I recently spent a solid week trying to dispel the notion that Millennials are the most unique possible of all generations and, in fact, the idea of generational dynamics entirely. Millennials are people and should treated like people, no better, no worse.
One of the many points in those blogs that almost any other point of demographic differentiation is better than generation for determining people’s viewpoints.
So today, I’d like to look at sex differences in giving. To give credit where credit is due, Indiana University / Purdue University Indianapolis has a wonderful initiative called the Women’s Philanthropy Institute. They have done a lot of the research into this; my job here is largely to present it and to try really hard not to mess it up.
On that positive note, here are some of the differences (the studies behind these are all found here):
- Women give more to charities than men and specifically single women give significantly more than single men.
- That said, marriage significantly increases giving of both men and women.
- Women tend to give more to women’s issues, human rights, and environmental causes. Men give more to issues around security, the economy, and sports.
- Interestingly, these differences subside as women and men get wealthier, with their tastes merging a bit more. A potential hypothesis is that larger gifts from wealthier people also tend to me more the product of familial consultation. Thus, it may be a more literal merging of tastes.
- Men tend to give to fewer charities; women tend to spread out their giving more.
- Women are more likely to volunteer and more likely to donate to the organization they are involved with as a volunteer.
- There is little difference in bequest giving patterns.
But you want to know what will cause men to give and what will cause women to give. Well, I won’t disappoint.
A Social Science Research study found that men have lower empathy scores when not watching Glory, Brian’s Song, Rudy, or Field of Dreams. (They omit this last part, but it’s implied.) Given this, they looked to see if there was a way to get them to donate (noting that emotional appeals were not working as well).
The researchers tried four frames:
- Social proof: “When you give to CRP, you join your fellow citizens in helping to fight poverty. The poor are now being helped by record numbers of charitable givers across the country. You can join the movement to eliminate poverty with your contribution to CRP.”
- Efficacy: “When you give to CRP, your donation counts. Multiple external audits confirm that more than 98% of donations to CRP go on to directly benefit the poor. You can be assured CRP will put your contribution to work by using your donation to fight poverty effectively.”
- Clear injustice: “When you give to CRP, you help fight the injustice of poverty today. Of the millions of people who fall below the poverty line, many of them were born into poverty and never had the opportunities that other Americans did. You can help address the injustice of poverty through your donation to CRP.”
- Aligned self-interest: “When you give to CRP, your donation addresses a problem that hurts us all. Research shows that poverty weighs down our interconnected economy, leading to greater government spending, and exacerbating many social problems like crime. You can benefit everyone, and help make the economy strong and productive for us all through your donation to CRP.”
The aligned self-interest framing worked significantly better than the others with men. However, this was also the worst performing with women.
So, to oversimplify, the traditional emotional appeal works best with women and appealing to “what’s in it for me” works best with men.
Has anyone has experience with testing this type of messaging? Would love to hear your experience in the comments or at email@example.com.