Raising charitable children: the effects of verbal socialization and role-modeling on children’s giving


This paper uses nationally-representative data from the PSID and CDS to estimate the causal effects of two parent socialization actions—talking to children about giving and role-modeling—on children’s decisions whether or not to give to charity. We develop an identification framework based on the intra-household allocation and cultural transmission literatures that shows how different assumptions about parental response to time-varying unobserved changes in children’s prosocial values can be combined with the child fixed effects estimate and the difference between siblings’ over-time-differences estimate to infer a bound on the causal effect of parental action to socialize their children. Under the identifying assumption we think is most reasonable for socializing the willingness to give to charity, that parents treat the socialization actions of others as cultural substitutes, our estimates imply that talking to children about giving raises the probability of children’s giving by at least .13. We find no evidence that parental role-modeling affects children’s giving, except among non-African-American girls. The identification framework and substantive results have implications for those with a general interest in using data from naturalistic settings to estimate causal effects of parental socialization actions, those interested in the external validity of laboratory findings, and those interested in the socialization of warm glow.

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

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    In our model, the unobserved heterogeneity is a child’s willingness to give to charity, and this willingness has both a time-constant and a time-varying component. We will refer to the time-constant component of heterogeneity as the child’s “prosocial endowment” and the time-varying component as the child’s “prosocial values.”

  2. 2.

    For examples of role-modeling experiments see Bryan and Walbek (1970), Dressel and Midlarsky (1978), Grusec et al. (1978), Israel and Raskin (1979), Owens and Ascione (1991), Rice and Grusec (1975), Rushton (1975), White and Burnam (1975); cf. Lipscomb et al. (1983). For experiments that involve verbalizations see Dlugokinski and Firestone (1974), Dressel and Midlarsky (1978), Eisenberg-Berg and Geisheker (1979), Grusec et al. (1978), Israel and Brown (1979), Israel and Raskin (1979), McGrath et al. (1995), Perry et al. (1981), Rice and Grusec (1975), Smith et al. (1983); cf. Bryan and Walbek (1970), Lipscomb et al. (1983). These lists are not exhaustive: see Eisenberg et al. (2006) and the earlier Eisenberg and Fabes (1998) for authoritative reviews.

  3. 3.

    The connection between cultural transmission and intra-household allocation was apparent early on, see Becker and Tomes (1979).

  4. 4.

    In the second example, complementing and substituting parental responses are characterized by π 1>0 and π 1<0, respectively, because the example is based on there being one child in the family. As we are about to see, if there are two children, parental complementing is characterized by π 1 + π 2>0, and substitution is characterized by π 1 + π 2<0.

  5. 5.

    The difference between siblings’ over-time-differences estimator has also been called “difference over time between siblings” (Levine et al. 1997).

  6. 6.

    It can be shown that: @@

  7. 7.

    To be clear, by “relative” we mean relative to other (π 1, π 2) pairs on the same \(\sqrt {S}\)-circle. Pairs (0, π 2) have moderately strong compensation/complementarity (if π 2>0) or moderately strong reinforcement/substitution (if π 2<0) relative to other (π 1, π 2) pairs on the same \(\sqrt {S}\)-circle. By “moderately strong” we mean that (a) the (0, π 2) pairs on the \(\sqrt {S}\)-circle are midway between zero compensation (on the π 2 = π 1 line) and the strongest compensation (on the π 2=−π 1 line) combined with (b) being midway between zero complementarity (on the π 2=−π 1 line) and the strongest complementarity (on the π 2 = π 1 line), or (c) midway between zero reinforcement and the strongest reinforcement combined with (d) zero substitution and the strongest substitution. If S is small then compensation/complementarity (or reinforcement/substitution) are small in terms of the parent’s absolute overall response.

  8. 8.

    Estimation of the parent talking and role-modeling coefficients in Table 6 using the weights produces qualitatively similar results. For example, in column 4, the estimates are 0.103 (0.046) and 0.004 (0.052), respectively. For the sibling models, it is not clear which child’s weight from the two available in each sibling pair should be used. Therefore, to maintain uniformity of presentation across the tables, we present the unweighted results.

  9. 9.

    The argument that the evidence implies γ 1γ 2=0 is somewhat more involved because while γ 1γ 2=0 is a sufficient condition for b J = b JT and for b T = b JDT, it is not a necessary condition. Specifically, it can be shown that the alternative to γ 1γ 2=0 that would also imply b J = b JT is: \(\gamma _{1}-\gamma _{2}=(\pi _{1}-\pi _{2})+{\sigma _{u}^{2}}/\left [(\pi _{1}-\pi _{2 })\sigma _{\theta }^{2}\right ]\). Likewise, \(\gamma _{1}-\gamma _{2}=\left [\left ({\pi _{1}^{2}}+{\pi _{2}^{2}}\right )\sigma _{\theta }^{2}+{\sigma _{u}^{2}}\right ]/\left (\pi _{1}\sigma _{\theta }^{2}\right )\) would also imply b T = b JDT. However, if both of these alternatives were true, then π 1 and π 2 would have to satisfy \(\left [R-\left ({\pi _{1}^{2}}-{\pi _{2}^{2}}\right )\right ]\times \pi _{2}=0\). Then, Eq. 18 would imply b T = b JT, which is not compatible with our estimates.

  10. 10.

    In a specification that follows Table 6 column 2, the probability that the child gives in both years is 12.6 percentage points higher (s.e. = 0.041) if the parent gives in 3 or 4 years out of 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

  11. 11.

    Most experiments have found that empathy-based, other-oriented induction—emphasizing to the child the positive effect giving will have on the emotional well-being of people to be helped—has a positive effect on children’s giving (Dlugokinski and Firestone 1974; Eisenberg-Berg and Geisheker 1979; Grusec et al. 1978).


  1. Adriani F, Sonderegger S (2009) Why do parents socialize their children to behave pro-socially? An information-based theory. J Public Econ 93(11–12):1119–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Altonji JG, Dunn TA (1996a) Using siblings to estimate the effect of school quality on wages. Rev Econ Stat 78(4):665–671

  3. Altonji JG, Dunn TA (1996b) The effect of family characteristics on the return to education. Rev Econ Stat 78(4):692–704

  4. Andreoni J (1988) Privately provided public goods in a large economy: the limits of altruism. J Public Econ 35(1):57–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J Polit Econ 97(6):1447–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bandura A (1976) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  7. Becker GS (1996) Accounting for tastes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  8. Becker GS, Tomes N (1976) Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 84(4, Part 2):S143–S162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Becker GS, Tomes N (1979) An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility. J Polit Econ 87(6):1153–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Behrman J, Rosenzweig RMR, Taubman P (1994) Endowments and the allocation of schooling in the family and in the marriage market: the twins experiment. J Polit Econ 102(6):1131–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bisin A, Verdier T (2001) The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. J Econ Theory 97:298–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bisin A, Verdier T (2011) The economics of cultural transmission and socialization. In: Benhabib J, Bisin A, Jackson MO (eds) Handbook of social economics, vol 1A. North-Holland, Amsterdam

  13. Brown S, Srivastava P, Taylor K (2014) Intergenerational analysis of the donating behaviour of parents and their offspring. South Econ J. in press

  14. Bryan JH, Walbek NH (1970) The impact of words and deeds concerning altruism upon children. Child Dev 41(3):747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carpenter J, Connolly C, Myers CK (2008) Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Exp Econ 11:282–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Corneo G, Jeanne O (2009) A theory of tolerance. J Public Econ 93 (5-6):691–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dickie M (2005) Parental behavior and the value of children’s health: a health production approach. South Econ J 71(4):855–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dixit A (2009) Socializing education and pro-social preferences. Working Paper, Princeton University

  19. Dlugokinski EL, Firestone IJ (1974) Other centeredness and susceptibility to charitable appeals: effects of perceived discipline. Dev Psychol 10:21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dressel S, Midlarsky E (1978) The effect of model’s exhortations, demands, and practices on children’s donation behavior. J Genet Psychol 132(2):211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA (1998) Prosocial development. In: Damon W, Eisenberg N (eds) Handbook of child psychology. 5th edn, vol 3. Wiley, New York

  22. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL (2006) Prosocial development. In: Eisenberg N (ed) Handbook of child psychology. 6th edn, vol 3. Wiley, New York

  23. Eisenberg N, Mussen PH (1989) The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eisenberg-Berg N, Geisheker E (1979) Content of preaching and power of the model/preacher: the effect on children’s generosity. Dev Psychol 15:168–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ermisch JF, Francesoni M (2001) Family structure and children’s achievements. J Popul Econ 14:249– 270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Felfe C, Hsin A (2012) Maternal work conditions and child development. Econ Educ Rev 31:1037–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gallo E, Gallo J (2001) Silver spoon kids: how successful parents raise responsible children. Contemporary Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Geronimus AT, Korenman S (1992) The socioeconomic consequences of teen childbearing reconsidered. Q J Econ 107(4):1187–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Giving USA (2011) The annual report on philanthropy for the year. Giving USA Foundation, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  30. Grusec JE, Saas-Kortsaak P, Simutis ZM (1978) The role of example and moral exhortation in the training of altruism. Child Dev 49:920–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33:61–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoffman ML (2000) Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  33. Israel AC, Brown MS (1979) Effects of directiveness of instructions and surveillance on the production and persistence of children’s donations. J Exp Child Psychol 27(2):250–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Israel AC, Raskin PA (1979) Directiveness of instructions and modeling: effects on production and persistence of children’s donations. J Genet Psychol 135(2):269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Levine PB, Gustafson TA, Velenchik AD (1997) More bad news for smokers? The effects of cigarette smoking on labor market outcomes. Ind Labor Relat Rev 50 (3):493–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lipscomb TJ, Bregman NJ, McAllister HA (1983) The effects of words and actions on American children’s prosocial behavior. J Psychol 114:193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mancini AL, Monfardini C, Pasqua S (2011) On intergenerational transmission reading habits in Italy: is a good example the best sermon? IZA Discussion Paper No. 6038

  38. McGrath MP, Wilson SR, Frassetto SJ (1995) Why some forms of induction are better than others at encouraging prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Q 41:347–360

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ottoni-Wilhelm M, Estell DB, Purdue NH (2014) Role-modeling and conversation about giving in the socialization of adolescent charitable giving and volunteering. J Adolesc 37:53–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ottoni-Wilhelm M, Bandy R (2013) Stage-specific family structure models: implicit parameter restrictions and Bayesian model comparison with an application to prosocial behavior. Rev Econ Househ 11:213–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Owens CR, Ascione FR (1991) Effects of model’s age, perceived similarity, and familiarity on children’s donating. J Genet Psychol 153(3):341–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Perry DG, Bussey K, Freiberg K (1981) Impact of adults’ appeals for sharing on the development of altruistic dispositions in children. J Exp Child Psychol 32:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Powell LM, Chaloupka FJ (2011) Economic contextual factors and child body mass index. In: Grossman M, Mocan N (eds) Economic aspects of obesity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  44. Ribar DC (1999) The socioeconomic consequences of young women’s childbearing: reconciling disparate evidence. J Popul Econ 12(4):547–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rice ME, Grusec JE (1975) Saying and doing: effects on observer performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(4):584–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosenzweig MR, Wolpin KI (1995) Sisters, siblings, and mothers: the effect of teen-age childbearing on birth outcomes in a dynamic family context. Econometrica 63(2):303–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rushton J (1975) Philippe generosity in children: immediate and long-term effects of modeling, preaching, and moral judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 31(3):459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Smith CL, Leinbach MD, Stewart BJ, Blackwell JM (1983) Affective perspective-taking, exhortations, and children’s prosocial behavior. In: Bridgeman DL (ed) The nature of prosocial development. Academic, New York

  49. Thomas A, Chess S (1977) Temperament and development. Brunner/Mazel, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Weisman C (2006) Raising charitable children. F. E. Robbins and Sons Press, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  51. White GM, Burnam MA (1975) Socially cued altruism: effects of modeling, instructions, and age on public and private donations. Child Dev 46:559–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wilhelm MO, Bekkers R (2010) Helping behavior, dispositional empathic concern, and the principle of care. Soc Psychol Q 73(1):11–32

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wilhelm MO, Brown E, Rooney PM, Steinberg R (2008) The intergenerational transmission of generosity. J Public Econ 92(10–11):2146–2156

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was funded by the Notre Dame Science of Generosity project. The Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy Research Fund also provided financial support. We are grateful to the foundations, corporations, and individuals who, since 2001, have funded the Philanthropy Panel Study (the generosity module in the PSID). These include The Atlantic Philanthropies, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the John Templeton Foundation. Our thanks go to the editor and two anonymous referees for insightful feedback.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Junsen Zhang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., Zhang, Y., Estell, D.B. et al. Raising charitable children: the effects of verbal socialization and role-modeling on children’s giving. J Popul Econ 30, 189–224 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0604-1

Download citation


  • Fixed effects
  • Sibling models
  • Intra-household allocation
  • Cultural transmission
  • Warm glow
  • Philanthropy
  • Public goods

JEL Classification

  • J13 (Children; Youth)
  • D64 (Altruism; Philanthropy)
  • C23 (Panel data)