Adverse Childhood Events, Empathy, and Altruism

poster abstractWith a growing prevalence of adverse treatment of children, it is important to look into the longterm effects of negative childhood experiences – specifically their capacities for empathic concern and helping behavior. Empathy is the tendency to read and interpret others’ emotions. Long-term outcomes of adverse childhood events (ACE) include a host of mental health disorders. Other studies have found that, on the other hand, ACE is correlated to an increase in empathy. Previous studies have also indicated that stress can increase prosocial behavior; the latter seems to function in offsetting the effects of the former. Clarification can be found in a motivational process model, which theorizes that experiencing ACE increases one’s motivation to help others who may experience the same circumstances. While ACE may indeed initially result in a blunting of affect, successfully overcoming the effects of these events often leads to a desire to change outcomes for others. 836 adults (72.5% female) completed an online survey that included the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Adverse Childhood Events scale, and the altruistic behaviors scale. In line with previous research, both Adverse Childhood Events, r=.155, p<.001, and empathic concern, r=.188, p<.001, are positively correlated with altruism. However, there is little research that determines the link between adverse childhood events and empathy. Not only are empathic concern, B=.153, p=<.001, and the experience of adverse childhood events, B=.190, p<.001, positively associated with altruism, but there is a strong interaction affect between empathic concern and adverse childhood events, B=.107, p=.002. In other words, the interaction between empathic concern and a history of adverse childhood events is positively associated with altruism. Most research on factors associated with altruism has focused on simple main effects. However, by exploring interaction effects, we can better determine what types of people are more likely to behave altruistically

Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives

Over $400 billion were donated to nonprofits in 2017, a record high. However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2014, only 56 percent of American households donated. This trend in decreasing donors pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving [3-5]. Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving

The strategic helper: Narcissism and prosocial motives and behaviors

Across three studies, we examined the relationship between narcissism, prosocial behaviors, and the reasons why people engaged in them. Specifically, we examined how narcissistic people engaged in charitable donations, taking advantage of a naturally occurring mass charitable donation campaign, the ALS “ice bucket challenge” (Study 1). We also examined how narcissism was related to volunteering and other types of prosocial behaviors (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, we compared and contrasted the prosocial responses of more empathic versus more narcissistic people (Studies 2 and 3). This paper can help scholars and practitioners to determine under which circumstances, and for which reasons, narcissistic people may exhibit prosocial behaviors

Tax Policy and Charitable Giving Results

This study used the Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS), which is the only panel study of philanthropy in America, and data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), which is the largest and longest running panel study in the world. The PSID has a rich array of data for over 9,000 households, including, income, wealth, marital status, existence and number of children, etc. We know from prior research that these variables play an important role in explaining and predicting giving patterns, and they are not all available in other datasets used for this type of research. Using this data, Indiana University’s estimates suggest that it is important to consider where tax payers are responsive to changes in charitable giving incentives. However, because there is still significant debate with regards to the responsiveness of charitable giving to changes in tax policy (see pages 11-15 for a discussion on tax-price elasticity of charitable giving), analyses of each proposal were also conducted using the commonly used elasticities: less responsive, -0.5 & moderately responsive, -1.0

Nonprofits and Donor-Advised Funds: Perceptions and Potential Impacts

Donor-advised funds (DAFs) foster a unique partnership among nonprofits, donors, and DAF sponsoring organizations to achieve philanthropic goals. DAFs are also one of the fastest growing charitable vehicles and most talked about topics in the field of philanthropy. It is essential to understand donors’ and nonprofit organizations’ perceptions of DAFs. Perceptions not only affect how and when DAFs are used, but they impact policymakers’ decisions about rules and regulations, thereby influencing the long-term efficacy of DAFs as a philanthropic vehicle

An Annotated Bibliography of Recent Literature on Current Developments in Philanthropy

As philanthropic organizations play an increasingly important role in societies around the world, the research on philanthropy – from giving and volunteering practices to regulatory frameworks to digital innovations – has also evolved in recent decades. It is important to develop a thorough overview of the relevant scientific discourses and literature on current developments in philanthropy. This will allow researchers and practitioners to enhance the understanding of philanthropy and to improve its practice worldwide. This report provides new insights on current developments and important changes in the global philanthropic landscape, including trends in global philanthropy and its interaction with other sectors of society

More comfortable online? Alexithymia and social media use

poster abstractAbstract: Alexithymia includes difficulty identifying and describing emotions, limited imaginative ability, and a tendency to focus attention on external reality versus inner experience (Taylor, Bagby, & Parker, 1991, 1997). Alexithymia is one feature of low emotional intelligence (Bar-on, 1996, 1997; Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2001). There has been limited, conflicting research on the topic of emotional intelligence and social media usage. For example, emotionally intelligent people tend to use Facebook more overall (Bektas, Toros, & Miman, 2014), but tend to use MySpace less for communicating with romantic partners (Dong, Urista, & Gundrum, 2008). Thus, we tentatively hypothesize that alexithymia may be associated with more social media usage because it may be more difficult for these individuals to form strong in-person relationships (Kauhanen, Kaplan, Julkunen, Wilson & Salonen, 1993). 938 online adults (72% female, Mean age=28.10, 84.8% Caucasian) completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1993) and self-report measures of social media use as part of a larger study. The mean score on the TAS-20 was 44.88 (SD=10.55), with 82 (8.7%) participants having alexithymia (score >=61). Overall, total alexithymia was positively associated with total social media use, β=.06, p=.05. In terms of type of social media, total alexithymia was marginally associated with Facebook use and Instagram use, βs=.06, ps=.06, but was not associated with Twitter use, β=.03, p=.43. When examining active (posting) verse passive use (checking) of social media, total alexithymia was positively associated with active social media use (posting), β=.06, p=.04, but was not associated with passive social media use (checking), β=.05, p=.14. Alexithymia is associated with higher levels of certain types of social media. Future research should directly measure social media usage, rather than rely on self-report. But to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine question of how alexithymic people use social media

Tweets, Hashtags, & Likes: How is Social Media Use Related to Empathy?

poster abstractEmpathy is the tendency to perceive and interpret others’ perspectives and feel care and concern for them (Davis, 1983; Hoffman, 1977). However, empathy has been declining in American college students in recent years (Konrath, O’Brien, Hsing, 2011) and many scholars blame new technology and social media (see Konrath, 2012 for a review). Over the course of 3 separate studies, we investigated the relationships between social media usage and empathy. Study 1 found that among online adults Empathic Concern (emotional empathy) was related to less frequent Twitter use, β=-.07, p=.04, and Perspective Taking (cognitive empathy) was related to less frequent Facebook use, β=-.07, p=.05. However, Fantasy and Personal Distress were both associated with more frequent use of Twitter and Facebook, βs=.06-.11, ps=<.04. Study 2 found that among students, dispositional personal distress is associated with more daily tweeting, β=.60, p=.009, but fewer Facebook status updates, β=-.39, p=.007. Finally, Study 3 found that among teens, those higher in empathic concern were more likely to feel connected to their friends and family when using Facebook, β=.47, p=.03. These studies reveal that empathy is related to both the frequency of social media usage and the emotional connections experienced through social media. These results can be used to help better understand and navigate this fairly new media terrain. Our studies take a more comprehensive look at the relationship between empathy and social media use by measuring not only frequency of use but emotional connection on different social media platforms

The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving in the United States

About $450 billion were donated to U.S. nonprofits in 2019 according to the most recently available data (Giving USA Foundation 2020). However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2016, only 53 percent of American households donated (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy 2019). This trend in decreasing share of U.S. households that donate to charitable causes pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving (Brill and Choe 2018; Ricco 2018; Rooney et al. 2017). Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving. This paper investigates the estimated effects of potential policy proposals on charitable giving, donor incidence rates, and Treasury revenue. This study used the Penn Wharton Budget Model (Penn 2019a, 2019b) to run microsimulations of the effects of five tax policy proposals on charitable giving dollars, the number of households that donate, and the forgone Treasury revenue. The five proposals included: a non-itemizer charitable deduction; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a cap; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a floor; an enhanced non-itemizer charitable deduction, which provides a higher value deduction for low- and middle-income households; and a non-itemizer non-refundable 25 percent charitable giving tax credit. Of the five policy options analyzed, providing a non-refundable 25$37 billion in 2018 dollars) and the number of donor households (10.6 million) of the five policy options analyzed. However, it is also the most “expensive” proposal (measured in terms of forgone Treasury revenue) for United States (U.S.) Treasury revenue (−$33.0 billion). Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than are lost in Treasury revenue. Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than were projected to have been lost as a result of TCJA. All five proposals bring in more donor households that were expected to be lost as a result of TCJA. This paper is based on a published report written and researched by [school] in partnership with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and commissioned by Independent Sector. The report, “Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives Estimating changes in charitable dollars and number of donors resulting from five policy proposals,” can be found at this link: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515

The Philanthropy Outlook 2018 & 2019

With the strong finish of the stock market and passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the end of 2017, 2018 is shaping up to be an unusual year, and we can expect major changes in the landscape of charitable giving. These factors will undoubtedly affect the baseline projections produced by The Philanthropy Outlook’s forecasting model. We hope the Philanthropy Outlook 2018 & 2019 offers helpful insight into the complex factors influencing the philanthropic environment and can assist you in making important decisions for your organization