Brooks, 2003b;Choi & DiNitto, 2012;Forbes & Zampelli, 2013;Helms & Thornton, 2012;Herzog & Yang, 2018;Hughes & Luksetich, 2008;Korndörfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2015;Leslie, Snyder, & Glomb, 2013;Manesi, Van Lange, Van Doesum, & Pollet, 2018;McGregor-Lowndes & Crittall, 2014;Mesch, Brown, Moore, & Hayat, 2011;Mesch, Osili, Ackerman, & Dale, 2015a;Mesch, Rooney, Steinberg, & Denton, 2006;Midlarsky & Hannah, 1989;Neumayr & Handy, 2017;Rajan, Pink, & Dow, 2009;Rooney, Mesch, Chin, & Steinberg, 2005;Sibley & Bulbulia, 2015;Stavrova & Siegers, 2014;L. Steinberg & Monahan, 2007;Tremblay-Boire & Prakash, 2017;Vaidyanathan, Hill, & Smith, 2011;Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012;Wiepking, Bekkers, & Osili, 2014;Wiepking & James, 2013;Wiepking & Maas, 2009).…”