To Give or Not to Give,That Is the Question: How Methodology Is Destiny in Dutch Giving Data

Abstract

In research on giving, methodology is destiny. The volume of donations estimated from sample surveys strongly depends on the length of the questionnaire used to measure giving. By comparing two giving surveys from the Netherlands, the authors show that a short questionnaire on giving not only underestimates the volume of giving but also biases the effects of predictors of giving. Specifically, they find that a very short module leads to an underestimation of the effects of predictors of giving on the amount donated but an overestimation of their effects on the probability of charitable giving. Short survey modules may lead researchers to falsely reject or accept hypotheses on determinants of giving due to underreporting of donations.

Keywords

philanthropy methodology survey questionnaire design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andreoni, J. , Brown, E. , & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples. Who decides and why does it matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111-133.

Bekkers, R. (2004). Giving and volunteering in the Netherlands: Sociological and psychological perspectives. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Brooks, A. C. (2004). What do “don't know” responses really mean in giving surveys? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 324-434.

De Graaf, N. D. , De Graaf, P. , Kraaykamp, G. , & Ultee, W. (2000). Familie-Enquête Nederlandse Bevolking [Family survey of the Dutch population: data file]. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Nijmegen University, Department of Sociology.

Hall, M. H. (2001). Measurement issues in surveys of giving and volunteering and strategies applied in the design of Canada's National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 515-526.

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153-162.

O'Neill, M. (2001). Research on giving and volunteering: Methodological considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 505-514.

Rooney, P. M. , Mesch, D. J. , Chin, W. , & Steinberg, K. S. (2005). The effect of race, gender, and survey methodologies on giving in the US. Economics Letters, 86(2), 173-180.

Rooney, P. M. , Steinberg, K. S. , & Schervish, P. G. (2001). A methodological comparison of giving surveys: Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 551-568.

10.

Rooney, P. M. , Steinberg, K. S. , & Schervish, P. G. (2004). Methodology is destiny: The effect of survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 628-654.

11.

Schuyt, T. N. M. (Ed.). (2003). Geven in Nederland 2003: Giften, Legaten, Sponsoring en Vrijwilligerswerk [Giving in the Netherlands 2003: Donations, bequests, sponsoring and volunteering]. Houten/Mechelen, Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

12.

Schuyt, T. N. M. , & Gouwenberg, B. (Eds.). (2005). Geven in Nederland 2005: Giften, Legaten, Sponsoring en Vrijwilligerswerk [Giving in the Netherlands 2005: Donations, bequests, sponsoring and volunteering]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

13.

Smith, V. H. , Kehoe, M. R. , & Cremer, M. E. (1995). The private provision of public goods: Altruism and voluntary giving. Journal of Public Economics, 58, 107-126.

14.

Steinberg, K. S. , Rooney, P. M. , & Chin, W. (2002). Measurement of volunteering: A methodological study using Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 484-501.