Skip to main content

Donate More, Be Happier! Evidence from the Netherlands

Abstract

It is hypothesized that charitable donation provides psychological benefits collectively referred to as the “warm glow”. This study aimed to determine the magnitude of the “warm glow” of charitable donors based on subjective wellbeing data and real-world donation totals obtained from two surveys: the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) and the Giving in the Netherlands Panel (GINP). Fixed effect estimates showed that when controlling for such major shocks to happiness as changes in marital status, income, and employment, charitable donors had higher happiness scores. To account for the endogeneity of donating, variation in the types of solicitation by charities was exploited. Some specifications from instrumental variable estimation showed that donating higher amounts of money increases life satisfaction significantly. The results show the local average treatment effect (LATE) for individuals who donate an extra Euro because they are solicited and these individuals would not donate this extra Euro if they were not solicited.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The LISS panel contains many variables on personality that might be important for donating behavior. We did not use these personality variables in our analysis because the longitudinal nature of the data allows for controlling time-invariant personality factors.

  2. 2.

    We assume these changes in donating status are exogenous. Yet, even if it is driven by income shocks, it does not pose a problem for our estimation methodology as income is included in the set of control variables.

  3. 3.

    All the available waves of the GINP survey were used, not only the 2006 wave, so as to maximize estimation power; however, the same regressions were run for the 2006 dataset separately. The estimates were almost the same, but p values were slightly higher.

  4. 4.

    This comparison can only be exactly correct when income is an exogenous variable, but, it is very likely that income is an endogenous variable. Nonetheless, this comparison might provide some idea about the effect size.

  5. 5.

    The diseases included bronchial, cardiovascular, stomach, liver, intestine, kidney, joint, diabetes, nervous system, skin, cancer, brain, and other diseases.

  6. 6.

    Appeal via street collection, sponsor campaign, church collection, collection at work, television campaigns, an event, advertisement, buying something, lottery tickets, or not solicited.

  7. 7.

    As GINP asks the amount of money donated in the previous 2 weeks.

References

  1. Aderman, D. (1972). Elation, depression and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., …, Norton, M. I. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635–652.

  3. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure alturism: application to charity and ricardian equivalence. The Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure alturism and donations to public goods—a theory of warm glow giving. Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bekkers, R. (2005). It’s not all in the ask effects and effectiveness of recruitment strategies used by nonprofits in the Netherlands. In 34rd Annual Arnova Conference. Washington DC, the USA.

  6. Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variables is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 443–450.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CBF (2013). Collecteroosters landelijk. Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving: http://www.cbf.nl/Collecten/collecteroosters-landelijk.php adresinden alındı. Accessed 25 June 2013

  8. Clotfelter, C. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Crumpler, H., & Grossman, P. (2008). An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1011–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Neve, K., & Cooper, H. (1999). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits of subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 197–229.

  11. Diamond, W., & Noble, S. (2001). Defensive responses to charitable solicitations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2–12.

  12. Dunn, E., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frank, R. (2004). How not to buy happiness. Daedalus, 69–79.

  14. Glazer, A., & Konrad, K. (1996). A signalling explanation for charity. The American Economic Review, 1019–1028.

  15. Gneezy, U., & Rusticini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. Journal of Legal Studies.

  16. Harbaugh, W. (1998). What do donations buy?: a model of philanthropy based on prestige and warmglow. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Harbaugh, W., Myer, U., & Burghart, D. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving: real motives for charitable donations. Science, 1622–1625.

  18. Huck, S., & Rasul, I. (2011). Matched fundraising: evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 351–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Imbens, G., & Angrist, J. (1994). Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica, 467–475.

  20. Jonker, J., Paap, R., & Franses, P. (2000). Modeling charity donations: target selection, response time and gift size. Rotterdam: Econometric Institute, Erasmus University.

  21. Meer, J., & Rosen, H. (2011). The ABCs of charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 363–371.

  22. Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15623–15628.

  23. Ribar, D., & Wilhelm, M. (2002). Altruistic and joy-of-giving motivations in charitable behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 425–433.

  24. Rosenhan, D., Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1974). Affect moderates self-gratification and alturism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 546–552.

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

  26. Schuyt, T., Gouwenberg, B., & Bekkers, R. (2011). Giving in the Netherlands 2011. Amsterdam: Reed Business.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 557–586.

  28. Tankersley, D., Stowe, C., & Huettel, S. (2007). Altruism is associated with an increased neural response to agency. Nature Neuroscience, 10(2), 150–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Diepen, M., Donkers, B., & Franses, P. (2006). Dynamic and competitive effects of direct mailings. Working Paper, Erasmus Institute of Management.

  30. Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering and charitable giving. Voluntas, 23–42.

  31. Yeager, D., Krosnick, J., Chang, L., Javitz, H., Levendusky, M., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(4), 709–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yoruk, B. (2014). Does giving to charity lead to better health? Evidence from Tax Subsidies for Charitable Giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71–83.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Peter Kooreman, Erzo F.P. Luttmer, and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments on this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep B. Ugur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Data descriptions, sample means, and standard deviations for the LISS panel: 2007–2012a
Table 8 Data descriptions, sample means, and standard deviations for the GINP: 2006 wave
Table 9 Balance of observables by median solicitation (1 solicitation)
Table 10 Distribution of the number of solicitations (GINP data)
Table 11 Regression results for donation, according to the number of solicitations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ugur, Z.B. Donate More, Be Happier! Evidence from the Netherlands. Applied Research Quality Life 13, 157–177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9512-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Warm-glow
  • Donation
  • Happiness
  • Solicitation