Education, Giving and Volunteering What have we learned

1. Education, Giving and VolunteeringWhat have we learned? Farewell Lecture, 10 February 2010 René Bekkers Sociology, Utrecht University Philanthropic Studies, VU University

3. Education and Philanthropy Om u te laten zien hoe groot die verschillen zijn heb ik in deze figuur vier vormen van geefgedrag weergegeven voor de laagst en de hoogst opgeleiden. De hoogst opgeleiden geven gemiddeld per jaar €370 aan goede doelen, dat is bijna twee keer zoveel als de laagst opgeleiden geven. Ook bij het geven van bloed, orgaandonatie en vrijwilligerswerk zien we dat hoger opgeleiden dat vaker doen dan lager opgeleiden.Om u te laten zien hoe groot die verschillen zijn heb ik in deze figuur vier vormen van geefgedrag weergegeven voor de laagst en de hoogst opgeleiden. De hoogst opgeleiden geven gemiddeld per jaar €370 aan goede doelen, dat is bijna twee keer zoveel als de laagst opgeleiden geven. Ook bij het geven van bloed, orgaandonatie en vrijwilligerswerk zien we dat hoger opgeleiden dat vaker doen dan lager opgeleiden.

4. Diving in deep…

5. The Initial Idea

6. The Conclusions(and the post hoc design) Part of the relationship is ‘fake’, i.e., due to the correlation of education with measurement error. Most of the relationship is spurious, i.e., not due to education itself but to correlates of education. These - often omitted - variables select people into education and promote prosocial behavior. The remaining part is ‘causal’.

7. In a nutshell Education is a ‘Bag of All Sorts’

8. Methodological insights Longitudinal data are crucial Proper modeling is also important Validate whenever possible, create opportunities to do so Combine experimental and survey methods

9. Effects of Education Coleman Report (1966): few effects of the type of education on achievement outcomes Education seems to be a big sorting machine rather than an ‘imprinting’ machine “Education is thus more a selector, sorter and allocator than it is a socializer” (Meyer, 1977) Selection of those with specific traits rather than production of these traits

10. A Seminal Comment

11. Selection and causation Selection: who continues in education? Omitted variables may drive both education and prosocial behavior. Causation: what is it in education that promotes prosocial behavior? Education changes people, promoting skills, preferences, opportunities for prosocial behavior

12. Correlation

13. Causation

14. The ‘Fake Part’

15. Aren’t You Forgetting Something? People tend to forget about (small) donations Lower educated people more so than the higher educated As a result, education tends to be more predictive of giving in surveys in which fewer questions are asked about giving Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2006). ‘To Give or Not to Give…That’s the Question’. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3): 533-540.

17. Was It Really That Much? Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (forthcoming). ‘Accuracy of Self-reports on Donations to Charitable Organizations’. Quality & Quantity, 44.

20. Is It All Fake? No. Also in experiments where people decide about real money and donations are observed, those with higher levels of education tend to give more (often). In fact, the marginal effect of a university degree on giving is about 90% (relative to primary education). Bekkers, R. (2007). ‘Measuring Altruistic Behavior in Surveys: The All-Or-Nothing Dictator Game.’ Survey Research Methods, 1(3): 139-144.

22. More insights…

23. Selection and causation

24. All selection, no causation

25. Positional Goods? Are giving and volunteering fixed pies allocated to individuals based on their abilities and achievements? Or are giving and volunteering behaviors dependent on traits acquired by education? In the former case, increasing levels of education will lead to an ‘arms race’ – lower predictive power of individual levels of education In the latter case, increasing levels of education will lead to increasing levels of giving and volunteering

26. Retrospective data Family Survey of the Dutch Population, 2000 (FSDP) Random sample of households, n=1,587 (723 couples in households and 141 singles) Respondents reported on memberships and volunteering since they were 16 years of age in an ‘Area’ module (10 categories) Respondents also reported on their educational and occupational careers

33. Selection Based on What? What traits promote achievement in education as well as giving/volunteering? IQ: learning is more fun, civic engagement is more interesting; Trust: better relationships with teachers, classmates, co-members; Self-esteem: confidence in one’s abilities; shares source with charitable confidence Emotional stability: lower stress Parental education: encouragement

34. Prospective data Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, 1957-2003 (WLS) 1/3 of all high school seniors graduates in Wisconsin in 1957 followed up in 1975, 1992/3 and 2002/3 “Participation” was reported in an ‘Area’ module (15 types of voluntary associations) Dependent variable is the number of types of organizations ‘participating’ in Highest level of education and occupational status also reported

36. Significant selection factors in WLS Father’s and mother’s education in 1957 (+) Type of job of father: higher than farming Parental income (+) IQ of child in 1957 and class rank (+) Perceived value of college degree in 1957 (+) Social science, history or language classes in high school (+) ‘Big Five’ personality scores in 1992: E, O (+) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale score 92/03 (+)

37. Looking within individuals Eliminating variance between individuals with Fixed Effects regression models (FE) Within individuals, increases in education are associated with increases in participation Education effect mediated and moderated by occupational status in NL, but not in WI and not for volunteering Changes in IQ between 1992 and 2003 are not associated with increases in participation in WI

38. Selection and Causation

39. Selection, causation, mediation

41. Mediators at a Glance

42. Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study Online survey by TNS/NIPO Source of estimates on volume of household donations and volunteering Measures of resources and social values Panel design since 2002 2008 wave: n=1,866

43. Prosocial values and emotions

44. Cognitions and attitudes

45. Networks

46. ‘Mediators’ at a Glance

47. Verbal ability Controlling for verbal ability measured by the vocabulary test score, relationships of education with giving and volunteering are reduced substantially (40-50%). This holds across datasets using different methodologies and from the US/NL. WLS results reveal that the causal order is mostly IQ ? Education ? Altruism

50. Confidence Bekkers, R. (2006). ‘Keeping the Faith: Origins of Confidence in Charitable Organizations and its Consequences for Philanthropy.’ Paper presented at the NCVO/VSSN Researching the Voluntary Sector Conference 2006, Warwick University, September 13-14, 2006.

51. Real Mediatiors? Are the values and cognitions that mediate relations between education and giving/volunteering the (causal) results of education? Or are they consequences of omitted variables? How is volunteer work allocated to individuals? How do people get involved as donors with nonprofit organizations?

52. More education yields less giving as people get more highly educated

53. Evidence on Development Nationwide evaluation of mandatory service learning program effects (n=3,111) at all levels of secondary education (ages 12-18) Programs recently introduced When do differences in prosocial values and behavior emerge? Do programs enhance or minimize prio differences based on parental education?

54. Thanks!

55. Non-linear relationships with prosocial values

56. Civic skills

57. Voting and volunteering

58. Engagement in charities

59. More linear relationships with parental education

60. Civic skills

61. Voting and volunteering

62. Engagement in charities

63. So… At age 12-17, differences in prosocial behavior between students at different levels of education are not very strong – yet. Differences between students with parents with different levels of education are more pronounced. This may imply that differences among students will crystallize later, in part as a result of parental education. Programs do not enhance prior differences based on parental education, BUT they are more effective among students at higher levels.

64. The missing study A study of differences in participation among identical twins would eliminate the genetic component Differences between identical twins with different levels of education cannot be due to genetic factors that are selected for in education Though differences in participation are not necessarily due to differences in education They may also be the result of environmental ‘noise’ because IQ is 50-70% genetic

65. The missing study exists… New Zealand economist John Gibson published a study in 2001 of volunteering among 85 identical twin pairs Though education in the pooled sample is associated with more volunteering, pairwise comparisons reveal the opposite The twin with more years of education is actually less likely to volunteer “…families whose unobservable characteristics cause them to have a high likelihood of volunteering are also more likely to educate their children, so the relationship between schooling and volunteering is just a correlation caused by an excluded common cause.” (p.229)

66. Future work Identifying the causal mechanisms that link education to participation A longitudinal study of ‘normal’ identical twins in the Netherlands, to find out when differences in the level and field of education emerge (if so) Does trust make students achieve in education? Fundraising experiments to see what works at different levels of education: does (the effect of) altruistic motivation vary with education?

67. Vidi…

68. Thank you For a lot more than I may realize right now.