2013
DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2012.667555
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impacts of religion, political ideology, and social capital on religious and secular giving: evidence from the 2006 Social Capital Community Survey

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
38
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
3
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Religious affinity, more so than political ideology, is amongst the most robust predictors of volunteerism (Becker & Dhingra, ; Paxton, Reith, & Glanville, ). The value of children and the act of giving time and money are consistent with the teachings of all major religions, and churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues often cultivate cultures of giving (Forbes & Zampelli, ; Uslaner, ). In addition, religious organizations may have connections with other nonprofits, including mentoring organizations, or may offer their own volunteering opportunities (Forbes & Zampelli, ; Paxton et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Religious affinity, more so than political ideology, is amongst the most robust predictors of volunteerism (Becker & Dhingra, ; Paxton, Reith, & Glanville, ). The value of children and the act of giving time and money are consistent with the teachings of all major religions, and churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues often cultivate cultures of giving (Forbes & Zampelli, ; Uslaner, ). In addition, religious organizations may have connections with other nonprofits, including mentoring organizations, or may offer their own volunteering opportunities (Forbes & Zampelli, ; Paxton et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The sample 7. Recent studies by Forbes andZampelli (2011, 2013) provide formal hypothesis tests which demonstrate the general superiority of sample selection models, for example, Cragg's (1971) "single-hurdle" model and Heckman's (1979) bivariate selection model, over Tobit specifications for both time and money donations. selection model (Heckman 1979) offers a richer behavioral explanation and more flexible parameterization to accommodate the zero observations.…”
Section: Econometric Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies by Forbes and Zampelli (, ) provide formal hypothesis tests which demonstrate the general superiority of sample selection models, for example, Cragg's () “single‐hurdle” model and Heckman's () bivariate selection model, over Tobit specifications for both time and money donations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A further study of the impact of religious beliefs, behaviour, and belonging on secular attitudes was recently proposed by Forbes and Zampelli (2013). They focus on the religious impact of the propensity towards a secular or religious charitable contribution.…”
Section: Contrasting Effects Of Religiosity and Religious Belonging Omentioning
confidence: 99%