What kinds of people give, and what or who motivates them? Those are the questions a new Generosity Commission study set out to answer.

And it turns out that giving, together with volunteering, is largely tied to values. Respondents in the survey, titled “How and Why We Give,” said that what mattered in their giving and volunteering is that the action aligned with their passions, with 61% saying that giving and volunteering are ways they express their values. Only 6% of respondents were motivated to give by tax breaks, and 3% were motivated by impressing others.

The responses in the study varied widely, effectively offering nonprofits a road map to understanding and reaching their target demographics.

The 70-page report was conducted by Hattaway Communications and released late last month by the Generosity Commission, a nonpartisan group of philanthropic leaders launched in October 2021 by The Giving Institute and Giving USA Foundation to reverse the decline in American giving and volunteering, which began in 2000. Results were collected from tweets and news articles to see what conversations about giving were gaining traction across the nation, as well as a 2022 study of 2,569 U.S. adults and focus groups.

Three-quarters of respondents said they aimed to be generous, but most avoided using the term to describe themselves, seemingly not wanting to “virtue-signal.” Participants believed that people were generous in different ways, depending on what was accessible to them. While one person might donate to a 501(c)(3), others might house a stray dog or help a loved one with homework. Generosity wasn’t defined by the audience impacted by the giving or volunteering and could be shown to anyone, no matter their background, not simply groups who may have been traditionally viewed as underprivileged or in need. 

Though anyone could be a generous person, participants felt that there were barriers to giving and volunteering, including time and money. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said there have been times they chose not to give due to their finances, yet 69% felt it was important to give even if they were struggling with resources.

Overall, 90% of respondents felt giving and volunteering were priorities for them, with focus groups showing that participants believed that having a giving culture is a universal principle that helps societies function, not a uniquely American one. Giving and volunteering, the report showed, are optimistic actions that stem from the belief that the world can be improved.

Respondents said they wanted to see tangible results from their actions, which often led them to local initiatives, with participants donating clothes, food or money in ways that could be seen and felt. The majority of respondents valued nonprofits that were transparent, with 67% wanting to know how their money was spent.

While respondents said they yearned to be generous, 44% didn’t know how to offer help, so they often fell back on giving based on convenience. This included 61% “rounding up” at the grocery store for donations at checkout, and 63% purchasing an additional item to help a cause they cared for.

While respondents disliked boasting about their giving, participants said that they were willing to share knowledge about their giving and volunteering if it would help others do the same, with 55% saying they were interested in talking about their actions at small events with people they knew.

The media section of the report showed that while celebrities’ giving and volunteering took up a disproportionate amount of the media conversation, only 9% of respondents cared to hear from celebrities about which causes to support. On the other hand, more than half of respondents trusted friends’ opinions on giving, followed closely by relatives’ and neighbors’. Only around 10% trusted the views of elected officials, journalists or business leaders on giving. Participants also tended to look to social media to gain information about where to give, before email, news or snail mail.

Media coverage also had a disproportionate focus on giving and volunteering for polarizing issues, such as Black Lives Matter or reproductive rights, frequently framing the conversation around whether charity and volunteerism were positive or if they were fueling negative causes. Yet respondents still believed that giving was a personal choice, and if someone cared about a cause, then their giving was positive.

Respondents in the study fell into six groupings: “Super givers,” who were demographically older, higher income, Democrats and suburban; “Connection seekers,” who aspired to give and were often younger, religious, women and politically independent or Republican; “Next-generation doers,” who were younger, racially diverse and skewed Democrat, male and urban; “Civic-minded hopefuls,” who were often white, progressive, women and not religious; “Show-me scrutinizers,” who gave, often to local and religious causes, yet were skeptical of philanthropy, and were often white, older and male; and “apathetic non-givers,” who were often rural, non-religious, politically independent and lacked hope that their actions could trigger change. The final category gave the least and believed that institutions such as businesses and the government should be responsible for helping Americans.

Each grouping had different ways of giving and different ways it wanted to be targeted. For instance, with groups that may be financially strapped, such as “connection seekers,” who wanted to give but were often supporting families, an organization should acknowledge all gifts, no matter the size. The same held true for “civic-minded hopefuls,” who had less time and disposable income than the other groups. Meanwhile, “show-me scrutinizers” wanted to see financial statements and annual reports that were easily accessible and transparent. 

No matter the group, the study showed, people wanted to see tangible results that tapped into their specific values.