Non-givers to charity double

Leah Watkins
Leah Watkins
There has been a big jump in the number of New Zealanders not giving to charity, a University of Otago study shows.

The University of Otago New Zealand Consumer Lifestyles Study, published late last month, reveals the percentage of people never giving to charity has doubled.

It also unmasks some marked differences between lifestyle groups in attitudes to those in need.

More than 2000 people nationwide were asked 600 questions about their lifestyles, consumption choices and behaviours, lead investigator in the study Dr Leah Watkins, who is a senior lecturer in the university's department of marketing, said.

Asked how often they contributed to charity each month, 37% of participants said never. Other responses were: once (36%), two to three times (16%), four to five times (8%) and six or more times (2%).

In 2005, when the most recent previous study was published, 19% of participants said they never gave to charity.

Dr Watkins said the researchers had not investigated the cause of the increase in never giving. A plausible explanation, however, borne out by responses to other questions, was that people were feeling worse off financially.

''I suspect it is about their ability to give, rather than a change in people's attitudes to giving,'' Dr Watkins said.

Analysis of the results showed participants clustered around seven lifestyle groups: progressives (20%), disengaged (15%), young pleasure seekers (13%), new greens (8%), success driven extroverts (11%), quiet lifers (16%) and traditional family values (17%). Differences between the groups in their attitudes to charity were significant but not surprising, Dr Watkins said.

''Each segment's attitudes towards giving reflects their different values, attitudes, personal circumstances and financial situations,'' she said.

''For example, while the progressives share a strong concern for social welfare and equity issues and are in a financial position to give, the quiet lifers report no strong sense of responsibility to society, have the lowest income of all groups and are dissatisfied with their personal wellbeing, and thus probably not in a position to think about the wellbeing of others.''

 

Add a Comment

 

Advertisement