Findings on gender differences in generosity are mixed (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007) and contradictory evidence exists as to the magnitude and direction of these gender differences (Cox & Deck, 2006). Much of the empirical research that examines the relationship between gender and giving reveals that females are more generous and donate more to charity than males (e.g., Andreoni, Brown & Rischall, 2003; Bekkers, 2004; Carman, 2006; Croson & Buchan, 1999; Eckel & Grossman, 1998; 2001; 2003; Eckel, Grossman & Johnston, 2005; Kamas, Preston, & Baum, 2008; Mesch et al., 2006). However, other research has found no evidence of gender differences in giving (e.g., Bolton & Katok, 1995; Frey & Meir, 2004)—while some research found males to be more generous (e.g., Brown-Kruse & Hummels, 1993; Chang, 2005; Frey & Meir, 2004; Jackson & Latané 1981; Meier, 2007; Sokolowski 1996). More specifically, several studies find that while females are more likely to give, males give higher amounts (Andreoni, Brown & Rischall, 2003; Bekkers 2004; Belfield & Beney 2000; Einolf, 2006; Lyons & Nivison-Smith, 2006; Mesch, et al., 2006; Piper & Schnepf, 2008; Weyant, 1984). Depending on the discipline and methodology used (i.e., lab versus field studies), there is much variation across individual studies as to how demographic and other individual characteristics affect participation in giving--where simple bivariate analysis is not sufficient (Havens, O’Herlihy & Schervish, 2006).

In the economics literature, Andreoni and Vesterlund (2001) seminal study demonstrated that the question of “Who is more generous?” is complicated. Their study differences in the “demand curves for altruism” where men are more responsive to the price of giving (pg. 1). They conclude that men are more generous when it is cheap to give, but women are more generous when it is more expensive to give. Andreoni, Brown, and Rischall (2003) found support for these findings when testing giving behavior outside of the laboratory to actual charitable giving. Cox and Deck (2006), however, found that women’s generosity is more income elastic, in which women base their decision of whether to be generous on the costs associated with the decision. That is, women, unlike men, are more likely to be generous when the stakes are lower and are more responsive to variations in the cost of giving than men.

Using a laboratory experiment, Andreoni and Petrie (2008) found that subjects tend to reward (i.e., are more generous toward) beauty and females—but only when performance is unknown. When performance is known, the gender premium is reversed--the payoff is significantly higher for men than women. Landry et al., (2006) also found an attractiveness effect using a door-to-door fundraising field experiment. In general, they found that an increase in the personal attractiveness rating of one unit generates over 6% increase in the probability that a household will contribute. However, this effect is entirely driven by white females, and primarily driven by households where the male was solicited for the contribution. This effect was consistent across all experimental treatments—“more personally attractive female solicitors induce a higher proportion of households to contribute.” When examining gender effects only—their findings showed that males tended to give significantly more to women solicitors than to their male counterparts—but this differences was largely due to more physically attractive women having greater success among male households. Ben-Ner, Kong and Putterman (2004) found that, in dictator game experiments, gender information significantly affects giving only in the case of women, who give systematically less to women than to men. However, Kamas, Preston, and Baum (2008) found that, under anonymous conditions, women give significantly more than men, women are more likely than men to give all the money away and less likely to keep all of the money—and that pairs consisting of one man and one woman give more than same-sex pairs, where all male pairs give the least. That is, “men acting with men behave more selfishly than women--however, when paired with women, men are willing to give more” (p. 34).

Other empirical research from economics has found sex differences in giving (1) by types and patterns of household expenditure (Phipps & Burton, 1998), (2) by age, where men’s rates of giving and gift size show larger increases over time than women’s, but women opt to participate in giving more than men (List, 2004) (3) as a result of cognitive ability and personality (Ben-Ner, Kong & Putterman, 2004), (4) as a result of social distance (Cox & Deck, 2006; Dufwenberg & Muren, 2006), (5) as a result of reciprocity and risk (Croson & Buchan, 1999), (6) by gender pairings or same-sex groups (Carman, 2006; Eckel & Grossman, 2001; Kamas Preston, & Baum, 2008), (7) according to money style differences between men and women (Prince, 1993), and (8) due to the proportion of females in the household (Pharoah & Tanner 1997).

The sociology, social psychology, and psychology literature also suggests sex differences in motives and altruistic behavior. In general, this literature reveals that gender is a critical variable found to affect giving, empathy, and altruistic behavior. Two early reviews of sex differences in empathy found that empathy is more prevalent in females than males; females are more prone to experience guilt and have more highly developed affect for prosocial behavior (Hoffman, 1977)—although, Eisenberg and Lennon’s (1983) review concluded these differences were a function of the methods used to assess empathy. Piliavin and Charng’s (1990) literature review concludes that females tend to be more charitable than males. A meta-analytic review of gender and helping behavior indicated that, in general, men help more than women but women received more help than men—although findings across individual studies were extremely inconsistent (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). In fact, empirical research from this field has been contradictory and highly dependent on methodological factors and the variables used in the study. For example, Jha, Yadav, and Kuman (1997) found significant differences between male and female subjects in respect to their altruistic behavior but these findings were dependent on religio-cultural commitment. Similarly, Regnerus, Smith and Sikkink (1998) found that inclusion of religiosity in their regression models of giving money to help the poor has a greater impact on gender than do all religious identities. Erdle et al., (1992) found sex differences in personality correlates of different helping behaviors and Einolf (2006) found that life course transitions affect altruistic behaviors between men and women. Using an experimental design, Winterich, Mittal and Ross (2009) manipulated donations to in-groups versus out-groups and found that the impact of moral identity and donation group depends on gender identity. That is, although moral identity increases donations to groups perceived as the out-group, this effect holds only for females or those with high feminine gender identity.

Finally, the philanthropic and nonprofit studies literature—which is interdisciplinary by nature—also has found significant sex differences in giving (e.g., Mesch et al., 2006; Kottasz, 2004; Piper & Schnepf, 2008; Rooney, Brown & Mesch, 2007; Rooney, et al., 2005; Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005). Mesch et al., (2006) and Rooney et al., (2005) used both a representative national sample and Indiana sample (two different studies) and found that single females, married men, and married women are significantly more likely to be donors than single men. Piper and Schnepf’s (2008) study examining men’s and women’s giving patterns in Great Britain provides support for Mesch and Rooney’s findings. Women were more likely to give to charity, and this finding holds for singles as well as married couples, with controls for background characteristics. More specifically, Piper and Schnepf (2008) find that single women are not only more likely to give to charitable causes, but that they are predominantly more generous in terms of the amounts given.

<< Previous | Next >>