SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
Role-modeling and Conversations about Giving in the Socialization of
Adolescent Charitable Giving and Volunteering
Mark Ottoni-Wilhelma,b,*
David B. Estellc
Neil H. Perdued
a
Department of Economics, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), 425
University Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Mobile: 001-765-277-1229. E-mail:
mowilhel@iupui.edu
b
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 550 West North Street # 301, Indianapolis,
IN 46202, USA.
c
Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University Bloomington,
201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA. Phone: 001-812-856-8308. Email: destell@indiana.edu
d
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Indianapolis, 1400 East Hanna Avenue,
Indianapolis, IN 46227, USA. Phone: 001-317-788-3353. E-mail: neil.perdue@gmail.com
*
Corresponding author.
1
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
2
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between the monetary giving and volunteering behavior
of adolescents and the role-modeling and conversations about giving provided by their parents.
The participants are a large nationally-representative sample of 12-18 year-olds from the Panel
Study of Income Dynamics’ Child Development Supplement (n = 1,244). Adolescents reported
whether they gave money and whether they volunteered. In a separate interview parents reported
whether they talked to their adolescent about giving. In a third interview, parents reported
whether they gave money and volunteered. The results show that both role-modeling and
conversations about giving are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and volunteering. Knowing
that both role-modeling and conversation are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and
volunteering suggests an often over-looked way for practitioners and policy-makers to nurture
giving and volunteering among adults: start earlier, during adolescence, by guiding parents in
their role-modeling of, and conversations about, charitable giving and volunteering.
Keywords: prosocial behaviour; charitable giving; volunteering; positive behaviour; modeling;
socialization.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
3
Role-modeling and Conversations about Giving in the Socialization of
Adolescent Charitable Giving and Volunteering
Educators, community leaders, and policy-makers expend considerable effort to
encourage adults to perform two particular prosocial behaviors – giving money to charities that
help people and giving time in voluntary service. Adult giving and volunteering are most likely
part of an ongoing pattern of behavior that began much earlier in development, and both theory
and laboratory-based experimental work suggest that role-modeling and conversations about
prosocial behavior will affect the development of prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes 1998).
Yet we know very little about the effectiveness of parental efforts to encourage these behaviors
in nationally-representative population studies that describe U.S. adolescents in their natural
settings. This represents a significant gap in our understanding. As Eisenberg and Mussen (1989,
p. 156) point out:
“It cannot be assumed that procedures that prove to be effective in laboratory
studies (such as modeling; see chapters 6 and 7) will necessarily have a
significant and lasting impact on behavior when introduced in a natural setting
such as the home or school. . . .Thus, it is important to test in natural settings the
effectiveness of those procedures that promote prosocial behavior in the laboratory.”
There are no nationally-representative studies of the effectiveness of parents’ rolemodeling of charitable giving, and although previous research has found evidence of an
association between parental modeling of volunteering and adolescents’ volunteering (McLellan
& Youniss 2003), including a nationally-representative study (U.S. Department of Education
1997), these studies could not control for conversations the parent may be having with the
adolescent about prosocial behavior. In short, to our knowledge no previous study has estimated
the strengths of role-modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior as separate influences
on adolescents’ giving and volunteering. Furthermore, no study has previously estimated rolemodel and conversation associations while simultaneously controlling for parenting
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
4
dimensions—including parental warmth/support and behavioral control—that theoretically are
influences on prosocial behavior (Chase-Lansdale, Wakschlag, & Brooks-Gunn 1995). Finally,
little is known about whether the effectiveness of modeling, conversation, and parenting
dimensions differs by the sex of the adolescent (however see Carlo, McGinley, Hayes,
Batenhorst, & Wilkinson 2007).
Without this knowledge it is difficult to convince practitioners and policy-makers to shift
some of their effort toward the encouragement of parents in their role-modeling and talking
about giving and volunteering, thereby nurturing the giving and volunteering of tomorrow’s
adults. Moreover, it is not known whether any advice to parents should be tailored differently
depending on the sex of the adolescent. To address these gaps, the present research estimates the
relative strengths of role-modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior as separate
influences on adolescents’ charitable giving and volunteering using a large nationallyrepresentative sample. These effects are estimated while simultaneously assessing the association
of parental warmth and support and parental behavioral control.
Role-modeling, conversation, parenting dimensions, and prosocial behavior
The theoretical importance of role-modeling in the development of prosocial behavior
follows from social learning theory (Bandura 1976), as well as more recent neurological research
indicating that the basis of imitative behavior (mirror neurons) may provide the neural substrate
of empathy (Preston & de Waal 2002). The most robust evidence from the experimental
literature on children’s prosocial behavior is that having an adult experimenter role-model the
desired behavior increases children’s prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes 1998). If adult
strangers have an impact, the regular, long-term close relationships parents often have with their
children should make parents particularly effective modelers of prosocial behavior.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
5
After role-modeling, the next strongest evidence from the experimental literature is that
children’s prosocial behavior can be increased through verbal communication (Eisenberg &
Fabes 1998). For example, most (though not all) experiments have found that other-oriented
induction has a positive effect on children’s donations (see, e.g., Dlugokinski & Firestone 1974,
Grusec, Sass-Kortsaak, & Simutis, 1978 and Eisenberg-Berg & Geisheker 1979; cf. Lipscomb,
Bregman, & McAllister, 1983). Carlo, McGinley et al. (2007) find evidence that conversations
emphasizing empathy are positively associated with prosocial behavior among adolescents.
Beyond direct socialization through role-modeling and conversations about prosocial
behavior, theory suggests that broad parenting dimensions are determinants of prosocial
behavior. Two parenting dimensions—(a) warmth and support plus (b) behavioral control—in
combination form an authoritative parenting style (Crockett & Hayes 2011). Authoritative
parenting is thought to be an effective style for the development of prosocial behavior (ChaseLansdale et al. 1995). Supporting evidence has been found associating authoritative parenting, or
its separate dimensions, to adolescent empathy and perspective-taking (e.g., Laible & Carlo,
2004; Soenens, Duriez, Vansteenkiste, & Goossens 2007), children’s internalization of prosocial
values (Hardy, Padilla-Walker, & Carlo 2008; also see Hardy, Bhattacharajee, Reed, & Aquino
2010), social responsibility (Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss 1999), and prosocial behavior (e.g.,
Baumrind 1991; Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007; Wuthnow 1995).
The findings suggesting an association between parenting and prosocial development are
not universally supported. For example, some studies have not found an association (see the
reviews in Eisenberg, Morris, McDaniel, & Spinrad 2009 and Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad 2006;
also Soenens et al. 2007 found supporting evidence for maternal warmth/support, but not
behavioral control) while other studies have found indirect, but not direct, effects(e.g., Barry,
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
6
Padilla-Walker, Madsen, & Nelson 2008). Carlo, McGinley et al. (2007) suggest that the mixed
evidence may be because the dimensions of parenting styles are constructs that are too broad
when used to investigate specific prosocial behaviors, and that it may be more fruitful to examine
specific socialization techniques. They found several specific techniques—including
conversations about prosocial behavior—were associated with the Prosocial Tendency Measure
(PTM). PTM associations with role-modeling could not be investigated in their study because the
measurement of modeling did not survive exploratory factor analysis.
While warmth and control both may relate to a variety of child outcomes including
prosocial behavior, recent research has indicated that different forms of control have unique
effects on children. Psychological control—the use of manipulation, guilt, coercion, and
contingent love, for example—is an important construct that needs to be examined apart from
behavioral control (Barber 1996). Psychological control is related to lower levels of empathy,
teacher-reported altruism, and a variety of prosocial behaviors in children such as sharing and
helping with classmates (Krevens & Gibbs, 1996). However, Soenens et al. (2007) found that
psychological control, like behavioral control in their study, was not correlated with either
adolescents’ empathy or perspective taking.
Although there has been extensive work on sex differences in the amount of prosocial
behavior performed (see Eisenberg et al., 2006 for a review), fewer results are available about
sex differences in the effectiveness of socialization techniques. Stukas, Sitzer, Dew, Goycoolea,
and Simmons (1999) find evidence that parental modeling has a stronger effect on girls’ altruistic
self-image, suggesting perhaps a stronger effect on girls’ prosocial behavior. However, Carlo,
McGinley et al. (2007) find no evidence of sex differences in their PTM associations with
parenting techniques and styles.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
Nationally representative studies of socializing adolescent prosocial behavior
Giving money to charity and volunteering are two key prosocial behaviors that receive
emphasis in adulthood because they are important components of civil society. Educators,
community leaders, and policy-makers expend much effort to encourage adults to give and
volunteer. There are extensive literatures about adults’ charitable giving (Vesterlund 2006) and
volunteering (Musick & Wilson 2008).
Volunteering in adulthood is part of an ongoing pattern of behavior that for many was
already underway during adolescence (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins 2007; Janoski,
Musick, & Wilson 1998). There is a large literature about adolescents’ volunteering examining
the influences of socio-economic status, extra-curricular activities, religion, and investigating
positive outcomes associated with volunteering (Eisenberg et al. 2009). This literature includes
nationally-representative studies (e.g., Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates 1999), but to our
knowledge there has been only one nationally-representative study that has estimated the
association between a parental role-model of volunteering and adolescent’s volunteering (U.S.
Department of Education 1997). This study concludes that an adolescent whose parent
volunteers is significantly more likely to volunteer, but did not examine parent-adolescent
conversations about prosocial behavior. The study also did not investigate whether the rolemodeling association was of similar magnitude for both girls and boys. Finally, and again to our
knowledge, there have been no nationally-representative studies of the association of
adolescents’ volunteering with parenting dimensions or styles.
Charitable giving observed in adulthood most likely was also underway during
adolescence, but charitable giving by adolescents has been studied much less intensively than
adolescents’ volunteering.1 While Kim, LaTaillade, and Kim (2011) found an association
7
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
8
between conversations about giving and adolescents’ giving, role-modeling was not considered
and differences in the associations between boys and girls were not examined.
The present study
The present research estimates two models—one for the probability that the adolescent
gives to charity and the other for the probability of volunteering—in which parental rolemodeling of volunteering and giving as well as conversations about giving are separate
influences. The models also contain parenting dimensions of warmth, behavioral control, and
psychological control as influences on adolescents’ giving and volunteering.
Our hypotheses are that adolescents’ giving and volunteering are positively associated
with (a) parental modeling and (b) conversations about giving. Because giving and volunteering
are often thought of as closely related prosocial behaviors, our third hypothesis is that there are
“cross-over” effects, specifically that parental modeling of giving is positively associated with
adolescents’ volunteering and vice versa. In light of the mixed evidence about broad parenting
dimensions and specific prosocial behaviors, our fourth hypothesis is that adolescents’ giving
and volunteering are more strongly associated with role-modeling and conversations about
giving than with parenting dimensions.
Our investigation of these hypotheses offers several contributions. First, as already noted
we investigate role-modeling, conversations about prosocial behavior, and parenting dimensions
as separate influences of adolescents’ giving and volunteering in a multiple regression
framework. For example, among parents who talk to their children about giving many also model
giving. Our analysis of separate associations avoids attributing to conversations about giving an
association that is really due to modeling giving. Equally important, our analysis will reveal the
importance of role-modeling, conversations about giving, and broader parenting styles. Second,
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
9
our analysis is based on a nationally-representative sample of U.S. adolescents. We can learn
whether results similar to those about modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior
obtained from experimental studies with non-parents and smaller, more homogeneous samples
also obtain in a population study. Finally, we investigate whether modeling, conversations about
giving, and parenting dimension associations differ by sex of the adolescent.
Method
Participants
Participants are from the Child Development Supplement (CDS) of the Panel Study of
Income Dynamics (PSID). The PSID is a long-term longitudinal study of household economics.
Economic, health, and demographic data have been collected annually 1968-1997 and biennially
since then in core main family interviews. Major funders of the PSID are the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD); the CDS is funded by NICHD. In 1997 the PSID families with
children age 12 and younger were selected for the first wave of the CDS (CDS-I) and 88%
participated. In 2002-2003 the CDS-I families who had continued in the core PSID (94%
continued) were selected for re-interview in the second wave (CDS-II) and 91% participated.
Among the CDS-II participating families our analysis focuses on adolescents 12-18 years of age
(n = 1,468) because the child-reported warmth/support and psychological control constructs are
asked only of adolescents. The response rate among adolescents is 89% (n = 1,312).
There are a few additional sample exclusions. We do not include adolescents if their
parent’s giving and volunteering data were not collected (n = 40). A few adolescents did not
answer questions about their giving and volunteering (n = 10) or had missing data on other
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
10
variables (n = 18). The final analysis sample is n = 1,244. Of these, 634 are girls and 610 are
boys. The number of African-American adolescents is 556.
Measures
Data for our study were collected in three separate interviews. First, adolescents were
interviewed in person using computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). For more sensitive
questions about warmth and support, as well as psychological control, the mode was audiocomputer assisted self-interviewing (ACASI). Second, the adolescent’s primary caregiver
(typically the mother or step-mother) were interviewed either in person or over the telephone
(CATI) based on the caregiver’s preference. Third, either the primary caregiver or her spouse
were interviewed in the PSID’s core main family interview using CATI.
Adolescents’ giving and volunteering. In CDS-II adolescents were asked “did you give
some of your money last year - if only a few pennies - to a church, synagogue, or another charity
that helps people who are not part of your family?” Adolescents also were asked “were you
involved in any volunteer service activities or service clubs in the last 12 months?” Responses to
both questions were a binary “yes/no.” The two questions parallel those asked of the
mother/step-mothers (or spouses) in the 2001 PSID core main family interview.
Role-modeling. Beginning in 2001, the PSID’s core main family interview contains data
on parents’ giving and volunteering that form the role-modeling variables central to our analysis.
The mother/step-mother/spouse reported if the family gave during the last calendar year more
than $25 to religious or charitable organizations. These organizations were defined to the
respondent to be non-profit organizations that “serve a variety of purposes such as religious
activity, helping people in need, health care and medical research, education, arts, environment,
and international aid.” Also reported was whether the mother/step-mother did 10 or more hours
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
11
of volunteer work through organizations, such as “coaching, helping at school, serving on
committees, building and repairing, providing health care or emotional support, delivering food,
doing office work, organizing activities, fundraising, and other kinds of work done for no pay.”
Past research has demonstrated that both measurements compare well with other nationallyrepresentative measures (Wilhelm 2006a,b). Note that the giving and volunteering questions
were about activity in calendar year 2000, implying that these variables describe role-modeling
one year (or more) prior to the measurement of adolescent giving and volunteering in CDS-II.
Conversations about giving. In CDS-II the primary caregiver was asked the binary
response question: “Do you ever talk to (NAME of CHILD) about giving some of (his/her)
money – if only a few pennies – to a church, synagogue, or another charity?” The question
obviously parallels the giving question asked to adolescents. Unfortunately the time budget of
CDS-II was not sufficient to add another question specifically about conversations concerning
volunteering. Therefore we use the “talk-about-giving” response as a proxy measurement of the
parent’s conversations about prosocial behavior in both models.
Parenting dimensions. In our main analysis we used the parenting dimension framework
with measurements of three dimensions: (a) warmth and support (b) behavioral control, and (c)
psychological control (Crockett & Hayes 2011). We also conducted analyses replacing the
dimension framework with parenting styles defined by interacting warmth/support with
behavioral control to classify authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged styles; this
follows the procedure from Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991).
Warmth and support was measured using 4 items developed from the Child Report of
Parent Behavior Inventory (Schaefer 1965). The adolescent reported the degree to which his/her
mother/step-mother (a) “cheers me up when I am sad” (warmth and emotional support), (b)
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
12
“gives me a lot of care and attention” (warmth and nurturance), (c) “often praises me” (support),
and (d) “enjoys doing things with me” (warmth and supportive involvement). Item responses
were on a 3-point scale: not like her, somewhat like her, a lot like her. To ensure privacy the
responses were collected during the ACASI portion of the adolescent interview. Cronbach’s  =
.78.
Behavioral control was measured using the mother/step-mother report of the Household
Rules measure (Alwin 1997). The measure has 9 items, each using a 5-point scale, describing the
frequency that the mother/step-mother enforces rules specifically for the adolescent. The 9 items
are about which friends the adolescent can spend time with, how late the adolescent can stay up,
the use of time after school, when homework is done, if a place is set where homework is done,
whether homework is checked, the eating of snack foods, which TV programs can be watched,
and how much time can be spent watching TV ( = .84).
Psychological control was measured with the Psychological Control Scale-Youth Self
Report, a set of 6 items based on the CRPBI items used by Barber (1996). The items are the
adolescent’s report on the degree to which his/her mother/step-mother (a) “blames me for other
family members’ problems,” (b) “changes the subject whenever I have something to say,” (c)
brings up past mistakes when she criticizes me,” (d) “often interrupts me,” (e) “If I have hurt her
feelings, she stops talking to me until I please her again,” and (f) “is always trying to change how
I feel or think about things.” Item responses are on the 3-point not like her, somewhat like her, a
lot like her scale ( = .75).
Demographic and economic variables. Adolescents reported their race. In the present
study African-American adolescents were the only minority group with sufficient numbers in the
sample to include a variable designating their race. Race is coded as African-American =1 and
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
13
all others = 0. Sex and date of birth were collected when the participant was born. Sex is coded
male=0, female=1.
In the core main family interview, the mother/step-mother (or spouse) answered over 100
questions about components of family income. We use the PSID’s measure “total family
income” that includes income from all major sources (e.g., labor earnings from both parents,
business income, asset income, and transfers from the government). The PSID’s total family
income compares well with income measured in the Census Department’s Current Population
Surveys. (Gouskova & Schoeni 2007). To further improve the quality of the income data as a
measurement of the family’s long-run economic resources we took a five-year average of income
using the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001 core family interviews.
Empirical approach
We estimate two logit models, one for the probability the adolescent gave money to a
religious congregation or a charity and one for the probability the adolescent does volunteering.
From these models we report the marginal effects so that the reported estimates can be directly
interpreted as effects on the probabilities of giving and volunteering. The logit estimates are from
weighted maximum likelihood. The descriptive statistics also are weighted. The weights account
for differential probability of selection into the PSID due to the original 1968 sample design and
for subsequent attrition.
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and pairwise correlations of the analysis
variables. Among the adolescents, 72 percent gave and 41 percent volunteered. Similar
percentages of their parents role-modeled these two prosocial behaviors. Sixty-two percent of
parents talked to their adolescent about giving. The modeling and conversations about giving
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
14
variables are each significantly correlated with adolescent giving and volunteering. Warmth and
support is also significantly correlated with giving and volunteering, but the magnitudes are
lower than the associations with the socialization variables. Similarly, psychological control is
significantly (negatively) correlated with giving and volunteering, and the behavioral control–
giving correlation is significantly positive, but these correlations are smaller than the modeling
and conversations about giving correlations.
The parent’s model of giving and model of volunteering are correlated (the correlation is
among the strongest in the table) and both modeling variables are correlated with conversations
about giving. This justifies the cotemporaneous investigation of both types of modeling along
with conversations about giving in our empirical models. Not surprisingly, warmth and support
are negatively correlated (fairly strongly) with psychological control. Both parenting dimensions
are correlated with behavioral control, but the correlations are small (only one is significant). The
correlations between the parenting dimensions and modeling/conversations about giving are in
the anticipated direction with one exception (behavioral control–model of giving), and seven out
of nine are significant.
There are two other patterns to note. First, the fairly strong correlations between (the
logarithm of) family income and both types of role-modeling imply that controlling for income is
necessary to avoid misattributing an income association to a role-modeling association. Second,
parents talk about giving to older adolescents less and to girls more – the correlations are
significant but small.
Table 2 presents estimates of the logit models. In column 1, the logit model for
adolescent giving is significant (χ2(12) = 63.08, p < 0.001). The estimates indicate that the parental
role-model of giving is associated with a 15 percentage point higher probability that the
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
15
adolescent gives (p = 0.001). Conversations about giving is associated with an 11 percentage
point higher probability (p = 0.003). The modeling association is large relative to the 72 percent
baseline probability that the adolescent gives: comparing two adolescents who are identical in
terms of the observed characteristics we control, except that one has a parent who gives and the
other has a parent who does not, the adolescent with the parent role-modeling giving has a
probability of giving that is 21% higher, relative to the baseline probability of giving (.15/.72 =
.21). The conversations about giving association also is large relative to baseline: an adolescent
whose parent talks to him about giving has a 15% higher probability of giving (.11/.72). Hence,
an adolescent whose parent both role-models and talks about giving has a probability of giving
that is 36% higher than an adolescent whose parent does neither.
In column 2, the logit model for adolescent volunteering is significant (χ2(12) = 78.29, p <
0.001). The parental model of volunteering is associated with a 13 percentage point higher
probability that the adolescent volunteers (p = 0.002), and talking about giving is associated with
a 9 percentage point higher probability of volunteering (p = 0.035). These, too, are large
associations, representing 32% and 22% higher probabilities of volunteering relative to the
baseline 41 percent of adolescents who volunteer. Together these estimates imply that an
adolescent whose parent both role-models volunteering and talks about giving has a probability
of volunteering that is 54% higher than an adolescent whose parent does neither. The “crossover” parental model of giving is associated with a 17 percentage point higher probability that
the adolescent volunteers (p < 0.001) – corresponding to a 41% higher probability of
volunteering relative to baseline. The 13 percentage point association with the role-model of
volunteering is large even though role-modeling of, and talking about, giving are entered as
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
16
separate effects; however, if those effects are removed the role-model of volunteering association
rises to 18 percentage points (not shown in Table 2).
Although the parenting dimension associations with adolescent giving and volunteering
in columns 1 and 2 are in the expected direction, the estimates are small. The strongest evidence
of an association with a parenting dimension is behavioral control in the giving model (p = .059).
We also estimated models that replaced the parenting dimensions with authoritative,
authoritarian, permissive, and disengaged parenting styles as main effects, but the styles were not
significant. Because parenting dimensions/styles may act as moderators (Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Darling 1992), we also estimated different versions of the models in which
dimensions (warmth, behavioral control, etc. ) and styles (authoritative, etc.) moderated the
effects of role-modeling and conversations about giving, but these interaction effects were also
not significant.
The estimates for demographic variables indicate that, controlling for role-modeling,
conversations about giving, and parenting dimensions, girls and African-American adolescents
have higher probabilities of giving by 8 percentage points (p = 0.002) and 10 percentage points
(p = 0.008), respectively. The age and giving were not significantly associated, but age and
volunteering was: 3 percentage points per year (p = 0.009). Adolescent girls have a 10
percentage point higher probability of volunteering (p = 0.006). Race was not related to
volunteering, and family was not significantly associated with giving or volunteering.
Table 3 presents estimates of the logit models separately by sex. Giving model estimates
in columns 1 and 2 show that the role-model association is much stronger for girls (20
percentage points, p = 0.003) than boys (12 percentage points, p = 0.061), but the opposite
pattern is evident for conversations about giving: for girls 8 percentage points (p = 0.115) and for
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
17
boys 16 percentage points (p = 0.003). Estimates for the parenting dimensions are not significant
for either girls or boys. As for the demographic variables, the giving associations with age and
African-American race were driven by significant patterns among girls, not boys.
The volunteering model in columns 3 and 4 shows a similar pattern: the role-model
association is much stronger for girls (17 percentage points, p = 0.003) than boys (9 percentage
points, p = 0.136), but the opposite for conversations about giving: for girls 5 percentage points
(p = 0.403) and for boys 14 percentage points (p = 0.009). The “cross-over” role-model of giving
association is a little less strong for girls (15 percentage points, p = 0.018) than boys (21
percentage points, p < 0.001), but significant for both. Warmth and support are significantly
associated with boys’ volunteering (.21, p < 0.001). The volunteering-age association is due to
the significant pattern among girls.
Discussion
The main results are that both parental role-modeling and conversations about giving
are associated with adolescents’ giving and volunteering. An adolescent whose parent rolemodels giving and talks about giving has a probability of giving that is 36% higher than an
adolescent whose parent does neither. An adolescent whose parent role-models volunteering and
talks about giving has a probability of volunteering that is 54% higher than an adolescent whose
parent does neither. Additional evidence of modeling is the “cross-over” parental role-model of
giving association with adolescent volunteering: an adolescent whose parent models giving has a
41% higher probability of volunteering, and this is in addition to the associations due to the
parent’s model of volunteering and talking about giving.
Our findings are significant because they are the first validation using nationallyrepresentative data describing charitable giving by U.S. adolescents in their natural settings of
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
18
earlier laboratory evidence from smaller, more homogeneous samples regarding the impact of
modeling and conversations about giving. Similarly, the associations we obtain for adolescents’
volunteering validate earlier experimental evidence about prosocial behavior that involves
physical action, such as helping a confederate pick up dropped objects. Together the giving and
volunteering results extend earlier work that showed parents as strong influences on the prosocial
behavior exhibited by exemplars (e.g., Hart & Fegley 1995; Oliner & Oliner 1988): the new
evidence suggests that parents strongly influence the kinds of prosocial behavior exhibited by a
wider fraction of the population.
Our results have further significance because they imply that role-modeling has a strong
association with giving, even if conversations about giving is included in the analysis (and vice
versa). That is, parental role-modeling and conversations about giving have separate associations
with giving. Likewise, role-modeling and conversations about giving have separate associations
with volunteering. The present evidence deepens our understanding of the previous regression
evidence of the association between a parental role-model of volunteering and adolescent
volunteering (McLellan & Youniss 2003; U.S. Department of Education 1997) to say that the
association holds, albeit smaller in magnitude, even including role-modeling of, and talking
about, giving as separate effects.
These associations of adolescent giving and volunteering with the specific socialization
techniques are much stronger than associations with the broad parenting dimensions of warmth
and support, behavioral control, and psychological control. These results are in line with Carlo,
McGinley et al.’s (2007) similar findings regarding the PTM and more direct socialization as
compared to broader dimensions of parenting. Of course this does not imply that parenting
dimensions are unimportant to the development of prosocial behavior in earlier childhood; just
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
19
that in adolescence more direct socialization forces have a greater impact than broad parenting
dimensions. And in one analysis – that of adolescent boys’ volunteering – we found warmth and
support significantly related to volunteering. The implication is that the importance of warmth
and support in the development of volunteering documented by Wuthnow (1995) is especially
important for adolescent boys. Moreover, parenting dimensions may emerge as more important
influences on prosocial behavior when adolescents transition into adulthood. It may be that
parenting dimensions such as warmth and support affect the internalization of prosocial
behaviors, and that relationship is better revealed by the giving and volunteering chosen after the
adolescent establishes her/his independent household. Future work with data that include
assessments in emerging adulthood may be able to test this hypothesis.
The models estimated separately by sex provide additional evidence about differences in
the associations for girls and boys: role-model associations for girls are stronger than for boys,
and conversations about giving are more highly associated for boys. The stronger role-model
associations for girls is consistent with Stukas et al. (1999)’s evidence that parent modeling has a
stronger effect on girls’ altruistic self-image than on boys’. It may be that the higher-level moral
reasoning sometimes exhibited by girls (Eisenberg et al., 2006, p. 698) implies that girls are
more responsive to modeling, whereas boys have to be more explicitly, and verbally, encouraged
to give and volunteer. In any event, these results call for the theoretical development of
predictions about sex differences in the effectiveness of modeling and conversations about
prosocial behavior that can be tested in future research. Such predictions may need to be
situation dependent because effectiveness seems to depend on the type of role-modeling (Table 3
shows that the “cross-over” parental role-model of giving has a somewhat stronger association
with volunteering for boys than for girls). They may also depend on the type of prosocial
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
20
behavior: Ribar & Wilhelm (2006) find that role-modeling prosocial behavior that helps those
inside the family (co-residence with elderly parents and financial help of elderly parents) has
stronger effects on adult sons’ attitudes about the respective prosocial behavior than on adult
daughter’s attitudes.
There are a few limitations of our study that should be kept in mind while interpreting the
results. The most important is that the magnitudes of the associations we estimate using crosssectional data are rather weak evidence of any sort of causality. While the previous experimental
evidence leads us to think that some portion of the associations we estimate represent causal
effects, longitudinal data controlling for prior socialization and parenting would be stronger tests
of real-world influences. A second limitation has to do with measurement. Adolescent giving and
volunteering are binary variables, and the restricted variance can present problems for
estimation. Despite their limited range the associations with parental role-modeling and
conversations are strong enough that we obtained significant results. Nevertheless, the binary
range does mean that we do not know, for example, if larger amounts given by parents are
associated with larger amounts given by adolescents (see the studies in endnote 1 for results
about amounts, albeit for adult children, not adolescents). Another measurement limitation is that
we do not have a measurement that indicates whether the adolescent literally sees the parent’s
role-model. While we think that most adolescents are aware of whether or not their parents give
to charity or religious congregations – and parent volunteering would seem to be even harder for
the adolescent to miss – we cannot provide evidence of this. However, to the extent that any such
measurement errors are false negatives (adolescents do not know it, but their parents give), our
estimates of the associations are too small, implying the actual associations are even larger than
we have estimated. Finally, we did not have a direct measure of whether the parent talks to the
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
21
adolescent about volunteering. Had we had a direct conversation measure in the volunteering
model, rather than the conversation about giving we used as a proxy, the estimated association
may have been stronger.
Keeping these limitations in mind, the present study finds nationally-representative
evidence that parental role-modeling and conversations about prosocial behavior have relatively
strong associations with adolescents’ giving and volunteering. These population-based results, in
combination with the previous experimental results establishing causal effects of non-parental
modeling and verbal communication, have a significant practical implication: practitioners and
policy-makers, whose efforts traditionally have been to encourage present-day adults to give and
volunteer, should begin those efforts earlier by guiding parents in their role-modeling and talking
about giving and volunteering, in order to nurture potentially lifelong prosocial behavior among
their adolescents. A second practical recommendation derived from the results is that
conversations about giving and volunteering should be maintained during adolescence,
especially for boys. Given that the percentage of parents that talk to their children about giving
declines through adolescence – from 72 percent among parents of 10-12 year-olds to 60 percent
among of 16-18 year olds in our data– our findings strongly imply that shifting this pattern may
lead to significant increases in prosocial behavior among older adolescents.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
22
References
Alwin, D. F. (1997). Detroit Area Study, 1997: Social Change in Religion and Child Rearing.
ICPSR04120-v1. Ann Arbor, MI.
Bandura, A. 1976. Social Learning Theory. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child
Development, 67(6), 3296-3319. doi: 10.2307/1131780
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and
autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 12(2), 287-315. doi:10.1177/0743554897122008
Barry, C., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Madsen, S. D., & Nelson, L. J. (2008). The impact of maternal
relationship quality on emerging adults' prosocial tendencies: Indirect effects via
regulation of prosocial values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 581-591.
doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9238-7
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R.M.
Lerner, A.C. Peterson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence: Vol. 2. Interpersonal and
Sociocultural Factors (pp. 746-758). New York, NY US: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Bekkers, R. (2007). Intergenerational transmission of volunteering. Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 99114. doi: 10.1177/0001699307077653
Bekkers, R. (2011). Charity begins at home: How socialization experiences influence giving and
volunteering. Unpublished manuscript. Amsterdam: VU Amsterdam.
Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Randall, B. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2007). A latent growth curve analysis
of prosocial behavior among rural adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
17(2), 301-324. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00524.x
Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Parenting styles or
practices? Parenting, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal
of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 168(2), 147-176.
doi:10.3200/GNTP.168.2.147-176
Chase-Lansdale, P.L., Wakschlag, L.S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). A psychological perspective
on the development of caring in children and youth: The role of the family. Journal of
Adolescence, 18(5), 515-556. doi: 10.1006/jado.1995.1037
Crockett, L.J., & Hayes, R. (2011). Parenting practices and styles. In B. Brown, M. Prinstein
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence: Vol. 2. Interpersonal and Sociocultural Factors
(pp. 241-248). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-3739155.00077-2
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
23
Dlugokinski, E. L., & Firestone, I. J. (1974). Other centeredness and susceptibility to charitable
appeals: Effects of perceived discipline. Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 21-28.
doi:10.1037/h0035560
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, N.
Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and
personality development (pp. 701-778). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial Development. In N. Eisenberg,
W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social,
emotional, and personality development (6th ed.) (pp. 646-718). Hoboken, NJ US: John
Wiley & Sons Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Eisenberg, N., Morris, A., McDaniel, B., & Spinrad, T. L. (2009). Moral cognitions and
prosocial responding in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg, R. M. Lerner, L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol 1: Individual bases of
adolescent development (3rd ed.) (pp. 229-265). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons
Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New York,
NY US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571121
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Geisheker, E. (1979). Content of preachings and power of the
model/preacher: The effect on children's generosity. Developmental Psychology, 15(2),
168-175. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.15.2.168
Gouskova, E. & Robert F. Schoeni, R. F. (2007). Comparing estimates of family income in the
Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the March Current Population Survey, 1968-2005.
Technical Series Paper #07-01. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social
Research. http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/200701_Comparing_Estimates_PSID.pdf
Grusec, J.E., Sass-Kortsaak, P., & Simutis, Z. M. (1978b). The role of example and moral
encouragement in the training of altruism. Child Development, 49(3), 920-923. doi:
10.2307/1128273
Gunnoe, M. L., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Parental religiosity, parenting style, and
adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence 19(2), 199-225. doi:
10.1177/0272431699019002004
Hardy, S. A., Bhattacharjee, A., Reed, A., & Aquino, K. (2010). Moral identity and
psychological distance: The case of adolescent parental socialization. Journal of
Adolescence, 33(1), 111-123. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.008
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
24
Hardy, S. A., Padilla-Walkera, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2008). Parenting dimensions and adolescents'
internalisation of moral values. Journal of Moral Education, 37(2), 205-223.
doi:10.1080/03057240802009512
Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a
predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal 44:
197- 219. doi:10.3102/0002831206298173
Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to selfunderstanding and social judgment. Child Development, 66(5), 1346-1349. doi:
10.2307/1131651
Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to voluntarism: Family socialization and status
transmission models. Social Forces, 74(1), 271-292. doi:10.2307/2580632
Janoski, T., Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1998). Being volunteered? The impact of social
participation and pro-social attitudes on volunteering. Sociological Forum, 13(3), 495519. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/684699
Kim, J, LaTaillade, J., & Kim, H. 2011. Family processes and adolescents’ financial behaviors.
Journal of Family Economic Issues, published on-line. doi:10.1007/s10834-011-9270-3
Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's
empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67(6), 3263-3277.
doi:10.2307/1131778
Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and
control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 19(6), 759-782. doi:10.1177/0743558403260094
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049-1065. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01588.x
Lipscomb, T. J., Bregman, N. J., & McAllister, H. A. (1983). The effect of words and actions on
American children's prosocial behavior. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and
Applied, 114(2), 193-198. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service: Determinants of voluntary
and required youth community service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32(1) , 47-58.
doi:10.1023/A:1021032407300
Musick, M. A. & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
25
Mustillo, S., Wilson, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2004). Legacy volunteering: A test of two theories of
intergenerational transmission. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 530-541.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00036.x
Oliner, S.P. & Oliner, P.M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe.
New York: The Free Press.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1-20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018
Ribar, D.C. and Wilhelm, M.O. (2006). Exchange, role modeling and the intergenerational
transmission of elder support attitudes: Evidence from three generations of MexicanAmericans. Journal of Socio-Economics 35 (3), 514-531. doi:
10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.014
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development
6(2), 417-424.
Soenens, B., Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goossens, L. (2007). The intergenerational
transmission of empathy-related responding in adolescence: The Role of Maternal
Support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 299-311.
doi:10.1177/0146167206296300
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60(6), 14241436. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.ep9772457
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling N. (1992). Impact of parenting on
adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63(5), 1266-1281. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.1992.tb01694.x
Stukas, A. R., Switzer, G. E., Dew, M., Goycoolea, J. M., & Simmons, R. G. (1999). Parental
helping models, gender, and service-learning. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the
Community, 18(1-2), 5-18. doi:10.1300/J005v18n01_02
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Student Participation in
Community Service Activity, NCES 97-331, by Mary Jo Nolin, Bradford Chaney, and
Chris Chapman. Project Officer, Kathryn Chandler, Washington, DC: 1997. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97331.pdf
Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give? In R. Steinberg & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The
nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd edition) (pp. 568-590). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
26
Wilhelm, M. O. (2006a). New data on charitable giving in the PSID. Economics Letters 92(1):
26-31. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.01.009
Wilhelm, M. O. (2006b). The 2001 Center on Philanthropy Panel Study User’s Guide.
Indianapolis, IN: IUPUI.
https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/mowilhel/Web_page/data.htm
Wilhelm, M. O., Brown, E., Rooney, P.M., & Steinberg, R. (2008). The intergenerational
transmission of generosity. Journal of Public Economics 92 (10-11): 2146-2156. doi:
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.004
Wuthnow, Robert. 1995. Learning to care: Elementary kindness in an age of indifference. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of community service in
identity development: Normative, unconventional, and deviant orientations. Journal of
Adolescent Research 14(2): 248-261. doi: 10.1177/0743558499142006
Endnote
1
Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, and Steinberg (2008) provide evidence of an association between the
dollar amounts contemporaneously given to charitable organizations by adult-aged children and
their parents. There also is evidence of an association between the volunteering of adult-aged
children and their parents: Bekkers (2007) analyzes a binary volunteering variable; Janoski and
Wilson (1995) analyze the ordinal intensity of volunteering; Mustillo, Wilson, and Lynch (2004)
analyze the amount of hours volunteered. Bekkers (2011) finds evidence that adult’s
volunteering and giving are associated with their parents’ past volunteering, retrospectively
reported by the adults.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
27
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Adolescent giving
.72
.45
–
2. Adolescent volunteering
.41
.49
.22**
–
3. Role-model giving
.69
.46
.18**
.23**
–
4. Conversation about
.62
.48
.18**
.13**
.12**
–
5. Role-model volunteering
.38
.49
.13**
.23**
.40**
.16**
–
6. Warmth and support
1.44
.54
.07*
.10**
.10**
.11**
.13**
–
7. Psychological control
.48
.45
–.07*
–.06*
–.06*
–.06
–.10**
–.44** –
8. Behavioral control
1.76
1.12 .08**
–.03
–.08** .24**
.03
.08**
–.04
–
9. Age
15.3
1.93 .02
.08**
–.01
–.06*
–.04
–.06*
.11**
–.49**
–
10. Female
.50
.50
.08**
.12**
.00
.07**
.04
.03
.03
–.07*
.07*
–
11. African-American
.22
.41
.06*
–.10** –.18** .01
–.18**
–.08** .08**
.20**
–.01
–.07* –
12. Log family income
10.79
.78
.09**
.19**
.35**
.17**
–.14**
.04
.03
giving
.48**
Notes: The estimates use sample weights. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
.07**
–.08**
–.39**
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
28
Table 2
Logit models of the probability that the adolescent gives, volunteers
Adolescent giving
Adolescent volunteering
Role-model giving
.15*** (.05)
.17*** (.04)
Conversation about giving
.11** (.04)
.09* (.04)
Role-model volunteering
.04 (.04)
.13** (.04)
Warmth and support
.01 (.04)
.05 (.04)
Psychological control
-.05 (.04)
-.02 (.05)
Behavioral control
.03 (.02)
.01 (.02)
Age
.02 (.01)
.03** (.01)
Female
.08* (.03)
.10** (.04)
African-American
.10** (.03)
-.04 (.05)
Log family income
.01 (.03)
.03 (.03)
Log-likelihood
-12,322
-13,793
1,244
1,244
N
Notes: The estimates are marginal effects from logit models, estimated using the sample weights.
Each model contains a dummy variable indicating when the adolescent did not live with a
mother/step-mother and a dummy variable indicating that the adolescent’s race is missing.
Standard errors are in parentheses. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
SOCIALIZATION OF GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
29
Table 3
Logit models of the probability that the adolescent gives, volunteers by sex
Adolescent giving
Adolescent volunteering
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Role-model giving
.20** (.07)
.12 (.06)
.15* (.07)
.21*** (.06)
Conversation about giving
.08 (.05)
.16** (.05)
.05 (.06)
.14** (.05)
Role-model volunteering
.04 (.05)
.05 (.06)
.17** (.06)
.09 (.06)
Warmth and support
-.03 (.05)
.04 (.06)
-.08 (.06)
.21*** (.06)
Psychological control
-.02 (.06)
-.09 (.06)
-.07 (.07)
.04 (.07)
Behavioral control
.03 (.02)
.04 (.03)
.01 (.03)
.01 (.03)
Age
.03* (.01)
.01 (.02)
.04* (.02)
.02 (.02)
African-American
.15*** (.04)
.04 (.06)
-.02 (.07)
-.05 (.06)
Log family income
.03 (.04)
-.02 (.04)
.03 (.04)
.04 (.04)
Log-likelihood
-5,699
-6,442
-7,234
-6,251
N
634
610
634
610
Notes: See notes to Table 2.