SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING 1

aboriginalconspiracyUrban and Civil

Nov 16, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

133 views

SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING


1






Role
-
m
odeling and

Conversation
s

about Giving

in the
Socialization of

Adolescent

Charitable Giving and Volunteering


Mark O
ttoni
-
Wilhelm
a,b,*


David B. Estell
c


Neil H. Perdue
d




a

Department of Economics, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

(IUPUI)
, 425
University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Mobile: 001
-
765
-
277
-
1229. E
-
mail:
mowilhel@iupui.ed
u


b

The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 550 West North Street # 301, Indianapolis,
IN 46202, USA.


c

Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University Bloomington
,

201 North Rose Avenue,
Bloomington, IN 47405
-
1006, USA.

P
hone: 001
-
812
-
856
-
8308.

E
-
mail:
destell@indiana.edu


d

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Indianapolis, 1400 East Hanna Avenue,
Indianapolis, IN 46227, USA.
P
hone: 001
-
317
-
788
-
3353
. E
-
mail:
neil.perdue@gmail.com


*

Corresponding author.



SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

2

Abstract

Th
is

study investigated

the relationship between
the
monetary giving and volunteering behavior
of adolescents and the role
-
modeling and
conversation
s

about

giving
provided by their parents.

The participants are a large nationally
-
representative sample of 12
-
18 year
-
olds from the
Panel
Study of Income Dynamics

Child Development Supplement

(
n

= 1,244).

Adolescents report
ed

wheth
er they ga
ve money and
whether they
volunteer
ed.
In a separate interview p
arents report
ed

whether they talk
ed

to their adolescent about giving
.

I
n a third
interview
,
parents reported
whether they ga
ve money and volunteer
ed
.

The results show that
both role
-
mo
deling and
conversati
on
s about giving

are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and volunteering.

Knowing
that both role
-
modeling and
conversation
are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and
volunteering suggests an often over
-
looked way for p
ractitioners

and policy
-
make
rs to
nurture
giving and volunteering among adults: start earlier, during adolescence, by
guiding
parent
s

in
their

role
-
modeling
of, and conversations about,
charitable
giving and volunteering.


Keywords:

prosocial behaviour; charitable giving; volunteerin
g; positive behaviour; modeling;



socialization.




SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

3

Role
-
m
odeling and

Conversation
s

about Giving
in the Socialization of

Adolescent Charitable Giving and Volunteering


E
ducators, community leaders, and policy
-
makers

expend considerable effort
to
encourage adults to perform
two particular prosocial beha
viors


giving money to charities that
help people
and
giving time in
volunt
ary service
. A
dult

giving and volunteering

are most likely
part of an ongoing pa
ttern of behavior that began much earlie
r in development
,

and both theory
and laboratory
-
based experimental work suggest that role
-
modeling and conversation
s

about
prosocial behavior will affect the development of prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes 1998).

Yet we know very little about the eff
ectiveness of parental efforts to encourage these behaviors
in nationally
-
representative population studies that describe U.S. adolescents in their natural
settings.

This represents a significant gap in our understanding. As

Eisenberg

and Mussen
(1989,
p. 156) point out:


It cannot be assumed that procedures that prove to be effective in laboratory

studies (such as modeling; see chapters 6 and 7) will necessarily have a

significant

and lasting impact on behavior when introduced in a natural setting

such as the home or school. . . .Thus, it is important to test in natural settings the

effectiveness of those procedures that promote prosocial behavior in the laboratory.



There are no nationally
-
representative
studies

of the effectiveness of parents’
ro
le
-
model
ing

of charitable giving, and
a
lthough previous research has found evidence of an
association between parental modeling

of volunteering and adolescent
s


volunteering
(
McLellan
& Youniss 2003)
,
including a
nationally
-
representative

study (
U.S. Department of Education
1997),
these studies could not control
for
conversations the parent may be having with the
adolescent

about prosocial behavior.
In sh
ort
, to our knowledge no previous study has estimated

the strengths of role
-
modeling and

conversation
s

about prosocial behavior

as
separate

influences
on adolescents’ giving and
volunteering.

Furthermore, no study has previously estimated role
-
model
and
conversation
associations while simultaneously controlling f
or parenting
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

4

dimensions

including

parental warmth
/
support

and
behavioral control

that
theoretically
are
influences on

prosocial behavior (Chase
-
Lansdale, Wakschlag
,

& Brooks
-
Gunn 1995).

Finally,
l
ittle is known
about whether the effectiveness of
modeling,
conversation
,
and
parenting
dimensions
differ
s

by
the
sex of the adolescent

(however see Carlo, McGinley, H
ayes,
Batenhorst, & Wilkinson 2007)
.

Without

this knowledge it is difficult to convince p
ractitioners and policy
-
makers

to shift
some of their
effort

toward the
encouragement
of parents in their role
-
modeling
and talking
about

giving and volunteering
,

thereby
nurturing
the giving and volunteering of tomorrow’s
adults.

Moreover, it is not known whether any advice to parents should be tailored differently
depending on
the
sex of the adolescent.

To address these gaps,
t
he present
research
estimates the
relative
strengths of role
-
modeling

and
conversation
s

about prosocial b
ehavior

as
separate

influences
o
n

adolescents’ charitable giving and volunteering using
a large nationally
-
representative sample.

These effects are estimated whil
e simultaneously assessing the association
of parental warmth and support and parental behavio
ral control.

Role
-
modeling,
conversation
,
parenting
dimensions
,
and prosocial behavior

The theoretical importance of

role
-
modeling in the development of prosocial behavior
follows from social learning theory
(Bandura 1976),
as well as more recent
neurologi
cal

research
indicating that the

basis of imitative behavior (
mirror neurons
)

may provide the neural substrate
of empathy (Preston
&

de Waal 2002).

The
most robust

evidence from the experimental
literature on children’s proso
cial behavior is that having an adult experimenter role
-
model the
desired behavior increases children’s prosocial behavior

(Eisenber
g

&

Fabes 1998)
.

If
adult
strangers have an impact,
t
he
regular, long
-
term

close relationships parents
often have with their

children sh
ould make parents particularly effective modelers of prosocial behavior.


SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

5

After role
-
modeling, the next strongest evidence from the experimental literature is that
children’s prosocial behavior can be increased through ver
bal
communication
(Eisenberg
&

Fabes 1998)
.

For example, m
ost

(
though not all
)

experiments have found that other
-
oriented
induction has a positive effect on children’s donations (see, e.g., Dlugokinski
& Firestone 1974,
Grusec, Sass
-
Kortsaak, & Simutis, 19
78

and Eisenberg
-
Berg
& Geisheker 1979; cf. Lipscomb,
Bregman, & McAllister,
1983).

Carlo
, McGinley

et al.
(2007) find evidence that conversations
emphasizing empathy are positively associated with prosocial behavior among adolescents.

Beyond direct social
ization

through role
-
modeling and
conversation
s about prosocial
behavior
,
theory suggests that
broad
parenting
dimensions
are determinants of prosocial
behavior.

Two
parenting dimensions

(a)
warmth

and
support

plus
(b)
behavioral control

in

combination
form an authoritative parenting style (
Crockett & Hayes 2011
).

A
uthoritative
parenting is thought to be an effective style for the development of prosocial behavior

(Chase
-
Lansdale et al.
1995)
.

Supporting evidence has been found
associating authoritative
parenting
, or
its separate dimensions,
to

adolescent
empathy
and perspective
-
taking
(
e.g., Laible & Carlo,
2004;
Soenens, Duriez, V
ansteenkiste
,

&

Goossens 2007)
,
children’s internalization of prosocial
values (
Hardy, Padilla
-
Walker
,

& Carlo 2008; also see
Hardy, Bhattacharajee, Reed, & Aquino
2010),
social responsibility (Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss 1999),

and prosocial behavior
(
e.g.,
Baumrind 1991;
Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007;
Wuthnow 1995)
.

The findings suggesting an

association between parenting and prosocial development are
not universally supported. For example, some studies have not found an association (
see the
reviews in Eisenberg, Morris, McDaniel, & Spinrad 2009 and Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad 2006;
also Soene
ns et al. 2007 found supporting evidence for maternal warmth/support, but not
behavioral control
) while other studies have found indirect, but not direct, effects(
e.g., Barry,
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

6

Padilla
-
Walker, Madsen
,

& Nelson 2008
)
.
Carlo
, McGinley

et al.
(2007) suggest that the mixed
evidence may be because
the dimensions of
parenting style
s

are constructs that are too
broad
when used
to investigate specific
prosocial behavior
s
, and that it may be more fruitful to
examine
specific
socialization techniques
.

They fou
nd several specific
techniques

including
conversations

about prosocial behavior

we
re
associated with the Prosocial Tendency Measure

(PTM). PTM associations with
role
-
modeling could not be investigated

in their study

because
the
measurement of
mode
ling
did not survive exploratory factor analysis
.

While
warmth and control both may relate to a variety of child outcomes including
prosocial behavior, recent research has indicated that different forms of control have unique
effects on
ch
ildren. Psychological control

the
use of
manipulation,
guilt, coercion, and
contingent love
, for example

is

an important construct
that needs to be examined apart

from
behavioral control
(Barber 1996).

Psychological control
is related to lower levels of em
pathy,
teacher
-
reported altruism, and a variety of prosocial behaviors in children such as sharing and
helping with classmates (Krevens & Gibbs, 1996).

However,
Soenens et al. (2007)

fou
nd that
psychological cont
rol
,
like behavioral control in their study
,
was
not
correlated with either
adolescents’
empathy or perspective taking.

Although
there has been extensive work on sex differences in the amount of prosocial
behavior performed (see Eisenberg et al., 2006 for
a review), fewer results are available about
sex differences in the effectiveness of socialization techniques. Stukas, Sitzer, Dew, Goycoolea
,
and

Simmons (1999) find evidence that parental modeling has a stronger effect on girls’ altruistic
self
-
image,
su
ggesting perhaps a stronger effe
ct on girls’ prosocial behavior.

However,
Carlo,
McGinley

et al. (2007) find no evidence of sex differences in the
ir
PTM associations with
parenting
techniques
and styles.

SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

7

N
ation
ally representative studies of socializing adolescent prosocial behavior

G
iving money to charity and volunteering

are two key prosocial behaviors that
receive
emphasis in adulthood because they are important components of civil society
.

E
ducators,
commu
nity leaders, and policy
-
makers
expend much effort to encourage

adults to give and
volunteer.

There are extensive literatures about adults’ charitable giving (Vesterlund 2006) and
volunteering (
Musick &
Wilson
2008
)
.

Volunteering in adulthood is part of an

ongoing pattern of behavior that
for many
was

alre
ady underway during adolescence (
Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins 2007;
Janoski,
Musick, & Wilson 1998).

There is a large literature about adolescents’ volunteering examining
the influences of socio
-
econo
mic status, extra
-
curricular activities, religion, and investigating
positive outcomes associated with volunteering (Eisenberg et al. 2009).

This literature includes
nationally
-
representative studies

(e.g., Youniss,
McLellan, Su, & Yates 1999)
, but to our
knowledge there has been only one nationally
-
representative study that has estimated the
association between a parental role
-
model of volunteering and adolescent’s volunteering (U.S.
Department of Education 1997).

T
his study

concludes that
an adolescent whose parent
volunteers is
significantly more likely to volunteer, but did not examine
parent
-
adolescent
conversation
s about prosocial behavior.
The study also did not investigate whether the ro
le
-
modeling association

was of similar magnitude

for both girls and boys.

Finally, and again to our
knowledge, there have been no nationally
-
representative studies of the association of
adolescents’ volunteering with parenting dimensions or styles.

C
haritable giving
observed
in adulthood
most
likely
was

also
underway during
adolescence, but charitable giving
by
adolescents has been studied much less intensively than
adolescents’ volunteering.
1

While
Kim, La
Taillade, and Kim (2011) found

an association
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

8

between conversations about giving and adolescents’ g
iving, role
-
modeling was not considered
and differences in the associations between boys and girls were not examined.


The present study

The present research
estimates two models

one
for the probability tha
t the adolescent
gives to charity and the other fo
r th
e probability of volunteering

in
which parental role
-
modeling

of volunteering and giving as well as
conversation
s

about giving

are
separate

influences.

The models also contain parenting dimensions of warmth, behavioral control, and
psycho
logical contro
l as influences on

adolescents’ giving and volunteering.

Our hypotheses are that adolescents’ giving and volunteering
are
positively associated
with (a) parental modeling and (b
)
conversation
s about giving
.

Because giving and volunteering
are often thought of as closely related prosocial behaviors, our third hypothesis is that there are

cross
-
over


effects,
specifically that
parental
modeling of giving is positively associated with
adolescents’ volunteering

and vice versa
.

In light of the mixed evidence about
broad
parenting
dimensions
and specific prosocial behaviors, our fourth hypothesis is that adolescents’ giving
and volunteering
are
more strongly associated with role
-
modeling and
conversation
s about
giv
ing

than with parenting
dimensions
.

Our investigation of these hypotheses offers several contributions.

First, as already
noted
we
investigat
e

role
-
modeling
,
conversation
s about prosocial behavior
,
and
parenting
dimensions
as
separate

influences
of adolesc
ents’ giving and volunteering

in a multiple regression
framework
.

For example, a
mong p
arents who talk to their children about giving many also model
giving
. O
ur analysis
of
separate

associations
avoids attributing to
conversation
s about giving

an
associati
on that is re
ally due to
modeling

giving
.

Equally important, our analysis will

reveal the
importance of role
-
modeling, c
onversation
s about giving, and broader parenting styles
.

Second,
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

9

our analysis is based on a nationally
-
representative sample of U.S.
adolescents.

W
e can learn
whether results
similar to those
about modeling and
conversation
s about prosocial behavior

obtained from experimental studies with non
-
parents and smaller, more homogeneous samples
also obtain in a population study.

Finally, we in
vestigate whether
modeling,
conversation
s about
giving
,
and
parenting
dimension
associations differ by sex of the adolescent.

M
ethod

Participants

Participants
are
from the
Child Development Supplement

(
CDS
) of the
Panel Study of
Income Dynamics

(
PSID
). The

PSID

is a long
-
term longitudinal study of household economics.

Economic, health, and demographic d
ata
have been
collected annually 1968
-
1997 and biennially
since then in core main family interview
s
.

Major funders of the
PSID

are the National Science
Found
ation, the National Institute on

Aging, and the National Institute o
f

Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD); the
CDS

is funded by NICHD.
In 1997 the
PSID

families with
children age 12 and younger were selected for the first wave of the
CDS

(
CDS
-
I) and

88%
participated.

In 2002
-
2
003 the
CDS
-
I families who
had
continued in the core
PSID

(94%
continued) were selected for re
-
interview in the second wave (
CDS
-
II) and 91% participated.

Among the
CDS
-
II participating families our analysis focuses on adolescen
ts 12
-
18

years

of age

(
n

= 1,468) because the child
-
reported
warmth/support
and psychological control constructs
are
asked only of adolescents. The response rate among adolescents is 89% (
n

= 1,312).

There are
a
few additional sample exclusions. We do not
include adolescents if their
parent’s giving and volunteering data were not collected (
n

= 40).

A few adolescents did not
answer questions about their giving and volunteering (
n

= 10) or had missing data on
other
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

10

variables (
n

= 18).

The final analysis samp
le is
n

= 1,244.

Of these,

634 are girls and 610 are
boys.

The number of
African
-
American

adolescents is 556.


Measures

Data for our study were collected in three separate interviews.

First,
adolescents were
interviewed in person using computer assisted
personal interview
ing

(CAPI)
.

Fo
r more sensitive
questions

about warmth and
support
, as well as
psychological control
,

the mode was
audio
-
computer assisted self
-
interview
ing

(ACASI).

Second,
the adolescent’s
primary caregiver

(typically the mother or
step
-
mother) were interviewed either in person or over the telephone
(CATI) based on the caregiver’s preference.

Third,
either the primary caregiver or her spouse
were interviewed
in the

PSID
’s

core ma
in family interview using CATI.

Adolescents’ giving and volu
nteering.

In
CDS
-
II a
d
olescents
were asked “did you give
some of your money last year
-

if only a few pennies
-

to a church, synagogue, or another charity
that helps people who are not part of your family?”

Adolescents also were asked
“were you
involved in

any volunteer service activities or service clubs in the last 12 months?”

Responses
to
both questions we
re a binary “yes/no.”

The
two
questions parallel those asked of the
mother/step
-
mothers (or spouses) in the
2001
PSID

core main family interview
.

Role
-
modeling.

Beginning in
2001
, the
PSID
’s

core main family interview contains

data
on parents’ giving and volunteering that form the role
-
modeling variables central to our analysis.

The
mother/step
-
mother/spouse
reported if
the family gave during the last ca
lendar year
more
than $25 to religious or
charitable
organizations
.

These organizations were defined to the
respondent to be non
-
profit organizations that
“serve a variety of purposes such as religious
activity, helping people in need, health care and medi
cal research, education, arts, environment,
and international aid.”

Also reported was whether the mother/s
tep
-
mother

did 10 or more hours
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

11

of volunteer work through organizations, such as

coaching, helping at school, serving on
committees, building and rep
airing, providing health care or emotional support, delivering food,
doing office work, organizing activities, fundraising, and other kinds of work done for no pay
.


Past research has demonstrated
that both
measurements
compare well with other nationally
-
representative measures
(Wilhelm

2006
a
,
b).

Note that the giv
ing and volunteering questions
we
re about activity in calendar year 2000, implying that these variables describe role
-
modeling
one year (or more) prior to the me
asurement of adolescent giving and volunteering in
CDS
-
II.

Conversation
s

about giving
.

In
CDS
-
II the
primary caregiver was asked the binary
response question: “D
o you ever talk to (
NAME of
CHILD) about giving some of (his/her)
money



if only a few pennies


to a church, synagogue, or another charity?”

The question
obviously parallels the giving question asked to adolescents
.

Unfortunately the time budget of
CDS
-
II

was not sufficient to add another question specifically about
conversat
ions concerning
volunteering.

Therefore we use the “talk
-
about
-
giving”
response
as a proxy measurement of the
parent’s
conversation
s

about
prosocial behavior in both models
.


Parenting

dimensions
.

In our main analysis w
e use
d

the parenting dimension framework
with measurements of three dimensions:
(a) warmth

and

support

(b)
behavioral control, and
(c)
psychological control (Crockett & Hayes 2011).

We also conducted analyses replacing the
dimension framework with parenting styl
es

defined by interacting
warmth/support
with
behavioral control to classify
authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged styles
; this
follow
s
the procedure

from
Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and
Dornbusch
(
1991
)
.

W
armth and
support

was
measured
using
4
items
developed from
the

Child Report of
Parent Behavior Invento
ry (
Schaefer 1965
)
.

The adolescent reported

the degree to which
his/her
mother/step
-
mother

(a
)

cheer
s me
up when
I am
sad


(warmth

and
emotional support)
,
(b
)
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

12


giv
es me
a lot of care
and attention


(warmth and
nurturance
),
(c
) “often
prais
es me” (
support
)
,
and (d) “enjoys doing things with me” (
warmth
and
supportive involvement
)
.

Item r
e
s
ponses
were on a 3
-
point scale:
not like her, somewhat like her, a lot like her
.

To ensure privacy
the
responses were collected
during the ACASI portion of the adolescent interview
.

Cronbach’s


=
.78
.

B
ehavior
al

control
was measured using
the
mother/step
-
mother report

of the
Household
Rules

measure

(Alwin
1997)
.

Th
e
measure
has 9 items
,

each using
a
5
-
point scale
,
describing
the
frequency that
the
mother/step
-
mother

enforce
s

rules
specifically for the adolescent.

The 9 items
are

about
which friends the adolescent can spend time with,
how late the adolescent can stay up,
the
use of time

after school
,
when homework is done,

if a place is set where homework is done,
whether homework is checked, the eating of snack foods,
which TV programs can be watched,
and how muc
h time can be spent watching TV

(


= .8
4
)
.

P
sychological control
was measured with the Psy
chological Control Scale
-
Youth Self
Report
, a set of 6 items based on the CRPBI items used by Barber (1996).

The items are
the
adolescent’s report on the degree to which his/her mother/step
-
mother

(a) “
b
lames me for other
family members’ problems
,” (b)
“ch
anges the subject whenever I have something to say,”

(c)
b
rings up past mistakes when she criticizes me
,” (d) “o
ften interrupts me
,” (e) “
If I have hurt her
feelings, she stops talking to me until I please her again
,” and (f)
“is always trying to change h
o
w
I feel or think about things.


Item r
e
sponses are on the 3
-
point
not like her, somewhat like her, a
lot like her

scale (


= .75).


Demographic
and economic
variables.

Adolescents
reported their race
.

In the present
study African
-
American

adolescents
were
the only
minority group
with sufficient numbers in the
sample
to include
a variable designating their race.

R
ace is coded
as
African
-
American =1

and
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

13

all others

= 0
.

Sex and date of birth were collected when the participant was born.
Sex is coded
male=
0, female=1.


In the core main family interview, the mother/step
-
mother (or spouse) answered over 100
questions about components of family income.

We use the
PSID
’s measure “total family
income” that
includes income from all major sources (e.g., labor earn
ings

from both parents
,
business

income, asset income
,
and
transfers from the government)
.

The
PSID
’s t
otal family
income

compares well with
income measured in
the Census Department’s
Current Population
Surveys
. (
Gouskova & Schoeni

2007
)
.

To
further improve the
quality of the
income data as a
measurement of the family’s long
-
run economic resources
we took

a
five
-
year average of income
using the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001 core family interviews.

Empirical
approach

We estimate
two logit models, one
for the probability the
adolescent

gave

money to a
religious congregation or a charity and
one
for the probability the
adolescent

does volunteering.

From these models w
e
report
the marginal effects

so that the rep
orted estimates can be directly
interpreted as effects on the probabilities of giving and volunteering
.
The logit estimates are from
weighted maximum likelihood
.

The
descriptive
statistics
also are weighted
.

The weights account
for differential probability of selection into the
PSID

due to the original 1968 sample design and
for subsequent attrition.

R
esults


Table

1 presents the means, standard deviations, and pairwise correlations of the analysis
variables.

Amon
g the adolescents, 72 percent ga
ve and 41 percent volunteer
ed
.

Similar
percentages of their parents role
-
model
ed

these two prosocial behaviors.

Sixty
-
two percent of
parents
talk
ed

to
their adolescent
about giving
.

The modeling and
conversation
s about
giving

SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

14

variables are each significantly correlated with adolescent giving and volunteering.

W
armth and
support
is
also significantly correlated with giving and volunteering, but
the magnitudes are

lower than the associations with the socialization variables. Similarly
, psychological control is
significantly (negatively) correlated with giving and volunteering, and the
behavioral control

giving correlation is
significantl
y positive, but
these correl
ations are
small
er than the modeling
and
conversation
s about giving

correlations.

The parent’s model of giving and
model of
volunteering
are correlated (the correlation is
among the strongest in the table)

and both modeling variables are correlated with
co
nversation
s
about giving
.

This justifies
the cotemporaneous
investigation
of both types of modeling
along
with
conversation
s about giving

in
our empirical models.

Not surprisingly,
warmth and
support
are

negatively correlated (fairly strongly) with psychol
ogical control.

Both p
arenting
dimensions
are correlated with behavioral control, but the correlations are small (only one is significant).

The
correlations between the parenting
dimensions
and modeling/
conversations about giving

are in
the anticipated dir
ection
with one
exception

(behavioral control

model of
giving),
and seven out
of nine are significant.

There are two other patterns to note.

First, t
he
fairly
strong correlations between (the
logarithm of)
family
income and bot
h types of role
-
modeling
imply

that
controlling for
income
is
necessary
to avoid misattributing an income association to a role
-
modeling association.

Second,
p
arents
talk about giving to
older adolescents less and
to
girls more


the correlations are
significant but small.

Table 2 presents estimates of the logit models.

In column 1, the
logit model for
adolescent giving is significant (
χ
2
(12)
=

63.08
,
p
<

0.0
0
1
).

The estimates
indicate that the parental
role
-
model of giving is associated with a 15

percentage point
higher
probability that the
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

15

adolescent gives (
p
=

0.0
0
1).

C
onversation
s

about giving

is associated with an 11 percentage
point
higher probability
(
p
=

0.0
03
).

The
modeling
association

is
large relative to the 72 percent
baseline probability that the
adolescent gi
ves
:
comparing two adolescents who are identical in
terms of the observed characteristics we control, except that one has a parent who gives and the
other has a parent who does not, the adolescent with the parent role
-
modeling giving
has a
probability of g
iving that is
21%
higher,
relative to the baseline probability of giving (.15/.72 =
.21).

The
conversation
s about giving

association also is large relative to baseline: an adolescent
whose pa
rent talks to him about giving ha
s
a
15%
higher probability of giving
(.11/.72).

Hence,
an adolescent whose parent both role
-
models and
talks about
giving
has a probability of giving
that
is 36%
higher
than an adole
scent whose parent does neither.

In column 2, the logit model for adolescent volun
teering is significant (
χ
2
(12)
=

78
.
29,
p
<

0.001
).

T
he parental
model of volunteering is associated with a 1
3

percentage point
higher
probability
that the adolescent
volunteers

(
p
=

0.002
), and
talking about
giv
ing
is associated with
a 9 percentage point
higher probability of
volunteering
(
p
=

0.0
3
5).

These, too, are large
associations, representing 32% and 22% higher probabilities of volunteering relative to the
baseline 41 percent of adolescents who volunteer.

Together the
se estimates

imply that an
adole
scent whose parent both role
-
models volunteering and
talks about giving

has a probability
of volunteering that
is 54%
higher than
an adolescent whose parent does neither.

T
he
“cross
-
over”
parental
model of giving is associated with a 17 percentage point
hi
gher probability
that
the adolescent volunteers (
p
<

0.001
)



corresponding to a 41% higher probability of
volunteering relative to baseline.

The
13 percentage point association with the role
-
model of
volunteering is large even though

role
-
modeling
of
, and

talking about,

giving are

entered as
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

16

separate

effects
; however,
if those effects are removed the role
-
model of volunteering association
rises to 18 percentage points (not shown in Table 2).


Although the parenting
dimension
associations with
adolescent
giving and volunteerin
g
in columns 1 and 2 are in the expected direction
, the estimates are small
.

The strongest evidence
of an association with a parenting
dimension

is behavioral control in the giving model (
p

= .059
).

We also estimated models
that
repla
ced the parenting dimensions with authoritative,
authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged parenting styles as main

effects, but the styles were not
significant.

Because parenting dimensions/styles may act as moderators (
Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Da
rling 1992
), w
e also estimated
different versions of the
models in which
dimensions
(warmth,
behavioral control
, etc.
) and styles (authoritative
, etc.
) moderated the
effects of role
-
modeling and
conversation
s about giving
, but the
se interaction effects we
re also
not significant
.

The estimates for demographic variables indicate that
, controlling for role
-
modeling,
conversation
s about giving
,

and
parenting

dimensions
,

girls and African
-
American

adolescents

have higher probabilities of giving by 8 percentage points (
p
=
0.0
02
) and 10 percentage points
(
p
=

0.008
), respectively.

The age and
giving

were not significantly associated, but age and
volunteering
was:
3

percentage points per year (
p
=

0.009
).

Adoles
cent girls have
a 10
percentage point

higher probability

of volunteering (
p
=
0.0
06
)
.

Race was not related to
volunteer
ing, and f
amily
was not
significant
ly associated with giving or volunteering
.

Table 3 presents estimates of the logit models separately b
y sex.

Giving model estimates
in columns 1 and 2 show that the role
-
model association is much stronger for girls (20
percentage points,
p
=

0.003
) than boys (12 percentage points,
p
=

0.06
1
), but the opposite
pattern
is evident
for
conversation
s about
giving
: for girls 8 percentage points (
p
=

0.1
15
) and for
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

17

boys
16 percentage points

(
p
=

0.003
).

Estimates for the parenting
dimensions
are
not
significant
for
either girls or

boys.

As for the demographic variables, the giving associations with age and
Afr
ican
-
American race
were driven by
significant
patterns among girls
, not boys
.

The volunteering model in columns 3 and 4 shows
a similar
pattern: the role
-
model
association is much stronger for girls (17 percentage points,
p
=

0.003
) than boys (9 percentage

points,
p
=

0.136
), but the
opposite for
conversation
s about giving
:
for
girls
5

percentage points
(
p
=

0.
40
3
) and for boys 1
4

percentage points

(
p
=
0.0
09
).

T
he “cross
-
over” role
-
model of giving
association is a little less strong for girls
(15 percentage points,
p
=

0.018
) than boys (21
percentage points,
p
<

0.001
), but significant for both.

W
armth and support
are
significantly
associated with boys’ volunteering (.21,
p
<

0.001
).

The
volunteer
ing
-
age association is due to
the
significant
pa
ttern among girls.

Discussio
n


The main results are that both parental role
-
modeling and
conversations about giving


are associated with adolescents’ giving and volunteering. An adolescent whose parent role
-
models giving and talks about giving has a probability of giving that is 36% higher than an
adolescent whose parent does neither. An adolescent whose parent role
-
mod
els volunteering and
talks about giving has a probability of volunteering that is 54% higher than an adolescent whose
parent does neither. Additional evidence of modeling is the
“cross
-
over” parental role
-
model of
giving association with adolescent volunte
ering:
an adolescent whose parent models giving has a
41% higher probability of volunteering, and this is in addition to the associations due to the
parent’s model of volunteering and talking about giving.

Our findings are significant because they are the

first validation
using nationally
-
representative data describing charitable giving by U.S. adolescents in their natural settings

of
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

18

earlier laboratory evidence from smaller, more homogeneous samples regarding the impact of
modeling and conversations about

giving. Similarly, the associations we obtain for adolescents’
volunteering validate earlier experimental evidence about prosocial behavior that involves
physical action, such as helping a confederate pick up dropped objects. Together the
giving and
volun
teering results extend earlier work that showed parents as strong influences on the prosocial
behavior exhibited by
exemplars (e.g., Hart & Fe
gley 1995; Oliner & Oliner 1988): the new
evidence suggests that parents strongly influence the kinds of prosocial

behavior exhibited by a
wider fraction of the population.


Our results have further significance because they imply that role
-
modeling has a strong
association with giving, even if
conversation
s

about giving is included in the analysis (and vice
versa). T
hat is, parental role
-
modeling and
conversations about giving

have separate associations
with giving. Likewise, role
-
modeling and
conversations about giving

have separate associations
with volunteering. The present evidence deepens
our understanding of the

previous regression
evidence of the association between a parental role
-
model of volunteering and adolescent
volunteering
(
McLellan & Youniss 2003
;
U.S. Department of Education 1997
)

to say that the
association holds, albeit smaller in magnitude, even
inc
luding
role
-
model
ing

of
, and talking
about,

giving as
separate

effects.


The
se

associations

of adolescent giving and volunteering with the specific socialization
techniques are much stronger than associations with the broad parenting dimensions of warmth
a
nd support, behavioral control, and psychological control. These results are in line with Carlo,
McGinley et al.’s (2007) similar findings regarding the PTM and more direct socialization as
compared to broader dimensions of parenting. Of course this does n
ot imply that parenting
dimensions are unimportant to the development of prosocial behavior in earlier childhood; just
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

19

that in adolescence more direct socialization forces have a greater impact than broad parenting
dimensions
.
And in one analysis


that of

adolescent boys’ volunteering


we found warmth and
support significantly related to volunteering. The implication is that the importance of warmth
and support in the development of volunteering documented by Wuthnow (1995) is especially
important for ado
lescent boys. Moreover, parenting dimensions may emerge as more important
influences on prosocial behavior when adolescents transition into adulthood. It may be that
parenting dimensions such as warmth and support affect the internalization of prosocial
be
haviors, and that relationship is better revealed by the giving and volunteering chosen after the
adolescent establishes her/his independent household. Future work with data that include
assessments in emerging adulthood may be able to test this hypothesis
.


The models estimated separately by sex provide additional evidence about differences in
the associations for girls and boys: role
-
model associations for girls are stronger than for boys,
and
conversations about giving

are more highly associated for boys
. The stronger role
-
model
associations for girls is consistent with
Stukas et al. (1999)’s evidence that parent modeling has a
stronger effect on girls’ altruistic self
-
image than on boys’.
It may be that the higher
-
level moral
reasoning sometime
s exhibite
d by girls (Eisenberg

et al., 2006, p. 698) implies that girls are
more responsive to modeling, whereas boys have to be more explicitly, and verbally, encouraged
to give and volunteer. In any event, these results call for the theoretical development of
pre
dictions about sex differences in the effectiveness of modeling and
conversations about
prosocial behavior

that can be tested in future research. Such predictions may need to be
situation dependent because effectiveness seems to depend on the type of role
-
modeling (Table 3
shows that the
“cross
-
over” parental role
-
model of giving has a somewhat stronger associ
ation
with volunteering for boys than for girls). They may also depend on
the type of prosocial
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

20

behavior: Ribar & Wilhelm (2006) find that role
-
modeling prosocial behavior that helps those
inside the family (co
-
residence with elderly parents and financial
help of elderly parents) has
stronger effects on adult sons’ attitudes about the respective prosocial behavior than on adult
daughter’s attitudes.


There are a few limitations of our study that should be kept in mind while interpreting the
results. The mos
t important is that the magnitudes of the associations we estimate using cross
-
sectional data are rather weak evidence of any sort of causality. While the previous experimental
evidence leads us to think that some portion of the associations we estimate re
present causal
effects, longitudinal data
controlling for prior socialization and parenting would be stronger tests
of real
-
world influences
.

A second limitati
on has to do with measurement.
Adolescent giving and
v
olunteering are binary variables, and the r
estricted variance can present problems for
estimation. D
espite their limited range the associations with parental role
-
modeling and
conversation
s

are strong enough that we obtain
ed significant results. Nevertheless
, the binary
range does mean that we do n
ot know, for example, if larger amounts given by parents are
associated with larger amounts given by adolescents (see the studies in endnote 1 for results
about amounts, albeit for adult children, not adolescents).

Another measurement limitation is that
we

do not have a measurement that indicates whether the adolescent literally sees the parent’s
role
-
model.

While we think that most adolescents are aware of whether or not their parents give
to char
ity or religious congregations


and
parent volunteering wou
ld seem to be even har
der for
the adolescent to miss


we cannot provide evidence of this.

However, to the extent that any such
measurement errors are false negatives (adolescents do not know it, but their parents give), our
estimates of

the associations a
re too small, implying
the actual associations are even larger than
we have estimated.

Finally, we did not have a direct measure
of
whether the parent talks to the
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

21

adolescent about volunteering. Had we had a direct
conversation

measure in the volunteering
model, rather than the
conversation

about giving we used as a proxy, the estimated association
may have been stronger.

Keeping these

limitations in mind, the present study finds nationally
-
representative
evidence that parental role
-
modeling and
conversatio
n
s

about prosocial behavior

have relatively
strong associations with adolescents’ giving and volunteering. These population
-
based results, in
combination with the previous experimental results establishing causal effects of non
-
parental
modeling and
verbal

communication, have a significant practical implication:
practitioners and
policy
-
makers, whose efforts traditionally have been to encourage present
-
day adults to give and
volunteer, should begin those efforts earlier by guiding parents in their role
-
mode
ling and talking
about giving and volunteering, in order to nurture potentially lifelong prosocial behavior among
their adolescents.
A second practical recommendation derived from the results is that
conversation
s

about giving and volunteering

should

be ma
intained during adolescence,
especially for boys. Given that the percentage of parents that talk to their children about giving
declines through adolescence


from 72 percent among parents of 10
-
12 year
-
olds to 60 percent
among of 16
-
18 year olds in our da
ta


our findings strongly imply that shifting this pattern may
lead to significant increases in prosocial behavior among older adolescents.


SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

22

References

Alwin, D. F. (1997). Detroit Area Study, 1997: Social Change in Religion and Child Rearing.
ICPSR04120
-
v1. Ann Arbor, MI.


Bandura, A. 1976.
Social Learning Theory
. Englewood
-
Cliffs, NJ. Prentice
-
Hall.


Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct.
Child
Development, 67
(6)
, 3296
-
3319.

doi:
10.2307/1131780



Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and
autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers.
Journal of Adolescent
Research
, 12(2), 287
-
315. doi:10.1177/0743554897122008


Barry, C.,
Padilla
-
Walker, L. M., Madsen, S. D., & Nelson, L. J. (2008). The impact of maternal
relationship quality on emerging adults' prosocial tendencies: Indirect effects via
regulation of prosocial values.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
, 37(5), 581
-
591.
doi:1
0.1007/s10964
-
007
-
9238
-
7


Baumrind, D.
(
1991
).
Parenting styles and adolescent development
.

In J.
Brooks
-
Gunn
,

R.M.
Lerner, A.C. Peterson

(Eds.),

Encyclopedia
of Adolescence
: Vol. 2
. Interpersonal and
Sociocultural Factors

(pp. 746
-
758). New York, NY US: G
arland Publishing, Inc.


Bekkers, R
. (2007). Intergenerational transmission of volunteering.
Acta Sociologica
, 50(2), 99
-
114
.

doi:
10.1177/0001699307077653


Bekkers
, R. (2011). Charity begins at home: How socialization experiences influence giving and
volunteering. Unpublished manuscript. Amsterdam: VU Amsterdam.


Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2007). A latent growth curve analysis
of p
rosocial behavior among rural adolescents.
Journal of Research on Adolescence
,
17(2), 301
-
324. doi:10.1111/j.1532
-
7795.2007.00524.x


Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Parenting styles or
practices? Parenting, sympa
thy, and prosocial behaviors among adolescents.
The Journal
of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development
, 168(2), 147
-
176.
doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147
-
176


Chase
-
Lansdale, P.L., Wakschlag, L.S., & Brooks
-
Gunn, J. (1995). A psychological p
erspective
on the development of caring in children and youth: The role of the family.
Journal of
Adolescence
, 18(5), 515
-
556. doi: 10.1006/jado.1995.1037


C
rockett, L.J., & Hayes, R
. (
201
1).
Parenting practices and styles
.

In
B. Brown, M.

Prinstein
(Eds.)
,

Encyclopedia
of Adolescence
: Vol. 2
. Interpersonal and Sociocultural Factors

(pp. 241
-
248). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press
.
doi:

10.1016/B978
-
0
-
12
-
373915
-
5.00077
-
2


SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

23

Dlugokinski, E. L., & Firestone, I. J. (1974).

Other centeredness and susceptibility to charitable
appeals: Effects of perceived discipline.
Developmental Psychology
, 10(1), 21
-
28.
doi:10.1037/h0035560


Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg
, W. Damon, N.
Eisenberg (Eds.)
,
Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and
personality development

(pp. 701
-
778). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Retrieved from EBSCO
host
.


Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial
Development. In N. Eis
enberg,
W. Damon, R. M. Lerner
(Eds.)
,
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social,
emotional, and personality development (6th ed.)

(pp. 646
-
718). Hoboken, NJ US: John
Wiley & Sons Inc. Retrieved from EBSCO
host
.


Eisenberg, N., Morr
is, A., McDaniel, B., & Spinrad, T. L. (2009). Moral cognitions and
prosocial responding in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg, R.

M. Lerner, L.
Steinberg (Eds.)
,
Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol 1: Individual bases of
adolescent development
(3rd ed.)

(pp. 229
-
265). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons
Inc. Retrieved from EBSCO
host
.


Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989).
The roots of prosocial behavior in children
. New York,
NY US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571121


Eisenb
erg
-
Berg, N., & Geisheker, E. (1979). Content of preachings and power of the
model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity.
Developmental Psychology
, 15(2),
168
-
175. doi:10.1037/0012
-
1649.15.2.168


Gouskova, E. & Robert F. Schoeni, R. F. (2007). Comp
aring estimates of family income in the
Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey, 1968
-
2005.
Technical Series Paper #07
-
01. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Institute for Social
Research.

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2007
-
01_Comparing_Estimates_PSID.pdf


Grusec, J.E., Sass
-
Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978
b). The role of example and moral
encouragement in the training of altruism.
Child Development,
49(3), 920
-
923. doi:
10.2307/1128273



Gunnoe, M. L., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Parental religiosity, parenting style, and
adolescent social resp
onsibility.
Journal of Early Adolescence

19(2), 199
-
225. doi:

10.1177/0272431699019002004


Hardy, S. A., Bhattacharjee, A., Reed, A., & Aquino, K. (2010). Moral identity and
psychological distance: The case of adolescent parental socialization.
Journal of
Adolescence
, 33(1), 111
-
123. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.008


SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

24

Hardy, S. A., Padilla
-
Walkera, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2008). Parenting dimensions and adolescents'
internalisation of moral values.
Journal of Moral Education
, 37(2), 205
-
223.
doi:10.1080/030
57240802009512


Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a
predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal 44:
197
-

219.
doi:10.3102/0002831206298173


Hart, D., & Fegley
, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to self
-
understanding and social judgment.
Child Development
, 66(5),

1346
-
1349.

doi:
10.2307/1131651



Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995).

Pathways to voluntarism: Family socialization and status
transmission models.
Social Forces
, 74(1), 271
-
292. doi:10.2307/2580632


Janoski, T.,
Musick, M.,
& Wilson, J. (199
8
).
Being volunteered? The impact of social
participation and pro
-
social attitudes
on volunteering
.
Socio
l
ogical

For
um
, 13(3
),
495
-
519
.
Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/684699


Kim, J, LaTaillade, J., & Kim, H. 2011. Family processes and adolescents’ financial behaviors.
Journa
l of
Family Economic Issues
, published on
-
line.

doi:
10.1007/s10834
-
011
-
9270
-
3


Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's
empathy and prosocial behavior.
Child Development
, 67(6), 3263
-
3277.
doi:
10.2307/1131778


Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and
control to adolescent social competence, self
-
worth, and sympathy.
Journal of Adolescent
Research
, 19(6), 759
-
782. doi:10.1177/0743558403260
094


Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991
).
Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families
.
Child Development
, 62(5
),
1
049
-
1065
. doi:

10.1111/j
.1467
-
8624.1991.tb01588.x


Lipscomb, T. J., Bregman, N. J., & McAllister, H. A. (1983). The effect of words and actions on
American children's prosocial behavior.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied
, 114(2), 193
-
198. Retrieved from EBSCO
ho
st
.


McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003)
.

Two systems of youth service: Determinants of voluntary
and required youth community service.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
32(1)
, 47
-
58.
doi:
10.1023/A:1021032407300


Musick, M
.

A. &
Wilson, J
.

(
2008
)
.
Volunteers: A social profile
. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.


SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

25

Mustillo, S., Wilson, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2004). Legacy volunteering
: A test of two theories of
intergenerational transmission.
Journal of Marriage and Family
, 66(2), 530
-
541.
doi:10.1111/j.1741
-
3737.2004.00036.x


Oliner, S.P. & Oliner, P.M. (1988).
The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe
.
New York: The Free Press.



Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases.
Behavioral
and Brain Sciences
, 25(1), 1
-
20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018


Ribar, D.C. and Wilhelm, M.O. (2006).
Exchange, role modeling and the intergenerational
transmission of elder support attitudes: Evidence from three generations of Mexican
-
Americans
.
Journal of Socio
-
Economics

35 (3), 514
-
531
.

doi:
10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.014


S
chaefer, E. S. (1965).

Children's reports of parental
behavior: An inventory.
Child Development

6
(2)
, 417
-
424.


Soenens, B., Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goossens, L.
(2007). The
intergenerational
transmission of empathy
-
r
elated
responding in a
dolescence: The Role of Maternal
Support.
Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin
, 33(3), 299
-
311.
doi:10.1177/0146167206296300


Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1
989
).
Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents
.
Child Development
, 60
(6
),
1
424
-
1436
. doi:

10.1111/1467
-
8624.ep9772457


Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling N. (1992
).
Impact of parenting
on
adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed
.
Child Development
, 63(5
),
1266
-
1281
. doi:

10.1111/j.1467
-
8624.1992.tb01694.x


Stukas, A. R., Switzer, G. E., Dew, M., Goycoolea, J. M., & Simmons, R. G. (
1999). Parental
helping models, gender, and service
-
learning.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the
Community
, 18(1
-
2), 5
-
18. doi:10.1300/J005v18n01_02


U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Student Participation in
Community Service Activity
, NCES 97
-
331, by Mary Jo Nolin, Bradford Chaney, and
Chris Chapman. Project Officer, Kathryn Chandler, Washington, DC: 1997.

Retrieved
from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97331.pdf


Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give? In R. Steinberg & W. W. Powell (Eds.),
The
nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2
nd

edition)

(pp. 568
-
590). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.


SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

26

Wilhelm, M. O.
(
2006a
).
New data on charitable giving in the
PSID
.

Economics Letters

92(1):
26
-
31.

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.009


Wilhelm, M. O.
(
2006b
)
.

The 2001
Center on Philanthropy Panel Study
User’s Guide.

Indianapolis, IN:
IUPUI.

https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/mowilhel/Web_page/data.htm


Wilhelm, M. O., Brown, E., Rooney, P.M., & Steinberg, R.
(2008).
The intergenerational
transmission of generosity.

Journal of Public Economics

92 (10
-
11): 2146
-
2156.

doi:
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.004


Wuthnow, Robert. 1995.
Learning to care: Elementary kindness in an age of indifference
.
New

York: Oxford University Press.


Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of community service in
identity development: Normative,
u
nconventional, and deviant orientations.
Journal of
Adolescent Research

14(2): 248
-
261.

doi:

10
.1177/0743558499142006


Endnote

1
Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, and Steinberg (2008) provide evidence of an
association between the
dollar amounts contemporaneously given to
charitable
organizations by
adult
-
aged children and
the
ir

parents
.

There also is evidence of an association between the vo
lunteering of adult
-
aged
children and their parents
:
Bekker
s
(
2007
) analyzes a binary volunteering variable
;
Janoski and
Wilson (1995) analyze the ordinal intensity of volunteering; Mustillo, Wilson, and Lynch (2004)
analyze the amount of hours volunteered
.

Bekkers (2011) finds evidence that adult’s
volunteering and giving are associated with their parents’ past volunteering, retrospectively

reported by the adults.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING


27



Table 1

Descript
ive statistics and correlations


M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


1. Adolescent giving

.72

.45














㈮⁁摯汥獣e湴⁶潬畮瑥u物湧

⸴K

⸴K

⸲㈪K













㌮⁒潬o
J
浯摥氠m楶ing

⸶K

⸴K

⸱㠪K

⸲㌪K












㐮4
C潮癥牳r瑩潮

a扯畴b

†††
g
楶ing

⸶K

⸴K

⸱㠪K

⸱㌪K

⸱㈪K











㔮⁒潬o
J
浯摥氠癯汵湴eer楮i

⸳K

⸴K

⸱㌪K

⸲㌪K

⸴〪K

⸱㘪K










㘮S
ta牭瑨⁡湤⁳異灯牴

ㄮ㐴

⸵K

⸰㜪

⸱〪K

⸱〪K

⸱ㄪK

⸱㌪K









㜮⁐syc桯汯g楣i氠捯湴牯r

⸴K

⸴K


⸰㜪


⸰㘪


⸰㘪


⸰K


⸱〪K


⸴㐪K








㠮⁂e桡癩v牡氠捯湴l潬

ㄮ㜶

ㄮㄲ

⸰㠪K


⸰K


⸰㠪K

⸲㐪K

⸰K

⸰㠪K


⸰K







㤮⁁来

ㄵ⸳

ㄮ㤳

⸰K

⸰㠪K


⸰K


⸰㘪


⸰K


⸰㘪

⸱ㄪK


⸴㤪K





㄰⸠1e浡汥

⸵K

⸵K

⸰㠪K

⸱㈪K

⸰K

⸰㜪K

⸰K

⸰K

⸰K


⸰㜪

⸰㜪




ㄱ⸠䅦物ran
J
䅭A物can

⸲K

⸴K

⸰㘪


⸱〪K


⸱㠪K

⸰K


⸱㠪K


⸰㠪K

⸰㠪K

⸲〪K


⸰K


⸰㜪



ㄲ⸠iog⁦a浩ly⁩湣潭e

㄰⸷1

⸷K

⸰㤪K

⸱㤪K

⸴㠪K

⸰㜪K

⸳㔪K

⸱㜪K


⸰㠪K


⸱㐪K

⸰K

⸰K


⸳㤪K


乯瑥猺

周q⁥獴s浡瑥猠
畳u 獡浰me⁷ ig桴献


p

< .05,

**
p

< .01
.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING


28



Table 2

Logit models of the p
robability
that t
he adolescent gives, volunteers


Adolescent giving

Adolescent volunteering

Role
-
model giving

.1
5
***

(.05)

.17
***

(.04)

Conversation

about
giving

.1
1
**

(.04)

.09
*

(.04)

Role
-
model volunteering

.04

(.04)

.13
**

(.04)

Warmth and support

.01

(.04)

.05

(.04)

Psychological control

-
.05

(.04)

-
.02

(.05)

Behavioral control

.03

(.02)

.01

(.02)

Age

.02

(.01)

.03
**

(.01)

Female

.08
*

(.03)

.10
**

(.04)

African
-
American

.10
**

(.03)

-
.
04

(.05)

Log family income

.01

(.03)

.03

(.03)

Log
-
likelihood

-
12,322

-
13,793

N

1,244

1,244

Notes:

The estimates are
marginal effects

from logit models, estimated using the sample weights.

Each model contains a dummy variable indicating when the adolescent did not live with a
mother/step
-
mother and a dummy variable indicating that the adolescent’s race is missing.

Standa
rd errors are in parentheses.

*
p

< .05,

**
p

< .01,

***
p

< .001
.



SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING

29

Table 3

Logit models of the probability that
the adolescent gives, volunteers

by sex



A
dolescent givin
g


Adolescent volunteering


Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Role
-
model giving

.20
**

(.07
)

.12

(.06)

.1
5
*

(.07
)

.21***

(.0
6
)

Conversation

about giving

.08

(.0
5
)

.16**

(.0
5
)

.05

(.0
6
)

.14**

(.0
5
)

Role
-
model volunteering

.04

(.0
5
)

.05

(.0
6
)

.17
**

(.0
6
)

.09

(.0
6
)

Warmth and support

-
.03

(.0
5
)

.04

(.0
6
)

-
.08

(.0
6
)

.21***

(.0
6
)

Psychological
control

-
.0
2

(.0
6
)

-
.09

(.0
6
)

-
.07

(.0
7
)


.04

(.0
7
)

Behavioral control

.03

(.0
2
)

.04

(.0
3
)

.01

(.0
3
)


.01

(.0
3
)

Age

.03*

(.01)

.01

(.0
2
)

.04*

(.0
2
)


.02

(.0
2
)

African
-
American

.15
*
*
*

(.0
4
)

.04

(.0
6
)

-
.02

(.0
7
)

-
.05

(.0
6
)

Log family income

.03

(.0
4
)

-
.02

(.0
4
)

.03

(.0
4
)


.04

(
.0
4
)






Log
-
likelihood

-
5
,
699

-
6,442

-
7,234

-
6,251

N

634

610

63
4

610

Notes:

See notes to Table 2.