1 / 31

William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

Charitable Giving Following the 2004 Tsunami: Social Impact Theory and Was America Stingy? William Ashton, Ph.D. Department of Behavioral Sciences City University of New York – York College Eastern Psychological Association Meeting March 17, 2006 Baltimore, MD.

wang-maxwell
Download Presentation

William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Charitable Giving Following the 2004 Tsunami: Social Impact Theory and Was America Stingy? William Ashton, Ph.D. Department of Behavioral Sciences City University of New York – York College Eastern Psychological Association Meeting March 17, 2006 Baltimore, MD William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  2. What Happened • 7:59 a.m. local time on December 26, 2004 • 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck the waters off the Sri Lankan coast • Tsunami reached the shores of eight countries. • Over 230,000 people were killed and an equal number were injured • 5 million more were in need of some form of emergency relief—medical attention, shelter, clothes, food • - U.N. Foundation, The Indian Ocean tsunami: One year after the disaster. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  3. Unprecedented Need for Charity • governments donated $6 billion • relief agencies and the international financial institutions donated $2.3 billion • private and corporate donations accounted for over $5.1 billion • - U.N. Foundation, The Indian Ocean tsunami: One year after the disaster. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  4. Stingy? “[T]he foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income. I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous." -- Jan Egeland, the UN's Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, January 26 or 27, 2004 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  5. U.S. Response “TSUNAMI DISASTER: US RESPONDS TO CRITICS BY INCREASING AID TO $ 350M AFTER AN international outcry and widespread dismay, the United States last night increased 10-fold its contribution of aid to help survivors of the Asian tsunami disaster, from $ 35m to $ 350m -- The Independent (UK), January 1, 2005 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  6. A Lasting Stigma of Stinginess “Presentation of the [2006 Foreign Aid] budget immediately re-opened the debate, in the wake of the Asian tsunami disaster, over whether the US was stingy, compared with other rich nations.” -- Financial Times (London, England), February 8, 2005 “One of the lessons of the tsunami a year ago is that however stingy we Americans have been in giving foreign aid, we want to do better.” -- New York Times, January 10, 2006 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  7. Purpose of Analysis • Objectively examine U.S. giving to answer the question, Was the U.S. Stingy? • Examine the application of Social-Psychological principles to the relationships between giving and other variables. • What other variables? William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  8. Latane’ (1981) reported on • Basset and Latane’s study • Varied the status, distance and the number of people involved in a news story about a catastrophe • Participants were asked to play the role of newspaper editor and allocate an amount of newspaper coverage to the story • The allocated coverage were predicted by SIT William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  9. Social Impact Theory – SIT • Social Impact is a function of: • Strength (status) • Immediacy, and • Number of sources William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  10. Tsunami: SIT Variables • Social Impact is a function of: • Strength (status) – unoperationalized • Immediacy and – distance from Banda Aceh • Number of sources – number of dead county-persons William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  11. Data Donations – Reuters report as of January 6, 2005 Dead – Associated Press estimates as of January 1, 2005. Distance – Miles from Banda Aceh to capital city of country William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  12. Control Variable Gross Domestic Product -- value of final goods and services produced within a country's borders in a year, regardless of ownership. An indicator of standard of living. More disposable than Gross National Product. Source for GDP – CIA World Factbook William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  13. Analysis Plan • MRC on All Countries – Test Elements of SIT • analysis of regression • MRC – U.S. Removed – Test of U.S. Stinginess • Using SIT elements • MRC • prediction and confidence interval • Using only significant predictors • MRC • prediction and confidence interval William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  14. Descriptives William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  15. Correlations *p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  16. GDP, Dead & Distance on Government Giving GDP entered first; Dead & Distance entered second Model 1 (GDP), R^2=.128, p>.05 Model 2 (GDP & Dead) *p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 Model R^2=.3418, p<.05;Δ R^2=.213, p<.05 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  17. GDP, Distance & Dead on Private Giving GDP entered first; Distance & Dead entered second Model 1 (GDP), R^2=.998, p<.0001 Model 2 (GDP, Distance & Dead) *p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 Model R^2=.998, p<.0001;Δ R^2=.0, p>.05 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  18. Summary of Whole Data Set • Government Giving • Dead is significantly related to government giving • When Dead and GDP are entered, Distance changes to its predicted direction (though weak) • Moderate Support for SIT • Private Giving • GDP is significantly related to Private Giving • No Support for SIT William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  19. Next Set of Analyses • Remove U.S. • Calculate a Regression Equation • Predict U.S. Giving and Confidence Interval • Compare to Actual U.S. Data William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  20. GDP, Dead & Distance on Government Giving GDP entered first; Distance & Dead entered second Model 1 (GDP), R^2=.098, p>.05 Model 2 (GDP & Dead) *p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 Model R^2=.315, p<.05; Δ R^2=.217, p<.05 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  21. y-hat = 44.049 + GDP * 3.025E-11 + • Distance * 6.83E-03 + Dead * 6.121 • U.S. Dead = 36; Distance = 9340; GDP = 1.1E+13 • y=hat U.S. = 44.049 + 1.1E+13 * 3.025E-11 + 9340 * 6.83E-03 + 36 * 6.121 • y-hat U.S. = 661 million dollars • SE-Y-hat=115.4596; n=26 • 95% Confidence Interval of +/- 239.46 • 661+/- 239.46 ~= 222 to 900 Million • Actual Government Giving = 350 Million • U.S. was not stingy – giving was within the confidence interval. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  22. GDP, Dead & Distance on Private Giving GDP entered first; Distance & Dead entered second Model 1 (GDP), R^2=.951, p<.0001 Model 2 (GDP & Dead) *p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 Model R^2=.982, p<.0001; Δ R^2=.031, p<.05 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  23. y-hat = -.179 + GDP * 4.710E-11 + • Distance * -8.63E-04 + Dead * 4.734 • y-hat U.S. = 680 Million Dollars • SE-y-hat = 68.1708; n=10 • 95% Confidence Interval = +/- 154.202 • 680 +/-154.202 ~= 526 to 834 • Actual Private Giving = 1,000 Million • Private U.S. Citizens gave more than what would have been predicted. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  24. For the MRC Purists … • Repeat above analysis with: • U.S. removed (as before) • Only using significant predictors (new): • Government Giving – Dead • Private Giving - GDP William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  25. Dead on Government Giving R^2=.265, p<.01 Model (Dead) * p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  26. y-hat = 28.152+ Dead * 6.617 • y-hat U.S. = 266.364 Million Dollars • SE-y-hat = 105.9566; n=26 • 95% Confidence Interval = +/- 218.69 • 266 +/-218 ~= 47 to 485 • Actual Government Giving = 350 Million • U.S. Government giving within confidence interval. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  27. GDP on Private Giving R^2=.951, p<.0001 Model (GDP) * p<.05; ** p<.01, ***p<.0001 William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  28. y-hat = -4.369+ GDP * 8.996E-11 • y-hat U.S. = 985.191 Million Dollars • n=10 • SE-y-hat = 67.0766 • 95% Confidence Interval = +/- 154.679 • 985 +/- 155 ~= 830 to 1140 • Actual Private Giving = 1,000 Million • U.S. Citizens gave what would have been predicted. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  29. Summary of Concurrent Predictions William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  30. Conclusions • U.S. was not stingy. • For government giving, SIT worked well • Private citizens respond to media images and gave “’till it hurt (GDP)”; thus are not affected by SIT variables. • Politicians have learned to think in terms of local neighbors (distance) and constituents (dead or relatives of the dead); thus are affected by these variables. William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

  31. To download this slideshow, please go to: www.york.cuny.edu/~washton/research/tsunami.ppt William Ashton, Ph.D. City University of New York, York College EPA, 2006

More Related