In 2022 we were charged with exploring giving by High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) and Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs) through the distinctive lens of the new science of Philanthropy Psychology. Phil Psych, as we affectionately know it, aims to study the human capacity to love. We were approached by a donor who wanted to understand why a higher percentage of HNWIs or UHNWIs weren’t engaging with philanthropy and thus what might be done to encourage them to do so.
To address this issue, we conducted a series of 48 semi-structured interviews with a mixture of HNWIs and UHNWI philanthropists from around the world, exploring their experience of philanthropy and the challenges they had to face.
Certainly, giving by the wealthy has been the source of considerable academic attention and debate. Previous studies have addressed the relationship between income, net wealth and charitable giving. Other studies have examined the demographic characteristics of givers, how they give, what entities they give to, how well they give and why they give.
In respect of the latter, motives for philanthropy are often depicted as a dichotomy: altruism versus self-interest or perhaps a hybrid of the two. Altruism is typically defined as giving driven exclusively by a concern with the benefits provided to others. It typically reflects an obligation on the part of the wealthy to ‘do the right thing’ or act in accordance with moral principles, values or a religious faith. It can also, of course, reflect a genuine identification with the needs of others.
This stands in contrast with self-interested giving, in which givers receive something in return for their gift, such as an enhanced reputation, recognition, social status, important relationships, tax benefits or the ability to limit the scale of the inheritance tax burden on their heirs. Yet the notion of altruism and self-benefit representing a neat dichotomy has been critiqued as overly simplistic because key motives can span both perspectives. Impact, in its various guises, is frequently listed at the top of the lists of motives cited by High Net Worth Individuals. The 2021 Bank of America Study of Philanthropy report, for example, found that the top three motives for giving on the part of this group were a belief in the mission of an organisation, a belief that a gift could make a difference and a sense of personal satisfaction and fulfilment. The first two motives could be argued to be altruistic while the third one provides the individual with some psychological benefits.
So, should we unselfishly pursue the maximum gain for others, or perhaps be comfortable with the derivation of a personal benefit from the feelings of enhanced personal competence and/or achievement that result? This matters because the meaning that will be derived will be different in each case and thus the language and approach that we use to encourage each experience of philanthropy might need to be differentiated.
The task is further complicated when one considers too that the need to create an impact for recipient communities is in some sense intuitive. Yet the notion that benefits can accrue to the donor, and that these too can be maximised, is not. This is particularly the case where the benefits derived for the donor are psychological in nature. Encouraging greater participation in philanthropy might thus require the stimulation of a journey of self-discovery where additional sources of meaning and meaningfulness can be explicitly primed and explored. Although the creation of community impact can certainly be one source of meaning that people experience, it is only one output of a potentially more sophisticated meaning-creation process. Meaning can also be created as people interact with the communities they care about, receiving warmth, support, friendship and ultimately, perhaps, entry to the community itself, becoming part of it or feeling as one with it. The ability to share these wider aspects of self was not something that was intuitive to our philanthropists as they embarked on their philanthropic journeys
In our interviews, we found that often giving was sustained through engagement with self, rather than the absence of self. In our research, we explored the nature of the self that sought expression through the care for others. We began this study with the intent of studying philanthropists, yet at its close, we conclude this identity label may be less than helpful. The identity of ‘philanthropist’ was rarely articulated by our interviewees and implies a generic whose existence we found little evidence for. Rather a complex web of other individual or collective identities were typically in play. The most meaningful experiences our interviewees had were deeply expressive of self. Hence who people are when they give (i.e. their identity) seems to us to be hugely more powerful in shaping and sustaining giving than merely ‘why people give’. As a field and as a society we have been fascinated by the latter. As we noted earlier, work on motives abounds. The desire for impact, change or the need to make a difference are all commonly reported in sector surveys but focused solely on the outcomes from philanthropy for the focal community. While this is understandable, in neglecting the former we fail to consider how giving can also impact the giver.
We believe that a failure to give sufficient weight to such impact is a mistake because it can unnecessarily deprive individuals of meaning and impact the sustainability of their engagement with philanthropy as a consequence. Even if the goal is solely to support a focal community and the individual articulates their giving as entirely selfless, a failure to consider how each experience might make the giver feel can still hurt their sense of psychological wellbeing and lead to the early termination of support. Activities that lack meaning are quickly dropped. It is time then for tired notions of altruism to be abandoned and replaced with an understanding of the journey in self that true engagement with philanthropy can create and the meaning it can deliver for all.
Jen Shang is Professor of Philanthropic Psychology and Co-Director of the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy. Jen Shang is the world’s only philanthropic psychologist.
Adrian Sargeant is Professor of Fundraising and Co-Director of the Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy.
Meaningful Philanthropy by Jen Shang and Adrian Sargeant is available on the Bristol University Press website. Order here for £27.99.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image Clark Tibbs via Unsplash