![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Scholars have long documented the intersection between social identity and experiences within higher education. However, we know very little about the role of social identity in shaping alumni engagement with their alma mater, specifically through philanthropic giving. Building upon social identity and social distance theories and the identity-based motivation model, I developed a philanthropic mirroring framework that posits that alumni engagement increases when alumni social identity is mirrored in solicitation efforts. Using my own population-based survey experiment, the National Alumni Giving Experiment (n = 1,621), I found that respondents who shared at least 1 marginalized social identity with students profiled in fundraising solicitations are more likely than others to assign more importance to the cause and to give greater amounts. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Funding
This study was generously funded, in part, by The Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) John Grenzebach Award for Research in Philanthropy for Educational Advancement.
Notes
1. When exploring the viability of solicitation letters that specifically support first-generation college students, I identified more than 120 scholarships that provide tuition assistance to students who are first in their family to attend higher education. Data available upon request.
2. At the time of writing, I found more than 185 different scholarships for LGBT-identified students at U.S. institutions. Data available upon request.
3. In a supplementary analysis (available upon request), I also examined the effect of age and generation on the dependent variables. Age and generation were correlated with young alumni status; thus, I ran models with and without young alumni status. The effect of age was found to be not statistically significant. The effect of generation was marginally significant (p < .1), suggesting that respondents from the World War II generation were more engaged with the scholarship cause presented in the solicitation letter. This pattern was consistent with previous scholarship on generational giving (Steinberg & Wilhelm, Citation2003).
4. Following Levay, Freese, and Druckman (Citation2016), I calculated sample weights based on GSS sociodemographic information for age, gender, income, race/ethnicity, education (bachelor’s degree vs. graduate degree), marital status, political ideology, and religiosity. Looking at the distribution of the variable “perceived importance of cause” with sample weights, I found similar patterns: important, 31.6%; not important, 49.1%; and neither important nor not important, 19.3%.
5. Open-ended comments showed that many of those not willing to donate considered themselves as not having the financial means to do so at the time of the survey. For example, one respondent wrote: “I am in debt, so probably nothing would compel me [to give]. However, if I were in a position to give, I would be more moved by a poor student who was not able to get a scholarship” (ID #2932). Another respondent wrote: “I have little discretionary income now, so it would take a lot to actually compel me to give” (ID #2958).