Religiosity and Generosity of Youth. The Results of a Survey with 8th Grade Students from Bihor County (Romania)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/140Keywords:
Generosity, pro social behaviour, helping, altruism, philanthropyAbstract
The article draws on the results of a survey conducted in schools from Bihor county in 2018-2019. The study analyses the answers of 4,261 8th grade pupils regarding generosity and its predictors. The actual research is an extension of our article from 2016 which analysed similar data collected in 2011. Our first results showed a significant correlation between generosity and socio-economic background and between generosity and gender. Considering the results of our previous research, we conducted the present research using new data and adding new hypotheses such as the influence of religiosity. As expected, based on the literature, our new results indicate that religiosity explains generosity variation among 8th grade Romanian pupils from Bihor county. It seems that general trust, school results, living environment (rural vs. urban) have no influence, aspect which can be explained, at least partially, by the specificity of the Romanian culture. Religious girls with a better financial position are most generous. Our research also proves a similarity between the generosity level in schools. We consider that the results of our research can contribute significantly to a better understanding of generosity and its specificity in our country, and be exploited by further studies or programs run by non-profit organizations, fundraising campaigns.References
Aguiar, F., Brañas-Garza, P., Cobo-Reyes, R., Jimenez, N., & Miller, L. M. (2009). Are women expected to be more generous? Experimental Economics, 12(1), 93-98. doi:10.1007/s10683-008-9199-z
Alesina, A., & Dollar, D. (2000). Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 33-63. doi:10.3386/w6612
Anheier, H., & Kendall, J. (2002). Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: Examining three approaches. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 343-362. doi:10.1080/0007131022000000545
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2007). Social psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, USA: Pearson Education.
Bekkers, R. (2006). Traditional and health-related philanthropy: The role of resources and personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 349-366. doi:10.1177/019027250606900404
Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596-615. doi:10.1177/0899764003258102
Bekkers, R., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). Education and prosocial behavior. Unpublished manuscript.
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007a). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review. Retrieved from https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/assets/17632/generosity_and_philanthr opy_final.pdf
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973. doi:10.1177/0899764010380927
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007b). Understanding philanthropy. A review of 50 years of theories and research. Paper presented at the 35th annual conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action, Chicago, USA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30485519_Understanding_Phil anthropy_A_Review_of_50_Years_of_Theories_and_Research
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337-365. doi:10.1332/204080511x6087712
Bielefeld, W., Rooney, P., & Steinberg, K. (2005). How do need, capacity, geography, and politics influence giving. Gifts of Money in Americas Communities, 127-158. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46959817.pdf
Chen, Y., Zhu, L., & Chen, Z. (2013). Family income affects children‟s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. PloS ONE, 8(11), e80419. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080419
Collett, J. L., & Morrissey, C. A. (2007). The social psychology of generosity: The state of current interdisciplinary research. Indiana, USA: Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame. Retrieved from https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/assets/17634/social_psychology_of_ge nerosity_final.pdf
Côté, S., House, J., & Willer, R. (2015). High economic inequality leads higherincome individuals to be less generous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(52), 15838-15843. doi:10.1073/pnas.1511536112
Cremer, D. D., & Dewitte, S. (2002). Effect of trust and accountability in mixedmotive situations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(4), 541-543. doi:10.1080/00224540209603917
De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). „The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?‟ The effects of trust, accountability and self‐monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 93-107. doi:10.1002/ejsp.34
Deary, I. J., Der, G., & Ford, G. (2001). Reaction times and intelligence differences: A population-based cohort study. Intelligence, 29(5), 389-399. doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(01)00062-9
Dekker, P. (2004). Social capital of individuals: Relational asset or personal quality? In S. Prakash & P. Selle (Eds.), Investigating social capital. Comparative perspectives on civil society, participation and governance (pp. 88-110). New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Duch, R. M., & Rueda, D. (2014). Generosity among Friends: Population homogeneity, altruism, and insurance as determinants of redistribution? Conference: Reason and Decision Making. Oxford, UK: Centre for Experimental Social Sciences, Nuffield College. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308920245_Generosity_among _Friends_Population_Homogeneity_Altruism_and_Insurance_as_Determi nants_of_Redistribution
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87(3-4), 681-701. doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(01)00094-9
Edelman, R. (2018). 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from https://cms.edelman.com/sites/default/files/2018- 01/2018%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report.pdf
Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092-1112. doi:10.1177/0899764010385949
Einolf, C. J. (2010). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092-1112. doi:10.1177/0899764010385949
Finkelstein, M. A., Penner, L. A., & Brannick, M. T. (2005). Motive, role identity, and prosocial personality as predictors of volunteer activity. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 33(4), 403-418. doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.4.403
Flanagan, C. A., Bowes, J. M., Jonsson, B., Csapo, B., & Sheblanova, E. (1998). Ties that bind: Correlates of adolescents' civic commitments in seven countries. Journal of social issues, 54(3), 457-475. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.771998077
Gibbons, J. L. (2013). Guatemalan adolescents‟ reports of helping in urban and rural Mayan communities. In Vakoch, D. (Ed.), Altruism in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 45-56). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Glanville, J. L., Paxton, P., & Wang, Y. (2016). Social capital and generosity: A multilevel analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 526-547. doi:10.1177/0899764015591366
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 140-150. doi:10.1177/1088868309353415
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. (2005). Nobody's watching?: Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human behavior, 26(3), 245-256. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002
Hatos, A. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic achievements of upper secondary students in a Romanian city. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Sociologia, 55(1), 89-116.
Hatos, A. (2006). Lideri, participanţi şi pasivi: Resurse individuale pentru participare comunitară [Leaders, participants and liabilities: individual resources for community participation]. In C. Yamfir & L. Stoica (Coords.), O nouă provocare: Dezvoltarea socială (pp. 179-196). Iaşi, Romania: Polirom.
Helliwell, J. F., Wang, S., & Xu, J. (2016). How durable are social norms? Immigrant trust and generosity in 132 countries. Social Indicators Research, 128(1), 201-219. doi:10.3386/w19855
Herzog, P. S., & Price, H. E. (2016). American generosity: Who gives and why. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hillygus, D. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political behavior, 27(1), 25-47. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3075-8
Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. (2010). Priming Christian religious concepts increases racial prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(2), 119-126. doi:10.1177/1948550609357246
Kolm, S.-C., & Ythier, J. M. (2006). Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity: Foundations (1st vol.). Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.
Komter, A. (2010). The evolutionary origins of human generosity. International Sociology, 25(3), 443-464. doi:10.1177/0268580909360301
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PloS ONE, 10(7), e0133193. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133193
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546. doi:10.1037/a0028756
Lazăr, A., & Hatos, A. (2016). Generosity and prosocial behavior in middle school. The results of a survey in Bihor county schools. Paper presented at the Emerging Markets Economics and Business. Contributions of Young Researchers. Oradea, Romania. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321749239_GENEROSITY_A ND_PROSOCIAL_BEHAVIOR_IN_MIDDLE_SCHOOL_THE_RES ULTS_OF_A_SURVEY_IN_BIHOR_COUNTY_SCHOOLS
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642
Lim, C., & MacGregor, C. A. (2012). Religion and volunteering in context: Disentangling the contextual effects of religion on voluntary behavior. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 747-779. doi:10.1177/0003122412457875
Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social capital: Theory and research: Piscataway, USA: Transaction Publishers.
Lindenberg, S., Fetchenhauer, D., Flache, A., & Buunk, B. (2006). Solidarity and prosocial behavior: A framing approach. Solidarity and prosocial behavior. In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, A. P. Buunk & S. M. Lindenberg (Eds.), An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 3-19). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Lyons, M., & Nivison-Smith, I. (2006). Religion and giving in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 419-436. doi:10.1002/j.1839- 4655.2006.tb00997.x
Ma, Q., Pei, G., & Jin, J. (2015). What makes you generous? The influence of rural and urban rearing on social discounting in China. PloS ONE, 10(7), e0133078. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133078
Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531-542. doi:10.2307/2298123
McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & Thoresen, C. (2000). Religious involvement and mortality: A meta-analytic review. Health Psychology, 19(3), 211. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.19.3.211
Mesch, D. J., & Pactor, A. (2016). Women and philanthropy. In T. Jung, S. D. Phillips & J. Harrow, The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy (pp. 88-102). Abingdon, UK: Routledge
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. C., & Guarino, A. (2013). Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Inspectoratul Şcolar Judeţean Bihor, Şcoala Doctorală de Sociologie a Universităţii din Oradea, Centrul Judeţean de Resurse şi Asistenţă Educaţională Bihor. (2019). MERPAS - Monitorul Educațional al rezultatelor practicilor și atitudinilor în școlile din Bihor [MERPAS - Educational Monitoring of the results of practices and attitudes in schools in Bihor]. Retrieved from http://socioumane.ro/blog/ccs/files/2019/05/MERPAS.pdf
Millet, K., & Dewitte, S. (2007). Altruistic behavior as a costly signal of general intelligence. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 316-326. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.002
Molm, L. D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 119-131. doi:10.1177/0190272510369079
Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2007). Volunteers: A social profile: Bloomington, USA: Indiana University Press.
Musick, M. A., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. B. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, 78(4), 1539-1570. doi:10.2307/3006184
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365-392. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771. doi:10.1037/a0020092
Preston, J. L., Ritter, R. S., & Ivan Hernandez, J. (2010). Principles of religious prosociality: A review and reformulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 574-590. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00286.x
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America‟s declining social capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 223-234). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Regnerus, M. D., Smith, C., & Sikkink, D. (1998). Who gives to the poor? The influence of religious tradition and political location on the personal generosity of Americans toward the poor. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(3), 481. doi:10.2307/1388055
Reise, S. P., & Duan, N. (2003). Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues, and applications. Hove, UK:
Psychology Press. Rojas, J. A. C. (2014). The impact of capitalism and materialism on generosity: A cross-national examination. PhD Thesis. Iowa City, USA: University of Iowa. doi:10.17077/etd.z5vnrer4
Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191-210. doi:10.1177/000312240607100202
Safra, L., Tecu, T., Lambert, S., Sheskin, M., Baumard, N., & Chevallier, C. (2016). Neighborhood deprivation negatively impacts children‟s prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01760
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable Giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215-238. doi:10.1362/026725799784870351
Schmukle, S. C., Korndörfer, M., & Egloff, B. (2019). No evidence that economic inequality moderates the effect of income on generosity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9790-9795. doi:10.1073/pnas.1807942116
Schroeder, D. A., & Graziano, W. G. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Science of Generosity. (2009). What is Generosity? Retrieved from http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/more-about-the-initiative/what-isgenerosity/
Sztompka, P. (1996). Trust and emerging democracy: Lessons from Poland. International Sociology, 11(1), 37-62. doi:10.1177/026858096011001004
Smith, S., Windmeijer, F., & Wright, E. (2015). Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. The Economic Journal, 125(585), 1053- 1071. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12114
Son, J., & Wilson, J. (2017). Education, perceived control, and volunteering. Sociological Forum, 32(4), 831-849. doi:10.1111/socf.12377
Stiller, J., & Dunbar, R. I. (2007). Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Social Networks, 29(1), 93-104. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2006.04.001
Stürmer, S., & Snyder, M. (2009). The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping: Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002a). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002b). Religion and civic engagement in Canada and the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 239-254. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00114
Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (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. doi:10.1332/204080512x649379
Wiepking, P., Bekkers, R. H., & Osili, U. O. (2014). Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. European Sociological Review, 30(5), 640-654. doi:10.1093/esr/jcu064
Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (2016). The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Wiepking, P., & Maas, I. (2009). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 1973- 1995. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0191
Wilhelm, M. O. (2006). New data on charitable giving in the PSID. Economics Letters, 92(1), 26-31. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.009
Will, J. A., & Cochran, J. K. (1995). God helps those who help themselves?: The effects of religious affiliation, religiosity, and deservedness on generosity toward the poor. Sociology of Religion, 56(3), 327-338. doi:10.2307/3711826
Willer, R., Wimer, C., & Owens, L. A. (2015). What drives the gender gap in charitable giving? Lower empathy leads men to give less to poverty relief. Social Science Research, 52, 83-98. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.014
Wolpert, J. (1995). Giving and region: Generous and stingy communities. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1995(7), 11-30. doi:10.1002/pf.41219950703
Yen, S. T. (2002). An econometric analysis of household donations in the USA. Applied Economics Letters, 9(13), 837-841. doi:10.1080/13504850210148189
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journalright of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
