A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy

By René Bekkers, Pamala Wiepking. 2010

1,500 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Health, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/80d96d686429d237411230a9aaf789cc4d1e83f8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Health

1. Pamala Wiepking
2. René Bekkers
3. F. Handy
4. Zachary I. Moore
5. M. Brown
6. Amir Hayat
7. D. Mesch
8. B. Breeze

In Safety Research

1. Pamala Wiepking
2. F. Handy
3. Zachary I. Moore
4. M. Brown
5. Amir Hayat
6. D. Mesch
7. B. Breeze
8. René Bekkers

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Pamala Wiepking
2. René Bekkers
3. F. Handy
4. Sara Konrath
5. Zachary I. Moore
6. M. Brown
7. Amir Hayat
8. D. Mesch

Citations in the corpus

• Gender differences in charitable giving (2011, methodology): “Mark., (2011) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm see a strong and positive relationship between altruism, empathy, prosocial values, and philanthropy, and that these values are positively related to charitable giving (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011) (Bennett, 2003) (Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010).”
• Feeling poor, acting stingy: the effect of money perceptions on charitable giving (2012, background): “These results are very much in line with previous studies (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2007; James and Sharpe, 2007; Wiepking, 2007) as we find a positive relationship between home ownership, annual after‐tax income and receiving income from wealth and the level of charitable donations.”
• Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation (2014, neutral): “Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) fi nd that the social context in which decisions on charitable contributions are made is one of the most important factors in determining outcomes.”
• I'm Moral, but I Won't Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations (2014, background): “Yet, as consumers have limited financial resources to allocate to charitable giving, they may evaluate the deservingness of the recipients before making donations (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011).”
• Examining links from civic engagement to daily well-being from a self-determination theory perspective (2019, background): “…and individually-varying motivations than helping and pro-environmental behavior, given that these behaviors tend to require more time, resources, or initiative and may be enacted for a wide range of reasons (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2010; Clary & Snyder, 1999; Cornelis, Van Hiel, & De Cremer, 2013).”
• The Development and Validation of the Motives to Donate Scale (2018, background): “Self-focused benefits could include tax credits (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a), enhancing one’s reputation, getting a personal joy from the very act of donating, relieving feelings of guilt of being more fortunate than others (impure altruist), being perceived as generous by social peers or avoidance…”
• Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: gender, marital status, income, and wealth (2012, methodology): “We emphasise that tests of mechanisms should not be restricted only to the eight mechanisms as derived in our literature review (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011b).”