Religious Identity, Linked Fate, and Political Ideology: Explaining Civil Rights Philanthropy among Muslim and Jewish Americans
-
Rafeel Wasif
,
Afshan Paarlberg
,
Shariq Siddiqui
Abstract
Social identity theory predicts that individuals prefer to give to people with the same identity as themselves. However, individuals have multiple identities that interact simultaneously. For instance, religion is an essential identity for many individuals, particularly those from racialized minority groups, such as Muslims and Jews, who are often discriminated against due to these identities. Moreover, individuals like to support faith-based causes. However, they may also feel that they have a linked fate identity, where they perceive a commonality with other persecuted minorities due to similar experiences of discrimination. Moreover, political ideology is another vital identity marker for many individuals. How do these identities interact in giving to faith-based and non-faith-based causes? This article addresses the question by exploring support for civil rights organizations among the general population and two racialized, faith-based minorities – Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans. The findings show that these racialized minorities are more likely than other groups to fund civil rights organizations that work both within and outside their faith-based communities, suggesting that the concept of linked fate may operate in the domain of philanthropy, where minorities are helping themselves and other communities suffering discrimination. The findings also indicate that political ideology affects giving, as liberals are more likely to donate to civil rights causes both within and outside their faith tradition. Overall, this article expands the existing literature on philanthropy by looking at how the effects of political ideology and the notion of linked fate among minority groups may influence giving in times of crisis.
1 Introduction
In the United States, where the majority identify as Christian, faith-based minority groups (the largest being Latter-Day Saints, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, according to a 2021 study by the Pew Research Center) face persistent discrimination and exclusion. Faith-based minorities are often racialized, meaning they are deemed a potentially threatening “other” based on racial characteristics (Alesina and La Ferrara 2014). Racial differentiation and othering may include labeling racialized minorities by skin color and perceived cultural features, such as distinct religious symbols like a beard or head covering (Selod 2019).
Although the US Constitution and antidiscrimination laws prevent the government from establishing a religion and allowing individuals to practice their chosen religion, research shows that faith-based discrimination persists in elections (White et al. 2017), education (Pfaff et al. 2020), and official state action (Lajevardi 2020). Beyond government-based discrimination, faith-based minorities face a variety of direct and indirect forms of religious intolerance, from verbal slurs to online harassment to vandalism (Fox et al. 2021). For example, according to surveys, nearly half of both Muslims and Jews (48 %) said they had experienced racial or religious discrimination in the past year (Masci 2019; Pew Research Center 2021).
The impact of identity on the decision-making process in giving has been widely studied (Tremblay-Boire and Prakash 2019; Drezner and Garvey 2016; Tajfel 1979). Research insinuates that individuals are inclined to promote and support causes directly aligned with their ethnicity, religious preferences, or cultural associations (Hutcheson and Dominguez 1986). However, recent research expands the idea of identities to that of linked fate. Gershon et al. (2019) advanced the concept of “minority-linked fate,” defined as “the idea that ethno-racial minorities might share a commonality that extends beyond their particular ethno-racial group to other ethno-racial groups.” Theories of linked fate suggest that, given the centrality of racial stratification in the United States, minorities often start to support other marginalized groups with the notion that their fates are linked. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” However, while the notion of linked fate has been studied in other behavioral domains like voting (Chan and Jasso 2021; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010), we need to better understand it in the contexts of donations and giving.
Given that the notion of linked fate may exist, are minorities also likely to give to or support organizations that support other persecuted minorities? Do they support organizations that primarily champion their causes? After all, a feeling of connection or a strong affinity with one’s group or a particular cause is one of the strongest determinants of giving. Or do they also aspire to help other organizations or groups outside of what they consider their primary identity group that feels threatened?
On the other hand, individuals can have multiple identities. For instance, some individuals may consider their faith as their primary identity group, while others may believe their gender or race comprises their primary identity group. In recent years, political affiliation has emerged as another crucial marker of identity, with behavior, including voting, lifestyle choices, and even children’s names, influenced by political affiliation and identity (Malka and Lelkes 2010; Swigart et al. 2020). While literature exists on how identity impacts giving, little focuses on how political identity affects donor choices and giving to specific causes. How do multiple identities, such as faith groups, linked fate identities, and political affiliations, coexist and impact giving decisions?
We study this question in the context of civil rights organizations’ giving among Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans. Historically, civil rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have helped and vouched for the civil rights of minorities in the United States. Moreover, there are multiple kinds of civil rights organizations, with some, like the ACLU, focusing on different minorities. In contrast, others like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Anti-Defamation League focus on promoting civil rights primarily for specific minorities, Muslims and Jews, respectively, in this case. Moreover, to date, little literature exists on civil rights organizations in philanthropy and nonprofit studies (Cheever and DeLeon 2001; Harvey 2016; Hua et al. 2016; Minkoff 2002). Some of the literature has been very brief. Given the rise in discrimination, the racialization of minorities, public concern, and the responses of civil rights organizations, a deeper analysis of civil rights organizations is warranted. Moreover, the literature has not looked at how this deep polarization in the United States may affect giving to civil rights organizations.
Civil rights organizations serving minority groups warrant dedicated scholarly attention because they operate under fundamentally different dynamics than traditional nonprofits. While service organizations maintain stable funding cycles, civil rights groups respond to sudden crises, creating volatile resource patterns exemplified by the ACLU’s $24 million fundraising surge following the Muslim ban litigation. Donations to these organizations represent political investments in collective resistance rather than purchases of services, involving distinct risks and motivations (Haleluya 2021).
These organizations effectively translate community-specific concerns into legal frameworks while bridging the gap between minority communities and broader society. Their study reveals how marginalized groups develop resilience strategies and solidarity networks that cross identity boundaries – knowledge crucial for understanding democratic processes in diverse societies where multiple minority communities must negotiate their place and rights.
This article addresses that gap using an original survey of the US general population with oversamples of Muslim and Jewish Americans, the two US faith-based minorities with the highest rates of documented discrimination. We look at Muslim and Jewish giving in 2018 to understand how they supported civil rights causes directed toward them and civil rights causes that did not directly target them. These two distinct communities have developed literature on the effects of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on giving patterns and volunteering among these communities, but less often have these particular kinds of literature been studied together, which would help us better understand the literature on linked fate among different minorities suffering persecution. This survey also finds that Muslims and Jews are more likely than other groups to support organizations that address their faith-based civil rights, while at the same time supporting organizations outside the realm of their faith-based civil rights. The survey finds that support for civil rights is also deeply partisan, with liberals more likely to support civil rights causes. Therefore, it finds that political ideology strongly influences giving to civil rights organizations while finding no support for the impact of religious identity.
This article enhances the existing literature in several ways. First, it extends the literature on donor motivations (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011a, 2011b) by showing how political ideology influences support for specific charitable causes. It also deepens what we know about the nature of religious identity (Berger 2006; Siddiqui 2010; Wasif and Prakash 2017) by examining whether racialized minorities express distinctive support for civil rights causes. Additionally, it supports the literature on identity-based giving, especially for in-groups (Tremblay-Boire and Prakash 2019; White et al. 2017), by testing whether racialized minorities are more likely to support causes that champion their distinct identity or whether shared experiences foster allyship with others facing discrimination for a common cause. However, our main contribution is to the identity based literature by as we find that linked fate may also influence giving. These findings suggest a certain level of linked fate among racialized minorities and raise questions about what minority groups may consider an in-group as part of their social identity (Gershon et al. 2019; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010). Other fields have explored how the ideas of linked fate can influence the behavior of minorities between similar and other groups. However, research has not examined how this linked fate mechanism may influence philanthropic giving.
2 Civil Rights Organizations
Historically, civil rights organizations like the ACLU have helped and vouched for the civil rights of minorities in the United States (Anti-Defamation League 2021). These organizations have received tremendous public support during moments of highly publicized discrimination and hate crimes. For example, in 2017, when the ACLU sued the Trump administration for the controversial Muslim ban, the ACLU raised an unprecedented $24 million through more than 350,000 online donations in a matter of days (Matthews 2020) compared with a typical year of about $4 million in online giving. Furthermore, in 2020, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and during the pandemic, a similar trend occurred. A Financial Times report found that, in 2020, leading US companies pledged more than $450 million to organizations focused on civil rights. We do not have comparative numbers for prior giving, but media reports suggest that the amount pledged in 2020 was substantially higher than prior giving. Similarly, the Asian American Foundation raised more than $1 billion to fight anti-Asian hate after the increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in 2020 (Edgecliffe-Johnson and Weaver 2020).
More research is needed, therefore, on organizations promoting social equity through staunch civil rights advocacy. Today, US civil rights organizations, individually and through alliances, counter specific forms of oppression, such as those based on race, ethnicity, disability, and gender. Large national advocacy organizations often bring together local service providers and advocate to form broad policy networks addressing issues and legislation with a unified, popular voice.
Research highlights the work of civil rights organizations. For instance, Hua et al. (2016) studied nonprofits working on civil rights with farmers in China. Similarly, Minkoff (2002) examined organizations that fought for civil rights and provided services to their constituents, thus becoming hybrid advocacy and service-oriented organizations. Cheever and DeLeon (2001) looked at the successes and failures of fair housing councils in litigation matters that promoted housing equity. Overall, these articles show how some civil rights organizations’ operations focus on a hybrid form of service provision while others focus purely on advocacy.
More research is needed to explore donors’ decision-making regarding civil rights causes. Most research on charitable options focuses on a specific cause, such as international development, specific disaster appeals (Zagefka et al. 2012), or education nonprofits (Wasif and Prakash 2017). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the donation decisions of civil rights organizations have been overlooked in research and literature. Since they differ significantly from other organizations, it is essential to study them. In particular, with so many individuals facing hardships and discrimination across the globe, it is important to examine how these organizations operate and are being funded.
2.1 Racialized Identity
Civil rights organizations are particularly critical for protecting the religious interests of racialized minorities in the United States. Religious identity is a crucial consideration for faith-based minorities. Ample evidence suggests that systemic discrimination exists against racialized minorities at all levels of society (Lajevardi 2020; Pfaff et al. 2020; Pfaff and Gill 2006). Muslims and Jews are the two most significant minority faith-based groups in the United States, and they have faced significant discrimination and an increasing number of hate crimes in recent years (GhaneaBassiri 2010). According to a 2019 Pew survey, most American adults (82 %) say Muslims face discrimination in the United States (Masci 2019). Muslims were more than twice as likely as Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to say they had experienced such discrimination in the past year. Nearly half of Muslims (48 %) said they had experienced racial or religious discrimination in the past year (Masci 2019). Similarly, in a 2020 Pew study, 43 % of Jews self-reported experiencing racial or religious discrimination (Pew Research Center 2021). Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans experience racialization similarly.
In fact, for some racialized minorities, faith-based minorities, religious identity fuses into a separate racialized identity (Kaikati et al. 2017). As a result, markers such as religious dress (e.g., hijab and yamaka), religious practices (e.g., dietary restrictions), and public religious accommodations (e.g., holidays or time for prayer) mark a religious group as a racialized “other” (Omi and Howard 2014). This is true not only for racialized minorities like Muslims and Jews but also for other minorities such as Hindus and Sikhs. For instance, a white woman may become racialized when she wears a hijab (Franks 2000; Selod 2019). Thus, society may stereotype religious individuals based on religious identity markers like the hijab, and religious identity may morph into a different racial category of its own. Recent research suggests that racialized minorities such as Jews and Muslims are often considered racialized rather than religious minorities (GhaneaBassiri 2017; Lajevardi 2020). Consequently, Muslims have expressed significantly more concern about racial discrimination than about religious discrimination (Noor et al. 2021).
September 11, 2001, was a turning point for Muslim Americans. Many Muslims felt that antiterrorism laws like the Patriot Act overwhelmingly targeted them. Public and government interactions were increasingly hostile (Khan 2013; Thaut et al. 2012; Tremblay-Boire and Prakash 2019; Wasif 2020). The government froze assets at several leading Islamic charities, including the most prominent Muslim charity – the Holy Land Foundation – over alleged, and later unfounded, ties to terrorism (Wasif 2023). Muslims face other forms of government discrimination, including state-level legislators’ responses and street-level bureaucrats such as public school educators and local government employees (Lajevardi 2020; Pfaff et al. 2020). In addition to perceptions of government discrimination, Muslims have constantly faced societal and religious discrimination (SRD). For instance, according to 2019 FBI statistics (https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/2019-hate-crime-statistics), while Muslims accounted for around 1 % of the US population, 13 % of the hate crimes explicitly targeted Muslims (Mahmood 2019).
Similarly, the United States has a similar problem of antisemitism. When Jews first arrived in the United States, they were denied public worship unless they converted to Christianity. Even though their religion steadily became tolerated, the Jewish people continued to live as outsiders, and their religious practices, unique accents, and surnames led to scapegoating based on age-old stereotypes that found their origins in Europe long ago (D’Alessio and Stolzenberg 1991). During economic downturns, conspiracy theories surfaced about financial markets and government exploitation by Jews, who were believed to be corrupt international financiers.
In the 1930s, the attacks increased, as neo-Nazis openly spewed anti-Semitic hatred over radio airwaves, justifying and inspiring physical assaults against Jewish citizens both in the United States and abroad. In fact, during Hitler’s reign, America also maintained highly restrictive immigration laws, turning away hundreds of immigrants daily. In 1939, for example, the USS St. Louis was turned away from a Miami port, ultimately returning 900 refugees to Nazi Germany, where one-third would be murdered in the Holocaust (Dinnerstein 1995).
Once the war was over, the awareness of America’s victory over the Nazis, coupled with the witnessed atrocities of the Holocaust, was jarring enough to result in a noticeable public decline in anti-Semitism in America, and post-conflict criticism of Jewish Americans dropped considerably. However, today’s complex social changes, including anxiety about globalization, economic inequality, the COVID-19 pandemic, and changing demographics, have inspired a resurgence of bigotry, scapegoating, and mistrust.
FBI data have shown that every year since 1991, Jews have continued to be the most likely group targeted for religiously motivated hate crimes (Breeze 2013). Most notably, the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville embodied the castigation of Jews by a group of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and extremists. Right-wing political affiliates chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” The following year, anti-Semitic incidents rose by 57 % – the most significant annual increase in the forty years since data tracking began. In 2018, anti-Semitic incidents peaked with the deadliest attack on Jews on US soil, in which eleven individuals were murdered at the Tree of Life Synagogue. In 2019, 20 % of the hate crimes targeted individuals based on religious identity. Of the 1,715 victims of antireligious hate crimes, 60.2 % were victims of crimes motivated by anti-Jewish bias. While Jews account for less than 2 % of the American population, the FBI hate crimes statistics on hate crimes showed that more than 60 % of religious-based hate crimes in 2019 targeted Jews, an increase of 14 % over 2018 (Anti-Semitism and Jewish Views on Discrimination 2021). In 2020 and 2021, 31 % of the ADL’s documented 8,366 extremist incidents in the United States were explicitly anti-Semitic.
Despite the overwhelming presence and increase of anti-Semitic activity, discussions of these acts of hatred remain limited (Levine Daniel et al. 2020). In some cases, citizens believe the United States exists in a post–Semitic period, or they think that since most Jews appear to be white, they could not possibly endure racialized hatred (Moshin 2018). However, the majority of Jewish Americans report that anti-Semitism has risen in the United States, with 60 % “report [ing] having had a direct, personal experience with anti-Semitism in the past 12 months” (Pew Research Center 2021).
2.2 Social Identity Theory and Religion
Social identity theory, developed by Tajfel (1979), provides a powerful framework for understanding how group membership influences individual behavior, including charitable giving. This theory posits that people derive a significant portion of their self-concept from their membership in social groups, leading them to favor their in-groups in various contexts. In the philanthropy domain, social identity manifests as donors preferentially supporting causes that align with their salient identities – whether ethnic, religious, or cultural (Tremblay‐Boire and Prakash 2019; Drezner and Garvey 2016; Tajfel 1979).
This identity-based giving occurs not merely due to resource scarcity but because supporting one’s in-group provides psychological benefits, including reinforcement of self-identity, enhanced group status, and the satisfaction of contributing to a community one values (Hutcheson and Dominguez 1986). Religious and cultural organizations often establish norms that further encourage in-group support, creating institutional frameworks that channel giving to identity-aligned causes.
Therefore, in the face of scarcity of finances and resource deficits, individuals might be seen as biased toward those belonging to their social group (Oyserman 2015; Case and Chavez 2017). This bias may lead to engaging in volunteering to help and protect one’s local neighborhood.
This inclination aligns well with the in-group theory, as individuals would naturally work for the welfare of those who share similar identities, such as religious or cultural affiliations (Drezner 2018). The collective behavior that shapes giving efforts can be determined conveniently by exploring the development of social norms within a group. Religious or cultural organizations may establish standards that reinforce the obligation to support members of the ingroup during a disaster. The impact of identities and the established norms on individual acts of good works is of utmost importance.
3 Identity and Giving
Religious identity strongly influences prosocial behaviors, with individuals consistently giving more generously to their religious traditions (Bekkers 2010). An emotional connection with one’s religious community represents a primary driver for charitable giving (Forbes and Zampelli 2013), as donors often feel greater responsibility toward beneficiaries with whom they share identity markers (Hutcheson and Dominguez 1986).
However, marginalized groups may transcend strict in-group preferences through the mechanism of “linked fate” (Dawson 1994). Originally developed to explain political cohesion among African Americans, linked fate theory suggests that members of marginalized groups perceive their individual fortunes as connected to the collective outcomes of their group. Gershon et al. (2019) extended this concept to “minority-linked fate,” proposing that different marginalized groups may develop solidarity based on shared experiences of discrimination. While extensively studied in terms of political behavior (Chan and Jasso 2021; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010), linked fate has received minimal attention in philanthropy research. This represents a significant gap, as linked fate potentially explains why minorities might support civil rights causes benefiting other marginalized communities beyond their immediate identity group. For racialized religious minorities like Muslims and Jews who experience similar patterns of discrimination, linked fate may manifest as financial support for both in-group civil rights organizations and those serving other marginalized communities.
At the same time, scholars have raised important criticisms of linked fate theory. Some argue it may overstate group cohesion and overlook internal differences such as class, gender, and immigration status (Dawson 1994). Others question its applicability beyond African Americans, particularly for groups like Latinos or Asian Americans (Masuoka 2006). Additional critiques highlight its limited attention to structural contexts, reliance on oversimplified measurement, and inconsistent predictive power when factors like partisanship or ideology are stronger influences.
However, we want to see if this linked fate theory exists in the context of Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans. After all, these minorities have faced social discrimination. This framework leads us to hypothesize that Muslims and Jews will not only support civil rights organizations focused on their own communities but also demonstrate solidarity through giving to civil rights causes beyond their immediate faith traditions.
Donors supporting a primary in-group cause may believe they know the beneficiary of their donations (Small and Simonsohn 2008) and thus feel more committed to supporting their in-group members than people outside their group (Baron et al. 2013; Erlandsson et al. 2017). Fundraising literature indicates that people are more likely to give money to people of their race and ethnicity and that implicit color biases affect donation decisions (Bhati 2020; Fong and Luttmer 2009; Tremblay-Boire and Prakash 2019). Therefore, we expect that Muslims and Jews will be more likely to support civil rights organizations that support their in-group communities, which in this case are faith-based civil rights organizations that support Muslim and Jewish civil rights, respectively, as racialized religious identity serves as an indicator of in-group identity.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H1a:
A donor belonging to a Muslim identity is more likely to donate to a faith-based civil rights organization that matches their faith than a donor not belonging to a racialized religious minority.
H2a:
A donor belonging to a Jewish identity is more likely to donate to a faith-based civil rights organization that matches their faith than a donor not belonging to a racialized religious minority.
3.1 Minorities and Linked Fate
Literature on identity-based giving suggests that donors support causes that promote their identity. However, recent research expands the idea that the fates of minority groups are linked. Theories of linked fate suggest that, given the centrality of racial stratification in the United States, minority political beliefs and their actions as individuals are related to their perceptions of racial group interests (Tate 1994). Dawson (1994) introduced the concept of linked fate in the case of African Americans, which he defined as the extent to which individuals consider that their life conditions are connected to the fate of their racial group. Linked fate has been identified as an explanation for why, despite increasing economic polarization, African Americans remain a relatively cohesive political group (Dawson 1994; Hochschild 1996).
Subsequent research has demonstrated that Latina/os and Asian Americans also feel a sense of linked fate (Sanchez and Masuoka 2010; Masuoka 2006). Furthermore, Gershon et al. (2019) advanced the concept of a “minority-linked fate,” defined as “the idea that ethno-racial minorities might share a sense of commonality that extends beyond their particular ethno-racial group to other ethno-racial groups.”
Substantial evidence of interracial-linked fate exists. For instance, in 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement galvanized racial minorities to unite in solidarity with African American communities. Similarly, in the 1960s and 1970s, Latinos, Jews, and Asian Americans joined African Americans in solidarity, expressing a shared experience as “people of color.” Individual minority groups have supported one another due to a sense of interconnectedness that sees their individual group’s struggle as related to the challenges of other racial minorities.
Similarly, research also shows more support for linked fate. For instance, individuals having an immigrant status, non-Caucasian ethnicity, and speaking a language other than English at home are more likely to support immigrant charities and charities serving immigrant communities (Tremblay-Boire et al. 2023).
Thus, it is plausible that individuals with a shared experience of discrimination may have a cause for solidarity (Bennett 2003; Tajfel 1979). Based on their experiences and fears, Muslims may think that supporting civil rights causes that do not directly support their faith or identity is crucial. Moreover, the idea of linked fate or the notion that all minorities are connected based on their discrimination experiences can also influence minorities to think beyond their religious identity and consider other discriminated minorities as part of their broader social identity (Masuoka 2006; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010). At the same time, as we have mentioned, linked fate may influence individuals’ choices to give to causes that also help others. Therefore, similar to Muslims, we would also expect Jews to give more to civil rights causes outside their faith.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H1b:
A Donor belonging to a Muslim identity are more likely to donate to a civil rights cause outside their faith tradition than a donor not belonging to a racialized religious minority.
H2b:
Donors belonging to Jewish identity are more likely to donate to a civil rights cause outside their faith tradition than a donor not belonging to a racialized religious minority.
In the contemporary world, political ideology is a powerful source of social identity. Political affiliations shape social identity through multiple mechanisms and manifestations. Partisanship has been assessed recently through the lens of social identity theory. Through this perspective, partisanship is partly viewed as a symbolic label that individuals adopt and identify with (Malka and Lelkes 2010). Partisans’ cognition, attitudes, and behaviors are heavily influenced by their social identification, values, and core beliefs (Swigart et al. 2020).
For example, an individual’s assessment of members of other groups is often determined by their political identification, either as liberal or conservative. Liberals typically hold more favorable views of civil rights issues and tend to endorse policies that expand protections for marginalized groups. Similarly, conservatives often prioritize different policy approaches aligned with their ideological values. Understanding of social group identification as political affiliation is central to this study.
Political ideology plays a prominent role in an individual’s prosocial behavior, influencing perspectives on voting, life choices, civil rights, housing, and shelter (Stewart and Morris 2021). Differing political ideologies may also influence the causes to which individuals and groups donate. Most literature on political partisan giving focuses on whether liberals or conservatives give more to charity, with mixed evidence. Some research suggests conservatives give more to charity (Kaikati et al. 2017); other studies find liberals more likely to donate (Yen and Zampelli 2014). Additional research (Luccasen et al, 2017) indicates that political ideology does not significantly impact overall donation amounts.
However, limited research suggests that political leanings may affect the types of causes donors support. For instance, some studies indicate that conservatives give more to religious causes while liberals give more to secular causes (Margolis and Sances 2015). Similarly, research focusing on moral foundation theory suggests that individuals are more likely to give to charities that better align with their moral foundations – social justice for liberals and social order for conservatives (Farmer et al. 2020). Since civil rights align closely with liberalism’s emphasis on equality, fairness, and social justice concerns, we would expect that liberals are more likely to donate to civil rights causes both within and outside their faith traditions.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H3a:
Individuals expressing a higher level of liberal ideology are more likely to donate to a civil rights organization within their faith tradition.
H3b:
Individuals expressing a higher level of liberal ideology are more likely to donate to a civil rights organization outside their faith tradition.
4 Methods
This study used an original US population survey conducted by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) from January 8 to January 24, 2018. We chose 2018 for several reasons. It was also before the COVID pandemic became a problem, thus the pandemic would not impact our results. The study investigated a sample of the US population’s opinions about the government, the most critical issues facing the country, faith customs, and religious, racial, and gender discrimination. For the survey, the authors oversampled Muslims and Jews. Most survey interviews and all Jewish interviews were conducted by phone. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the respondents. Overall, we had a sample size of 839 individuals. As we did not want to lump disparate minorities into one category and acknowledge that Jewish and Muslim histories are highly different, we used separate variables for Muslims and Jews.
Survey demographics.
| Characteristic | n = 839a |
|---|---|
| Faith-Based Civil Rights Donations | |
| No | 468 (56 %) |
| Yes | 371 (44 %) |
| Non-Faith-Based Civil Rights Donations | |
| No | 421 (50 %) |
| Yes | 418 (50 %) |
| Muslim American | |
| No | 560 (67 %) |
| Yes | 279 (33 %) |
| Jewish American | |
| No | 632 (75 %) |
| Yes | 207 (25 %) |
| Importance of Religion | |
| 1 | 2 (0.2 %) |
| 2 | 34 (4.1 %) |
| 3 | 70 (8.3 %) |
| 4 | 225 (27 %) |
| 5 | 508 (61 %) |
| Conservative | |
| 1 | 88 (10 %) |
| 2 | 151 (18 %) |
| 3 | 246 (29 %) |
| 4 | 202 (24 %) |
| 5 | 152 (18 %) |
| Race | |
| White | 542 (65 %) |
| African American | 94 (11 %) |
| Arab | 29 (3.5 %) |
| Asian | 87 (10 %) |
| Other | 87 (10 %) |
| Gender | |
| 1 | 432 (51 %) |
| 2 | 407 (49 %) |
| Income | |
| Less than $25,000 | 81 (9.7 %) |
| $25,000–$40,000 | 116 (14 %) |
| $40,000–$75,000 | 200 (24 %) |
| $75,000 and over | 442 (53 %) |
| Education | |
| High School or less | 125 (15 %) |
| College degree | 262 (31 %) |
| Graduate degree | 263 (31 %) |
| Some College/Technical | 189 (23 %) |
| Age | 26 (4, 52) |
| No Religion | 10 (1.2 %) |
-
a n (%); Median (IQR).
The survey asked respondents if they had donated to a civil rights cause within their faith group and separately asked if they had contributed to a civil rights group outside their faith group. The questions we asked in the survey were, “Among the faith-based causes, did you contribute to the following: ‘Civil rights organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of people in your religious community?’” For the non-faith question, we asked, “Among the non-faith-based causes, did you contribute to the following causes during the past year: Civil rights organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of people?”
It also asked several demographic questions, including their opinions about the government and the importance of religion in their lives. We used binomial regression as the survey asked respondents whether they had donated to a civil rights cause. We controlled for various factors. An individual’s race can also affect support for civil rights. Therefore, we controlled for major racial groups, including Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics. We also controlled for other demographic factors, including gender, education, and income. We accounted for ideology by asking respondents on a scale of 1 to 5 about their ideology from conservative to liberal. We also controlled differences based on faith traditions by controlling for Muslims, Jews, and Nones, as well as various distinctions (racial, gender, and faith-based). Table 2 shows the regression results. We also controlled for the importance of religion by asking respondents how important their faith was on a scale of 1 to 5. Appendix 1 shows the correlation matrix for the variables.
Regression results.
| Logistic Regression Models Predicting Civil Rights Support | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | ||
| Faith-Based Civil Rights Support (1) | Non-Faith Civil Rights Support (2) | |
| Muslim | 0.730∗∗∗ | 0.589∗∗ |
| (0.261) | (0.264) | |
| Jewish | 0.407 | 0.526∗∗ |
| (0.252) | (0.251) | |
| Religious Importance | 0.164 | 0.019 |
| (0.100) | (0.098) | |
| Conservative | 0.232∗∗∗ | 0.427∗∗∗ |
| (0.068) | (0.068) | |
| Race: African American | 0.854∗∗∗ | 0.493∗ |
| (0.292) | (0.291) | |
| Race: Arab | 0.315 | 0.010 |
| (0.450) | (0.455) | |
| Race: Asian | −0.132 | −0.186 |
| (0.317) | (0.321) | |
| Race: Other | 0.387 | 0.223 |
| (0.270) | (0.271) | |
| Female | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| (0.155) | (0.154) | |
| Income: 25,000–40,000 | −0.488 | −0.223 |
| (0.318) | (0.314) | |
| Income: 40k–75k | −0.562* | −0.383 |
| (0.292) | (0.288) | |
| Income: 75k and over | −0.441 | −0.048 |
| (0.283) | (0.281) | |
| Education: College Degree | −0.182 | −0.254 |
| (0.255) | (0.251) | |
| Education: Graduate Degree | 0.479∗ | 0.369 |
| (0.262) | (0.259) | |
| Education: Some College/Technical | −0.119 | −0.075 |
| (0.257) | (0.252) | |
| Age | −0.004 | 0.003 |
| (0.004) | (0.004) | |
| Age Squared | 0.111 | 0.701 |
| (0.752) | (0.714) | |
| No Religion | −2.883∗∗∗ | −2.973∗∗∗ |
| (0.870) | (0.858) | |
| Observations | 839 | 839 |
| Log Likelihood | −523.342 | −529.337 |
| Akaike Inf. Crit. | 1,082.684 | 1,094.674 |
-
∗p < 0.1; ∗∗p < 0.05; ∗∗∗p < 0.01.
5 Results and Discussion
We found separate, strong support among racialized groups for giving to civil rights causes. Our results suggest that both Muslims and Jews are more likely to donate to both faith-based causes (H1a and H1b) and non-faith-based causes outside their faith than individuals who do not identify as either Muslim or Jewish (H2a and H2b). The log odds of Jews donating to faith-based civil rights are 1.67 compared to non-Jews, and Muslims are 2.32 compared to non-Muslims. Similarly, the log odds of Jews giving to a non-faith-based civil rights cause are 1.97, and for Muslims, the log odds are 2.18 when compared to individuals belonging to their respective faith traditions.
These findings strongly suggest that a form of linked fate may exist among racialized minorities, who may want to support causes that advance not only their interests but also other minorities. Racialized minorities work together for a broad range of civil rights causes rather than focusing specifically on their issue area, which contrasts with what we would predict based on the literature on in-group giving. Overall, these findings suggest that fundraising by civil rights organizations needs to target racialized minorities, even if they do not directly work with civil rights causes. Moreover, civil rights organizations may need to target individuals who may have been exposed in some way to direct or indirect discrimination.
The results strongly support the idea that political ideology influences the inclination to give to faith-based (H3a) and non-faith-based causes (H3b). A unit increase in liberal political ideology on a scale of 1–5 increases the odds of giving to faith-based civil rights causes by 1.27 and non-faith-based civil rights by 1.57. These findings support the existing literature’s suggestion that political ideology impacts individuals’ likelihood of giving to specific causes (Stewart and Morris 2021). These findings suggest that ideology impacts the amount individuals give and the kind of causes they give to (Yang and Liu 2021).
We found several surprising results. For instance, we did not find evidence that age significantly affected giving to civil rights causes. This is interesting because some preliminary research suggests that younger individuals are more supportive of causes related to minority advancement and rights (Vespa et al. n.d.). Also, no clear evidence showed the impact of education or income on giving to faith-based or non-faith-based civil rights groups. We also did not find clear evidence that being more religious increased or decreased donations to faith-based or non-faith-based civil rights causes.
6 Conclusions
The research reveals that three intersecting identities influence civil rights giving. Political identity is a broad determinant, with liberals more likely to support civil rights causes regardless of the beneficiary group. Religious and racialized identities encourage in-group philanthropy, following traditional social identity theory. Most distinctively, the concept of “linked fate” appears to motivate marginalized minorities (in this case, Muslims and Jews) to support civil rights causes benefiting other marginalized groups, challenging conventional in-group/out-group dichotomies. The study highlights how these multiple identities operate simultaneously rather than hierarchically, suggesting that civil rights organizations could tailor fundraising strategies accordingly, emphasizing political values for majority donors while highlighting both direct benefits and cross-group solidarity for minority donors.
These findings suggest that partisanship shapes donor preferences toward giving to civil rights causes, as liberals give to these causes more often than conservatives, and shapes giving and philanthropy in general (i.e., the kind of causes to which individuals donate). While extensive literature exists on partisanship and its effect on behavior in other fields, the field of philanthropy needs to look further into how it and nonprofit organizations may be influenced by the ideology of both the donor and the beneficiary. While prior research primarily focuses on how political ideology impacts total giving, this article sheds light on how political ideology also affects the types of causes to which individuals give.
The finding is that racialized communities are more likely than others to fund civil rights causes that target their faith. Its causes are not directly related to their faith, calling for further inquiry on whether and how linked fate may shape minorities’ support for each other’s causes. These findings complicate our understanding of how social identity may influence individuals’ philanthropy.
Long-established literature shows that individuals support their in-group more than other groups. Moreover, social identity and philanthropic literature discuss how social identity shapes individuals’ giving behavior. However, the literature has not examined how other cues, such as similar experiences of marginalization, may influence individuals’ giving behavior, particularly how the ideas of linked fate or solidarity may influence individuals’ giving preferences. Thus, further examination of how these giving preferences may be affected by similar experiences of discrimination and marginalization is needed. Future research could examine how and under what conditions the notion of linked fate impacts giving. For instance, are racialized minorities more likely to consider other racialized minorities under the broader rubric of linked fate, or is it also possible to include other disenfranchised groups, such as people of different genders, classes, and immigrant status?
Our study blurs the distinction between in-groups and outgroups, opening the potential for deeper research on social identity. The continued upsurge in civil rights consciousness, political polarization, and ongoing documented religious and racial discrimination makes our understanding of philanthropy and civil rights organizations relevant today. Moreover, while we are finding minorities’ support for causes other than their own, it is important to study if and how the notion of linked fate may influence their giving through experiments or surveys that study these phenomena.
While previous literature suggests that individuals prefer in-groups rather than outgroups in their donations, this study indicates that racialized minorities may be more inclined to support both in-groups and outgroups, especially in the context of civil rights. However, civil rights are also a particular type of service where individuals can benefit from allyship, unlike service goods, which are substitute goods. Giving goods to one group reduces the goods for another group. Thus, it is vital to understand both in-groups and outgroups in the context of donor choice and the service provided. Also, it may be helpful for organizations and causes to fundraise with minorities while focusing on the allyship between them and the broader causes.
The implications of this study for practitioners are clear. In their fundraising, civil rights groups and other organizations must focus more on racialized minorities and direct more effort toward majority groups to highlight the importance of civil rights, even if some causes do not directly affect them.
Finally, despite the increased media attention (which may fade in the future) and donor support for civil rights, research on civil rights causes in the nonprofit sector remains limited. Therefore, this study is offered as a promising springboard for future research.
References
Alesina, Alberto, and Eliana La Ferrara. 2014. “A Test of Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing.” American Economic Review 104 (11): 3397–433. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.11.3397.Search in Google Scholar
Anti-Defamation League. 2021. “ADL H.E.A.T. Map. ADL.”. https://www.adl.org/education-and-resources/resource-knowledge-base/adl-heat-map.Search in Google Scholar
Anti-Semitism and Jewish Views on Discrimination. 2021. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project (blog). https://www.pewforum.org/2021/05/11/anti-semitism-and-jewish-views-on-discrimination/.Search in Google Scholar
Baron, Jonathan, Ilana Ritov, and Joshua D. Greene. 2013. “The Duty to Support Nationalistic Policies.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26 (2): 128–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.768.Search in Google Scholar
Bekkers, René. 2010. “Who Gives what and when? A Scenario Study of Intentions to Give Time and Money.” Social Science Research 39 (3): 369–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.008.Search in Google Scholar
Bekkers, René, and Pamala Wiepking. 2011a. “A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40 (5): 924–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927.Search in Google Scholar
Bekkers, René, and Pamala Wiepking. 2011b. “Who Gives? A Literature Review of Predictors of Charitable Giving Part One: Religion, Education, Age and Socialisation.” Voluntary Sector Review 2 (3): 337–65. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712.Search in Google Scholar
Bennett, Roger. 2003. “Factors Underlying the Inclination to Donate to Particular Types of Charity.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8 (1): 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.198.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, Ida. 2006. “The Influence of Religion on Philanthropy in Canada.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 17 (2): 110–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-006-9007-3.Search in Google Scholar
Bhati, Abhishek. 2020. “Does Implicit Color Bias Reduce Giving? Learnings from Fundraising Survey Using Implicit Association Test (IAT).” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00277-8.Search in Google Scholar
Breeze, Beth. 2013. “How Donors Choose Charities: The Role of Personal Taste and Experiences in Giving Decisions.” Voluntary Sector Review 4 (2): 165–83, https://doi.org/10.1332/204080513X667792.Search in Google Scholar
Case, Susan S., and E. Chavez. 2017. “Measuring Religious Identity: Developing a Scale of Religious Identity Salience.” International Association of Management, Spirituality and Religion, USA 1–27.Search in Google Scholar
Chan, Nathan Kar Ming, and Francisco Jasso. 2021. “From Inter-Racial Solidarity to Action: Minority Linked Fate and African American, Latina/o, and Asian American Political Participation.” Political Behavior 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09750-6.Search in Google Scholar
Cheever, Kathryn A. L., and Peter deLeon. 2001. “Fair Housing Advocacy Groups: Litigation as a Source of Nonprofit Funding.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30 (2): 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001302007.Search in Google Scholar
D’Alessio, Stewart J., and Lisa Stolzenberg. 1991. “Anti-Semitism in America: The Dynamics of Prejudice.” Sociological Inquiry 61 (3): 359–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.1991.tb00167.x.Search in Google Scholar
Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691212982Search in Google Scholar
Dinnerstein, Leonard. 1995. Antisemitism in America. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mJLHrb-o5E0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR19&dq=anti+semitism+in+america+wwii&ots=fr6R_8vXZ2&sig=pl1IvJU8u9UJDsu4lbSFmnyeXtw.Search in Google Scholar
Drezner, Noah D. 2018. “Philanthropic Mirroring: Exploring Identity-Based Fundraising in Higher Education.” The Journal of Higher Education 89 (3): 261–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1368818.Search in Google Scholar
Drezner, Noah D., and Jason C. Garvey. 2016. “LGBTQ Alumni Philanthropy: Exploring (Un)Conscious Motivations for Giving Related to Identity and Experiences.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45 (1_suppl): 52S–71S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015597780.Search in Google Scholar
Edgecliffe-Johnson, Andrew, and Courtney Weaver. 2020. US Companies Flood Civil Rights Groups with Donations. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/5a83fcff-9def-4a66-b65d-2b030759f755 (accessed June 8, 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Erlandsson, Arvid, Fredrik Björklund, and Bäckström Martin. 2017. “Choice-Justifications after Allocating Resources in Helping Dilemmas.” Judgment and Decision Making 12 (1): 60–80.10.1017/S1930297500005246Search in Google Scholar
Farmer, Adam, Blair Kidwell, and David M. Hardesty. 2020. “Helping a Few a Lot or Many a Little: Political Ideology and Charitable Giving.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 30 (4): 614–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1164.Search in Google Scholar
Fong, Christina M., and Erzo F. P. Luttmer. 2009. “What Determines Giving to Hurricane Katrina Victims? Experimental Evidence on Racial Group Loyalty.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (2): 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.2.64.Search in Google Scholar
Forbes, Kevin F., and Ernest M. Zampelli. 2013. “The Impacts of Religion, Political Ideology, and Social Capital on Religious and Secular Giving: Evidence from the 2006 Social Capital Community Survey.” Applied Economics 45 (17): 2481–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.667555.Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Jonathan, Roger Finke, and Dane R. Mataic. 2021. “The Causes of Societal Discrimination against Religious Minorities in Christian-Majority Countries.” Religions 12 (8): 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080611.Search in Google Scholar
Franks, Myfanwy. 2000. “Crossing the Borders of Whiteness? White Muslim Women Who Wear the Hijab in Britain Today.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23 (5): 917–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870050110977.Search in Google Scholar
Gershon, Sarah Allen, Celeste Montoya, Christina Bejarano, and Nadia Brown. 2019. “Intersectional Linked Fate and Political Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (3): 642–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2019.1639520.Search in Google Scholar
GhaneaBassiri, Kambiz. 2010. A History of Islam in America: From the New World to the New World Order. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511780493Search in Google Scholar
GhaneaBassiri, Kambiz. 2017. “American Muslim Philanthropy after 9/11.” Journal of Muslim Philanthropy and Civil Society 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.18060/21415.Search in Google Scholar
Haleluya, Hadero. 2021. “Foundation Raises $1 Billion to Fight Anti-asian Hate | AP News.” https://apnews.com/article/philanthropy-government-and-politics-business-99f4fed13cdc9938c4cbd6e156d701bb.Search in Google Scholar
Harvey, Paul. 2016. Civil Rights Movements and Religion in America. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (August 31, 2016).10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.492Search in Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1996. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400821730Search in Google Scholar
Hua, Ruoyun, Yuxin Hou, and Guosheng Deng. 2016. “Instrumental Civil Rights and Institutionalized Participation in China: A Case Study of Protest in Wukan Village.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (5): 2131–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9616-9.Search in Google Scholar
Hutcheson, John D.Jr., and Lino H. Dominguez. 1986. “Ethnic Self-Help Organizations in Non-barrio Settings: Community Identity and Voluntary Action.” Journal of Voluntary Action Research, September 15 (4): 13–22 (Original work published 1986).https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408601500403.Search in Google Scholar
Kaikati, Andrew M., Carlos J. Torelli, Karen Page Winterich, and María A. Rodas. 2017. “Conforming Conservatives: How Salient Social Identities Can Increase Donations.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 27 (4): 422–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.06.001.Search in Google Scholar
Khan, Author Sabith. 2013. “Challenges to Studying Muslim Philanthropy in America — Conversations in Philanthropy # 4.” Habits of the Heart (blog). https://sabithkhan.com/2013/07/20/challenges-to-studying-muslim-philanthropy-in-america-conversations-in-philanthropy-4/.Search in Google Scholar
Lajevardi, Nazita. 2020. “Access Denied: Exploring Muslim American Representation and Exclusion by State Legislators.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (5): 957–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1528161.Search in Google Scholar
Levine Daniel, Jamie, Rachel Fyall, and Jodi Benenson. 2020. “Talking about Antisemitism in MPA Classrooms and beyond.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 26 (3): 313–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2019.1646581.Search in Google Scholar
Luccasen, R. Andrew, M. Kathleen Thomas, and Philip J. Grossman. 2017. “Giving to Poverty Relief Charities: The Impact of Beliefs and Misperceptions toward Income Redistribution in a Real Donation Experiment.” Social Choice and Welfare 49 (2): 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-017-1070-8.Search in Google Scholar
Mahmood, Faiqa. 2019. “American Muslim Philanthropy: A Data-Driven Comparative Profile.” Institute for Social Policy and Understanding 11–37.Search in Google Scholar
Malka, Ariel, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2010. “More Than Ideology: Conservative–Liberal Identity and Receptivity to Political Cues.” Social Justice Research 23 (2): 156–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0114-3.Search in Google Scholar
Margolis, Michele F., and Michael W. Sances. 2015. “Partisan Differences in Charitable Giving: Evidence from Individual-Level Survey Data” (working paper). http://www.michelemargolis.com/uploads/2/0/2/0/20207607/giving.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Masci, David. 2019. “Many Americans See Religious Discrimination in U.S. – Especially against Muslims.” Pew Research Center (blog). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/17/many-americans-see-religious-discrimination-in-u-s-especially-against-muslims/.Search in Google Scholar
Masuoka, Natalie. 2006. “Together They Become One: Examining the Predictors of Panethnic Group Consciousness Among Asian Americans and Latinos.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (5): 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00412.x.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, Dylan. 2020. “A Criminal Justice Expert’s Guide to Donating Effectively Right Now.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21729124/how-to-donate-to-black-lives-matter-charity (accessed November 30, 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Minkoff, Debra C. 2002. “The Emergence of Hybrid Organizational Forms: Combining Identity-Based Service Provision and Political Action.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31 (3): 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764002313004.Search in Google Scholar
Moshin, Jamie. 2018. “Hello Darkness: Antisemitism and Rhetorical Silence in the Trump Era.” Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric 8 (1/2): 18.Search in Google Scholar
Noor, Zeeshan, Rafeel Wasif, Shariq Siddiqui, and Sabith Khan. 2021. “Racialized Minorities, Trust, and Crisis: Muslim-American Nonprofits, Their Leadership and Government Relations during COVID-19.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 32 (3): 341–64, https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21486.Search in Google Scholar
Omi, Michael, and Winant Howard. 2014. Racial Formation in the United States. Routledge.10.4324/9780203076804Search in Google Scholar
Oyserman, Daphna. 2015. “Identity-Based Motivation.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1–11. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0171Search in Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2021. “Measuring Religion in Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel.” Pew Research Center (blog). https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/14/measuring-religion-in-pew-research-centers-american-trends-panel/ (accessed January 14, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Pfaff, Steven, and Anthony J. Gill. 2006. “Will a Million Muslims March? Muslim Interest Organizations and Political Integration in Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 39 (7): 803–28.https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006287237.Search in Google Scholar
Pfaff, Steven, Charles Crabtree, Holger L. Kern, and John B. Holbein. 2020. “Do Street-Level Bureaucrats Discriminate Based on Religion? A Large-Scale Correspondence Experiment Among American Public School Principals.” Public Administration Review n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13235.Search in Google Scholar
Sanchez, Gabriel R., and Natalie Masuoka. 2010. “Brown-Utility Heuristic? the Presence and Contributing Factors of Latino Linked Fate.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 32 (4): 519–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986310383129.Search in Google Scholar
Selod, Saher. 2019. “Gendered Racialization: Muslim American Men and Women’s Encounters with Racialized Surveillance.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 42 (4): 552–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1445870.Search in Google Scholar
Siddiqui, Shariq. 2010. “Giving in the Name of God.” In Religious Giving: For Love of God, edited by David H. Smith, Vol. 209. Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Small, Deborah A., and Uri Simonsohn. 2008. “Friends of Victims: Personal Experience and Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 35 (3): 532–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/527268.Search in Google Scholar
Stewart, Brandon D., and David S. M. Morris. 2021. “Moving Morality beyond the In-Group: Liberals and Conservatives Show Differences on Group-Framed Moral Foundations and These Differences Mediate the Relationships to Perceived Bias and Threat.” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (April): 579908. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579908.Search in Google Scholar
Swigart, Kristen L., Anuradha Anantharaman, Jason A. Williamson, and Alicia A. Grandey. 2020. “Working while Liberal/Conservative: A Review of Political Ideology in Organizations.” Journal of Management 46 (6): 1063–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320909419.Search in Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1979. “Individuals and Groups in Social Psychology.” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18 (2): 183–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x.Search in Google Scholar
Tate, Katherine. 1994. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thaut, Laura, Janice Gross Stein, and Michael Barnett. 2012. “In Defense of Virtue: Credibility, Legitimacy Dilemmas, and the Case of Islamic Relief.” In The Credibility of Transnational NGOs: When Virtue Is Not Enough, edited by Peter Alexis Gourevitch, David A Lake, and Janice Gross Stein, 137–64. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139086356.009Search in Google Scholar
Tremblay-Boire, Joannie, and Aseem Prakash. 2019. “Biased Altruism: Islamophobia and Donor Support for Global Humanitarian Organizations.” Public Administration Review 79 (1): 113–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13012.Search in Google Scholar
Tremblay-Boire, Joannie, Aseem Prakash, and Maria Apolonia Calderon. 2023. “Delivering Public Services to the Underserved: Nonprofits and the Latino Threat Narrative.” Public Administration Review 83 (1): 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13499.Search in Google Scholar
Vespa, Jonathan, Lauren Medina, and David M. Armstrong. n.d. Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Wasif, Rafeel. 2020. Terrorists or Philanthropists: Assessing the Effect of 9/11 on Nonprofits in the US and Pakistan. PhD diss., University of Washington. https://search.proquest.com/docview/2457732008/abstract/CC0F5E56DA664DE2PQ/1.Search in Google Scholar
Wasif, Rafeel. 2023. “Did 9/11 Affect Donations to Islamic Charities in the United States?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52 (5): 1475–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221122817.Search in Google Scholar
Wasif, Rafeel, and Aseem Prakash. 2017. “Do Government and Foreign Funding Influence Individual Donations to Religious Nonprofits? A Survey Experiment in Pakistan.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 8 (3): 237–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2017-0014. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/npf-2017-0014/html.Search in Google Scholar
White, Katherine M., Brooke E. Poulsen, and Melissa K. Hyde. 2017. “Identity and Personality Influences on Donating Money, Time, and Blood.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 46 (2): 372–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016654280.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Yongzheng, and Peixu Liu. 2021. “Are Conservatives More Charitable than Liberals in the U.S.? A Meta-Analysis of Political Ideology and Charitable Giving.” Social Science Research 99 (September): 102598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102598.Search in Google Scholar
Yen, Steven T., and Ernest M. Zampelli. 2014. “What Drives Charitable Donations of Time and Money? the Roles of Political Ideology, Religiosity, and Involvement.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 50: 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
Zagefka, Hanna, Masi Noor, Rupert Brown, Tim Hopthrow, and Georgina Randsley de Moura. 2012. “Eliciting Donations to Disaster Victims: Psychological Considerations.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 15 (December). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2012.01378.x.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
