Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in the Donor Behavior Characteristics of Young Affluent Males and Females: Empirical Evidence from Britain

  • Published:
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to obtain a deeper understanding of the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent individuals; and to ascertain whether young affluent women differed significantly from young affluent males in their approaches to philanthropy. Two hundred and seventeen investment bankers, accountants, and corporate lawyers, aged under 40 years, earning more than £50,000 annually and working in the City of London were questioned about their attitudes and behavior in relation to charitable giving. Significant differences emerged between the donor behavior characteristics of males and females. A conjoint analysis revealed that whereas men were more interested in donating to the arts sector in return for “social” rewards (invitations to gala events and black-tie dinners, for example), women had strong predilections to give to “people” charities and sought personal recognition from the charity to which they donated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association of Fundraising Council. (1994). Giving USA, American Association of Fundraising Council, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bashford, S. (2002, May 9). RNLI to review brand in hunt for young donors. Marketing (London), p. 12.

  • Batson, D. C. (1991). The Altruism Question, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., and Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behaviour: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing 60, 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8(1), 12–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., and Gabriel, H. (2000). Image building for charitable organisations. Social Marketing Quarterly 6(3), 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R., and Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organisations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review 6(3), 276–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braus, P. (1994). Will baby boomers give generously? American Demographics 16(7), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunel, F. F., and Nelson, M. R. (2000). Explaining gendered responses to “help-self” and “help-others” charity advertising appeals: The mediating role of world-views. Journal of Advertising 29(3), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charity Commission (2003). Visit: www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/factfigures.asp

  • Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(6), 1015–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P. W., Martin, C. A., and Bush, A. J. (2001). The effect of role model influence on adolescents' materialism and marketplace knowledge. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9(4), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clary, E. G., and Snyder, M. (1991). A Functional Analysis of Altruism and Pro-Social Behaviour: The Case of Volunteerism in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T. (2001). Who are the alumni donors? Giving by two generations of alumni from selective colleges. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 12(2), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, D. (1978). Altruism and Economy, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, E. (2002, June 12). Number earning £100,000 rises 50%. Financial Times (London), p. 1.

  • Datamonitor (2002, June 25). Rich suffer as shares plunge. Metro (London), p. 7.

  • Davis, M. H. (1994). Helping and empathy: Taking the multi-dimensional view. In: C. Whan Park and D. C. Smith (eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications, American Marketing Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demetriou, D. (2002, June 17). Suburb has wealthiest households in country. Evening Standard (London), p. 25.

  • Falco, N., Fopma, W., Maxwell, S., Stoller, M., and Turrell, N. (1998). Is philanthropy a learned behaviour? Fundraising Management 29(7), 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flack, J. (2001, June 28). Give generously. Marketing Week (London), June 28, pp. 61–63.

  • Goodden, H. (1994). An enormous inter-generational transfer of wealth is imminent: How can charities benefit? Front and Centre, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy 1(3), 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorov, L. (1999, November 28). Spreading the wealth: Rich, young entrepreneurs are turning to social activism instead of the typical charities with their time and money. Boston Globe (Boston), p. 1.

  • Grace, K. S. (2000). High Impact Philanthropy, Wiley, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, J. (2000). Women supporting women supporting women: A full circle of empowerment. Fund Raising Management 31(1), 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy, B. S., and Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding why people help. Journal of Consumer Marketing 6(1), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fundraisers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18(1), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbig, P., Koehler, W., and Day, K. (1993). Marketing to the baby bust generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 10(1), 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, N. (2000, November 9). Charities fail to take advantage of new tax rules. Guardian (London).

  • Jones, A., and Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable donations by UK households: Evidence from the family expenditure survey. Applied Economics 23(2), 343–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, S. (1998). The power of positioning: A case history from the children's society. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 3(3), 224–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, M. (2000, July 20). Marie Curie to increase donor list via DRTV ads. Marketing (London), p. 14.

  • Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin 74(4), 258–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, E. C. (1988). Wealth and Culture: A Study of One Hundred Foundations and Community Trusts and Their Operations During the Decade 1921–1930, Society and Philanthropy, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. W. (1994). Virtuous Giving: Philanthropy, Voluntary Services and Caring, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, R. W. (2002). Ending welfare as we know it: A modest proposal. Economic Affairs 22(1), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, S. (1997). Giving donors good reason to give again. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2(2), 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCVO [National Council for Voluntary Organisations] (1999). Research Quarterly, 6, July, NCVO, London.

  • Newman, R. H. (1998). Transforming donors into strategic funders. Fund Raising Management 29(1), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. (1994). Changing Demographics: Fund Raising in the 1990s, Bonus Books, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrower, F. (1997). Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. (1983). Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharoah, C. (1996). Individual Giving: Seesaw Evidence, Static Trends, Dimensions of the Volunteer Sector, Charities Aid Foundation, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharoah, C., and Tanner, S. (1997). Trends in charitable giving. Fiscal Studies 18(4), 427–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, S., and Saxton, J. (1992). How fundraising will change in the 90s. Direct Response 11(9), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin, J. F., Dovidio, B., Gaeitner, S. L., and Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency Intervention, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (2000). The Internet Entrepreneurs, Pearson Education, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radley, A., and Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human Relations 48(6), 685–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D. (1998, February 9). Giving is receiving. Precision Marketing (London), pp. 17–18.

  • Richin, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism and human happiness. In: M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 352–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romney-Alexander, D. (2002). Payroll giving in the UK: Donor incentives and influences on giving behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(1), 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A. (1999a). Donor retention: Just why do donors stop giving. Paper presented at the Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers (ICFM) Conference, July 12–14, Birmingham, UK.

  • Sargeant, A. (1999b). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 15(4), 215–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., Ford, J., and West, D. C. (2000). Widening the appeal of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 5(4), 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schervish, P. G., and Havens, J. J. (2001). Wealth and the commonwealth: New findings on wherewithal and philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegelmilch, B. B., Love, A., and Diamantopoulos, A. (1997). Responses to different charity appeals: The impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations. European Journal of Marketing 31(8), 548–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegelmilch, B., and Tynan, A. (1987). Market segment orientated fundraising strategies: An empirical analysis. MIP 7(11/12), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, M. L., and Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear arousing and empathy arousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Psychology 11(4), 366–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, M. (1980). Affluence, Altruism and Atrophy, New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. C. (1986, September 11). Baby boomers have 60s heritage—but charities say they are cheap. Wall Street Journal (New York), p. 33.

  • Smy, L. (2000, February 17). Private sponsorship—tax breaks ensure that giving is easy. Financial Times, Business and the Arts [Section II] (London), p. 2.

  • Speirn, S. (2002, December 23). In the many faces of philanthropy. Business Week 3813, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, K. (2003). Philanthropic Giving Index, December, The Centre on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, J. (2001). Charities are facing a crisis of their own. Marketing Week, April 26, p. 22.

  • Taylor, M., and Lansley, J. (1992). Ideology and welfare in the UK: The implications for the voluntary sector. Voluntas 3(2), 153–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Too many cooks (2000, November 8). Guardian (London). http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/0,7843,393984,00.html

  • Van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communications, Prentice Hall Europe, Hemel Hempstead, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. (2002). Philanthropy, social capital or strategic alliance? The involvement of senior UK business executives with the voluntary sector and implications for corporate fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(3), 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick-Ching, L. (2002, October 17). Understanding charitable giving—an ethical way to spend and save. Financial Times Supplement, pp. 12–13.

  • Weiser, J. (2002, December 23). In the many faces of philanthropy. Business Week 3813, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, G., and Clark, M. (1989). Providing help and desired relationship type as determinants of changes in self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(3), 722–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, J. (2002). What Charity Can and Cannot Do: Policy in Perspective, Available from the Century Foundation Web site, www.tcf.org

  • Wray, R. (2002). Women struggle to join £100k club. Guardian, June 13, p. 28.

  • Wymer, W. (1997). Segmenting volunteers using values, self-esteem, empathy and facilitation as determinant variables. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 5(2), 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich, D. (1985). The Charitable Behaviour of Americans: Management Survey, Independent Sector, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Service Sector Management, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

    Rita Kottasz

Authors
  1. Rita Kottasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kottasz, R. Differences in the Donor Behavior Characteristics of Young Affluent Males and Females: Empirical Evidence from Britain. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 15, 181–203 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VOLU.0000033180.43496.09

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VOLU.0000033180.43496.09

Search

Navigation