Giving to Matthew,Emily,Jose,or Maria: A Field Study Examining the Impact of Race and Gender on Donation Requests

Abstract

Across the world, many individuals, organizations, and communities rely on the charitable contributions of others to meet critical needs. However, receiving aid can be challenging if donors discriminate against solicitors based on their demographic characteristics. We examined the potential impact of two of such characteristics, namely, the solicitor’s race and gender, by soliciting contributions from 162 dentist offices through phone calls, manipulating race (Latino/White) and gender (male/female) of the caller. We analyzed differences between race and gender on the likelihood of receiving donations and interpersonal interactions rated by blind coders. Logistic regression results revealed Latinos were significantly less likely to receive donations than Whites, and women were marginally more likely to receive donations than men. Multivariate analysis of variance results indicated, however, that Latinos received significantly better interpersonal treatment than Whites. Results show support for Patronization Theory extended to the solicitation context. Implications of these findings and future directions for research are discussed.

Keywords

donations patronization subtle discrimination race gender

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Andorfer

V. A.

Otte

(2013). Do contexts matter for willingness to donate to natural disaster relief? An application of the factorial survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 657–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012440180

Andreoni

Bernheim

B. D.

(2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607–1636. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7384

Andreoni

Payne

A. A.

(2013). Charitable giving. In Handbook of public economics (Vol. 5, pp. 1–50). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53759-1.00001-7

Barman

(2017). The social bases of philanthropy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053524

Bear

J. B.

Cushenbery

London

Sherman

G. D.

(2017). Performance feedback, power retention, and the gender gap in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.003

Bekkers

(2010). George gives to geology Jane: The name letter effect and incidental similarity cues in fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(2), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.381

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712

Bertrand

Mullainathan

(2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561

10.

Biernat

Vescio

T. K.

(2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202281006

11.

Breeze

(2017). IJNVSM special edition: Understanding fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1608. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1608

12.

Breeze

Dale

(2020, March 3). Missing out: Understanding the female leadership gap in fundraising. Institute of Fundraising. https://apo.org.au/node/302885

13.

Chapman

C. M.

(2019). Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: How donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions [Doctoral thesis, The University of Queensland]. https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2019.357

14.

Charness

Gneezy

(2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.03.001

15.

Croft

Schmader

(2012). The feedback withholding bias: Minority students do not receive critical feedback from evaluators concerned about appearing racist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1139–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.010

16.

Dale

E. J.

(2017). Fundraising as women’s work? Examining the profession with a gender lens. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1605. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1605

17.

Dardenne

Dumont

Bollier

(2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

18.

Destro

Holguín-Veras

(2011). Material convergence and its determinants: Case of Hurricane Katrina. Transportation Research Record, 2234(1), 14–21.

19.

Fong

C. M.

Luttmer

E. F. P.

(2011). Do fairness and race matter in generosity? Evidence from a nationally representative charity experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.010

20.

Fowler

J. H.

Kam

C. D.

(2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00577.x

21.

Gaddis

S. M.

(2015). Discrimination in the credential society: An audit study of race and college selectivity in the labor market. Social Forces, 93(4), 1451–1479. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou111

22.

Gaddis

S. M.

(2017). Racial/ethnic perceptions from Hispanic names: Selecting names to test for discrimination. Socius. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117737193

23.

Gervais

Vescio

(2012). The effect of patronizing behavior and control on men and women’s performance in stereotypically masculine domains. Sex Roles, 66(7–8), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0115-1

24.

Glick

Fiske

S.T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x

25.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

26.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.

27.

Greenberg

Mollick

(2015). Leaning in or leaning on? Gender, homophily, and activism in crowdfunding. Academy of Management Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.18365abstract

28.

Greenberg

Mollick

(2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216678847

29.

Hansen

R. K.

(2020). Stories of strangers: Writing donor acquisition letters in the human services. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21414

30.

Harber

K. D.

(1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 622–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.622

31.

Hebl

M. R.

Foster

J. B.

Mannix

L. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815–825.

32.

Herrero

Kraemer

(2020). Fundraising as organisational knowing in practice: Evidence from the arts and higher education in the UK. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 25(4), e1673. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.167

33.

Hodgetts

Stolte

Groot

(2014). Towards a relationally and action-orientated social psychology of homelessness. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(4), 156–164.

34.

Holder

Jackson

M. A.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2015). Racial microaggression experiences and coping strategies of Black women in corporate leadership. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 164–180.

35.

Kamas

Preston

(2020). Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 2021, 101654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654

36.

King

E. B.

Shapiro

J. R.

Hebl

M. R.

Singletary

S. L.

Turner

(2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.579

37.

Lindsey

King

Cheung

Hebl

Lynch

Mancini

(2015). When do women respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety, form, and focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(12), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12326

38.

Lindskold

Forte

R. A.

Haake

C. S.

Schmidt

E. K.

(1977). The effects of directness of face-to-face requests and sex of solicitor on streetcorner donations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101(1), 45–51.

39.

McCord

M. A.

Joseph

D. L.

Dhanani

L. Y.

Beus

J. M.

(2018). A meta-analysis of sex and race differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000250

40.

Meer

(2011). Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 926–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.026

41.

Pager

(2007). The use of field experiments for studies of employment discrimination: Contributions, critiques, and directions for the future. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 609(1), 104–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206294796

42.

Raihani

N. J.

Smith

(2015). Competitive helping in online giving. Current Biology, 25(9), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.042

43.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

44.

Rooney

P. M.

Mesch

D. J.

Chin

Steinberg

K. S

. (2005). The effects of race, gender, and survey methodologies on giving in the U.S. Economics Letters, 86(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2004.06.015

45.

Shang

Sargeant

Carpenter

(2019). Giving intention versus giving behavior: How differently do satisfaction, trust, and commitment relate to them? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 1023–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019843340

46.

Stannard-Stockton

(2011, March 29). The three core approaches to effective philanthropy (SSIR). Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_three_core_approaches_to_effective_philanthropy

47.

Stroessner

S. J.

(1996). Social categorization by race or sex: Effects of perceived non-normalcy on response times. Social Cognition, 14(3), 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1996.14.3.247

48.

Todd

A. R.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2012). Perspective taking combats the denial of intergroup discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 738–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.011

49.

Tognetti

Dubois

Faurie

Willinger

(2016). Men increase contributions to a public good when under sexual competition. Scientific Reports, 6, 29819. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29819

50.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Population estimates. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/houstoncitytexas

51.

van Knippenberg

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Homan

A. C.

(2004). Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

52.

van Rijn

Quiñones

E. J.

Barham

B. L

. (2019). Empathic concern for children and the gender-donations gap. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 82, 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101462

53.

Vescio

T. K.

Gervais

S. J.

Snyder

Hoover

(2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.658

54.

Wiepking

Bekkers

(2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X649379

55.

Yörük

B. K.

(2009). How responsive are charitable donors to requests to give? Journal of Public Economics, 93(9), 1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.001

56.

Yörük

B. K.

(2012). Do fundraisers select charitable donors based on gender and race? Evidence from survey data. Journal of Population Economics, 25(1), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-011-0385-5

57.

Younkin

Kuppuswamy

(2017). The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowdfunding. Management Science, 64(7), 3269–3287. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2774

58.

Zarate

M. A.

Smith

E. R.

(1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 8(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1990.8.2.161

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.03 MB

0.05 MB

0.02 MB