The Role of Charity Marketing in Cultivating Philanthropic Citizenship

How early, ethical, and sustained charity engagement can shape lifelong prosocial citizens, and safeguard the future of philanthropy.

Background

The concept of philanthropic citizenship extends beyond fundraising and various forms of donor behaviour (Body, 2024). Philanthropic citizenship is defined as “a dimension of citizenship behaviour, associated with intentions and actions that intend to produce social and/or environmental benefits, for example volunteering, social action, charitable giving, advocacy and activism” (Body, 2024). However, charities have a vested interest in cultivating philanthropic citizenship, as it represents the basis for ensuring future donor support (Gorczyca & Hartman, 2017). This field of research has established a connection between philanthropic citizenship and charity; however, the strategies associated with these two terms, which are often applied in practice, remain separated (Kumar & Chakrabarti, 2021). The full separation of philanthropic citizenship from charity marketing activities is not justified, judging by available literature. Without philanthropic citizenship, most charities would face substantial challenges in attracting new donors, and the current structure of the non-profit sector would be unsustainable (Gorczyca & Hartman, 2017). Hence, instilling values in children that promote giving and caring for others is of great importance (Body, 2024).

This article aims to provide an introduction to the concept of philanthropic citizenship, its importance in facilitating prosocial behaviours, and key strategies being implemented to uphold it. As a part of the strategy-focused segments, it will be discussed how charities can engage and what strategies lie at their disposal to support philanthropic citizenship. Unlike other articles in this publication, strategies presented in the following sections are long-term oriented. They do not represent a way of strengthening donation intention or behaviour in the immediate future and should not be understood as such. The content of this article supports the notion that building an extensive network of donors requires a lifelong dedication to cultivating relationships from an early age.

The importance of philanthropic citizenship

Individual benefits

Research shows that developing and promoting philanthropic citizenship is beneficial both to individuals and society as a whole. Studies focusing on individual benefits have found that the presence of philanthropic values, including empathy and prosocial responding, is correlated with a variety of social, psychological, and personal benefits (Wagaman, 2011). These variables are connected with the development of healthy social and emotional functioning, improved quality of social life and peer relationships, superior social competence, and even better academic performance (Flynn et al., 2014). Children can also engage in prosocial and age-appropriate philanthropic behaviours, which come with a separate host of positive outcomes such as improved social and cognitive adjustment (Lenzi et al., 2014). Repetition of these behaviours during childhood and adolescence is what sets the basis for philanthropic citizenship across the lifespan (Hope & Jagers, 2014).

Societal benefits

The benefits of philanthropic citizenship can also be observed at the societal level. For example, studies have confirmed that the presence of philanthropic citizenship is associated with the accelerated development of social connectedness, resulting in the enrichment of civic society and, overall, a greater prevalence of prosocial behaviours (Wagaman, 2011). The result of these conditions is that people are more inclined to act cooperatively and spend time cultivating social interactions, the benefits of which extend well beyond social well-being and encompass economic and sociopolitical benefits (Wagaman, 2011). For this reason, there is a growing societal concern about facilitating these values in young people, rooted in the firm belief that other-oriented philosophies need to prevail in order to continue supporting social well-being. This kind of philosophy is also closely tied to the political foundation of many countries, which is democracy. Political scientists warn that upholding democracies is contingent on nurturing empathy and philanthropic citizenship among young people, thus ensuring their participation in civic and social life (Malin & Pos, 2015).

Philanthropic citizenship as a protective factor

Activities aimed at building philanthropic citizenship can also act as a protective factor when working with vulnerable populations. This benefit is unjustly rarely mentioned in the literature, and there are very few studies that elaborate on its potential. One of the few available studies found that troubled youth, at times when they were experiencing unemployment, benefited substantially from being engaged with charities through volunteering (Body & Hogg, 2018). Young people reported that this engagement felt like a meaningful experience and that the support coming from charity employees and their peers was transformative (Body & Hogg, 2018). While this type of engagement did not directly contribute to their financial well-being, people reported a pronounced sense of achievement and purpose, accompanied by a growing understanding that they have a voice they can use to influence their communities (Body & Hogg, 2018). Research like this demonstrates that, in addition to targeting individuals and institutionalised forms of philanthropic activity, charities should invest efforts in marketing themselves to at-risk youth to balance their interests with those of these young people (Body & Hogg, 2018).

Philanthropic citizenship and early age exposure

Historically, philanthropic citizenship has been discussed in relation to adults and adolescents, with most of the literature interested in identifying its antecedents and strategies for promoting philanthropic behaviours in specific situations (Barrett & Pachi, 2019). As a consequence, there is a substantial lack of literature on children’s socialisation and how they acquire and reflect philanthropic values. This is a substantial shortcoming since developmental psychology and sociology warn that middle childhood is the life stage when children acquire philanthropic values and when their future civic, political, and philanthropic behaviours are shaped (van Deth et al., 2010). With this in mind, the present section reviews some of the key findings in this area of research and outlines strategies that charities can pursue in order to support philanthropic citizenship.

Socialisation of philanthropic values and behaviours

Like with all other forms of behaviour and sets of beliefs, philanthropic citizenship is acquired through the process of socialisation and, as previously noted, takes place as early as middle childhood. There are several models which demonstrate how the process of socialisation takes place. The socialisation model of philanthropy states that children learn it through three main processes: learn, experience, and observe (Bjorhovde, 2002). Learning refers to children having opportunities to discuss philanthropy and learn about the concept and its implications (Bjorhovde, 2002). Experiencing refers to children having opportunities to directly engage and participate in philanthropic activities (Bjorhovde, 2002). Observing refers to children having an opportunity to observe others engaging in philanthropic activities, with the most common form being observing parents in philanthropic contexts (Bjorhovde, 2002). When it comes to older children, learning about philanthropy often becomes more formal, involving activities such as volunteering or learning how to apply for charity grants (Weber & Thayer, 2017).

Schools as allies

Schools represent an environment in which children learn about charities and engage, often for the first time, in fundraising activities (Power & Taylor, 2018). However, while schools exert a positive influence on children’s philanthropic behaviours, schools in the UK tend to fail to provide several important aspects. Studies that surveyed children showed that, while they enthusiastically joined fundraising opportunities, less than 20% of children had awareness of the why (i.e., understanding the cause and its importance in raising money) (Body et al., 2019). Furthermore, in an attempt to simplify fundraising activities so that small children can understand them, children were often left with the impression that it was important to raise as much money as possible, with the monetary value remaining as the sole focus (Body et al., 2019). This issue is further compounded by the common pattern that fundraising, in most cases, is held for well-known and established charitable organisations (Body et al., 2019). Finally, participation in fundraisers was often rewarded. The rewards tend to be small and age-appropriate, such as allowing children to exchange their participation for a cupcake (Body et al., 2020). While this strategy was effective in boosting children’s short-term motivation and morale, experts in this area warn that such strategies can diminish the purpose of philanthropic actions and reduce them to transactional ones (Body et al., 2020). While this has not been confirmed in longitudinal studies, it is suspected that the positive effects of these early-age fundraising activities would be missing in cases where they are paired with rewards (Body et al., 2020).

Based on these findings, it is clear that charities have several avenues at their disposal that can be explored. Since children often lack understanding of causes and reasons for raising money for specific charities (Body et al., 2019), organisations can prepare age-appropriate informational materials that would provide education on this subject. Materials can range in modalities, and their complexity can be adjusted to fit the literacy level of the target group of children. Options can include picture books, short stories, videos explaining the charity cause, or even infographics aimed at older children. Language around fundraising can also be adapted, but this strategy may be more effective with older children. To highlight that charitable behaviour encompasses more than just monetary donations, children can be asked to participate by preparing small gifts for the charity, drawing, or engaging in other appropriate actions that focus on donating time and effort rather than money. Finally, charities can dissociate from the common practice of handing out rewards to children who participate. Instead, they can ensure to provide appraisal, reinforcing the message that children’s efforts contributed to something good. By doing so, the actual contribution to a charity would be a reward in itself. This group of recommendations is not only intended to provide ideas to charities on how to engage children and support their philanthropic development, but it also highlights the responsibility of charities to do so. According to some experts, charities have an ethical responsibility towards children and society to ensure that even the youngest members of society are exposed to philanthropy and given the opportunity to participate (Body et al., 2021).

When considering how to engage with schools in fundraising activities, another factor to be addressed is that, despite the financial benefits of doing so, charities should avoid partnering with for-profit organisations. This is a common practice in UK schools; however, many academics believe that the combination of for-profit and non-profit organisations sends the wrong message (Power & Taylor, 2018). Firstly, it is possible that there is a misalignment between the values of charities and those of non-profit organisations, with the latter being focused on managing their public image or corporate social responsibilities and not building philanthropic citizenship (Power & Taylor, 2018). The misalignment in values can further translate into differences in terms of preferred engagement strategies and goals for individual fundraisers. Secondly, it is necessary to consider the broader picture, and early exposure to activities combining for-profit and non-profit organisations can send an implicit message to children that fundraising is a solution to all key societal issues (Power & Taylor, 2018). Since philanthropic citizenship extends beyond donation behaviour, building this type of world outlook is considered detrimental and contrary to its core purpose.

Parents as a source of influence

Literature regards parents as central agents of socialisation, and this applies to developing philanthropic citizenship as well (Ottoni-Wilhelm et al., 2016). There are different mechanisms through which parents exert influence, and the two most notable include role modelling and verbal socialisation (Weisman, 2008). Role modelling involves parents engaging in charitable activities, allowing children to learn about charitable behaviour by observing their parents’ actions (Weisman, 2008). Verbal socialisation involves parents discussing charitable giving with their children, emphasising its importance, how it is practised, and why it is a desirable behaviour (Weisman, 2008). Research confirms that both role modelling and verbal socialisation are effective in influencing children’s views on charitable behaviour, thereby priming their philanthropic citizenship (Weisman, 2008). The impact of parents has been confirmed in several large-scale studies, which showed that parental influence during childhood is indicative of charitable behaviour in adulthood (Ottoni‐Wilhelm et al., 2013). However, the relationship is more complex, and the amount of charitable giving done by parents does not predict the amount of charitable giving that children engage in as adults (Ottoni-Wilhelm et al., 2013).

Given the importance of the role that parents play in developing philanthropic citizenship in children, it is reasonable to recommend that charities engage in activities that encourage children and parents to work together. Ideally, such activities would take a slower pace, such as a parent-child fundraising event, that would allow parents to both model charitable behaviour and have time to discuss how and why it unfolds. By doing so, role modelling and verbal socialisation could be combined (Weisman, 2008). The previously recommended strategy of disseminating informational materials can be applied here, too, thus enabling another channel to address the ongoing lack of connectivity to charities and their causes.

Peers as a source of influence

Peer influence also plays a role in shaping children’s philanthropic citizenship, although its influence is mostly confined to situations when a prosocial behaviour is exhibited. It is common that peers’ comments regarding one’s course of action are what shape an individual’s attitude towards a specific activity (Leimgruber et al., 2012). For example, while children’s motivation for engaging in charitable or prosocial behaviour is less complex compared to adults, children show a similar pattern of increased prosocial behaviour and generosity when observed by their peers (Leimgruber et al., 2012). Hence, while peers are an important factor, their influence is closely tied to various social and external factors, with little to no systemic influence, as seen in the cases of parents or schools (Leimgruber et al., 2012). Nonetheless, a significant consequence of this factor is that children do change their course of action, as well as their attitudes, under the influence of their peers, regardless of how changeable that influence may be (Leimgruber et al., 2012).

The importance of consistency

An important link often missing from discussions surrounding philanthropic citizenship and philanthropy in general is that exposure to targeted campaigns or actions must be continuous or, at the very least, prolonged, to yield the desired results (Singh et al., 2019). Short-term exposure usually has no long-lasting effects on one’s prosocial behaviour (Singh et al., 2019). In cases where a behaviour change is recorded, this change typically occurs in the form of an immediate reaction to a stimulus (Singh et al., 2019). Once the stimulus is gone, the behaviour returns to its previous state (Singh et al., 2019). Studies conducted in the context of for-profit organisations running philanthropic campaigns contribute to understanding this phenomenon. According to their findings, short-term philanthropic campaigns are ineffective because they are resource-intensive, often costly, and have a limited impact on consumers (Singh et al., 2019). The primary reason for this is that consumers are influenced by philanthropic actions and decide to join once they are repeatedly exposed to them (Singh et al., 2019). Hence, evidence shows that any form of campaign or course of action requires a long-term perspective to be effective (Singh et al., 2019). Furthermore, consistency needs to be accompanied by appropriate adaptation, as there is ample evidence that philanthropic citizenship and values are evolving, and intergenerational differences significantly impact the success of specific strategies.

A transformational approach to developing philanthropic citizenship

Research on developing philanthropic citizenship in children culminated in a framework developed by Body (2024) titled A Transformational Approach to Developing Philanthropic Citizenship. This framework heavily relies on studies showing that the type of learning experiences children are exposed to determines the type of citizen they will grow up to be, thus justifying an interest in early exposure to philanthropy and its structure (Westheimer & Ladson-Billings, 2024). The second critical premise of this approach is that children need opportunities to engage in various forms of philanthropic activities that extend beyond monetary donations. According to Body (2024), these transformative forms of philanthropy aim to shift the focus from giving to doing, laying the groundwork for lifelong, committed engagement with the charity sector. This section reviews key components of this framework and offers recommendations on how it can be integrated with charity marketing activities.

Active participation

The first step in this framework involves providing children with opportunities to directly engage with various forms of philanthropy, including advocacy, volunteering, social action, charitable giving, and activism (Body, 2024). The difference that this framework proposes is that children are given an agentic role in the process and instead of being participants, they become co-creators of these experiences (Nolas, 2015). This recommendation is grounded in research indicating that children require the right to participate in decision-making and have their voices heard in order to develop ethical philanthropic citizenship (Nolas, 2015). Additionally, when working with older children, any participation in decision-making should be followed by a process of reflection, thus allowing children to evaluate their decisions and behaviour and compare them against relevant ethical principles (Body, 2024). From a charity marketing perspective, this can be executed via several different strategies. For example, when liaising with schools and organising fundraisers, children can be included in the process of setting up a fundraiser. This can be done by setting up a “committee”, organising brainstorming sessions, and engaging children in group voting. Another option, when it comes to strategies that do not involve intermediaries, is that a charity can periodically organise activities where children are asked to make a decision. For example, during parent-child events, children can choose the poster for the next campaign by casting their vote, or something similar.

Collective action

The second premise of this framework is that children should gain a better understanding of how individual actions link to those of their community, which is why it is essential to refrain from organising activities that focus on individual inputs only (Body, 2024). While this approach requires careful consideration to avoid groupthink, it is essential for establishing the foundation for children to become global citizens (Louis et al., 2019). Hence, any of the previously mentioned group strategies also apply to the second principle, including group voting, brainstorming, and group work. The approach can be extended by organising community events that involve both children and adults, such as locally held auctions, markets, or collective activities such as environmental maintenance. In such environments, the link between individual action and community good can be more easily observed.

Empowerment

To achieve the desired benefits of transformational philanthropic citizenship, children need to be empowered to participate in charitable behaviour (Body, 2024). It is crucial to ensure that children are equipped with the necessary knowledge, information, moral values, and critical thinking skills that enable them to confidently participate in philanthropic activities (Johnson & Morris, 2010). In addition to the already mentioned informational materials, charities can consider expanding their digital presence and adapting it to be more appealing to children. For example, websites can feature interactive games or quizzes that children can play to learn more about the charity in question and the causes it supports. Furthermore, an important characteristic of quizzes and games is that they can provide feedback, which gives children positive reinforcement and encouragement for future learning (Johnson & Morris, 2010).

Intention to create social and/or environmental benefits

The final element of this approach is the intention to create social and/or environmental benefits. Unlike other elements that directly concern children and target them through various actions, this component is primarily concerned with the internal processes of charity (Body, 2024). The crux of this element is that charities must appropriately evaluate a situation to determine whether children’s participation is necessary, ethical, and whether it represents the best course of action (Body, 2024). Considering that children represent a vulnerable population, special attention must be paid to ensuring that, as part of this assessment, their well-being and interests are closely protected as well (Body, 2024). Furthermore, children’s participation needs to be framed in the context of greater social and environmental good, which means that their inclusion should be reserved for campaigns and cases when this condition is fulfilled (Body, 2024).

The use of technology in philanthropy

So far, the discussion surrounding the use of technology in philanthropic endeavours has been focused on soliciting donations. However, there is a growing body of study where technology is considered as a tool for managing people’s attitudes towards charities (Paulin et al., 2014). For example, social media, due to its extensive presence in everyday life, is seen as a powerful tool for inspiring more positive attitudes towards charities (Paulin et al., 2014). An added benefit of social media and other digital channels is that they support consistent exposure, which has already been discussed as a pivotal factor in developing philanthropic citizenship (Paulin et al., 2014). Furthermore, technological developments can generate more immersive experiences that are better at illustrating the nature of a charity cause (Sooter & Ugazio, 2023). Studies on adults demonstrated substantial influence of technologies, such as virtual reality, in causing emotional reactions among potential donors and increasing the need for an immediate course of action. No such studies were conducted on young people or children and their application should be carefully monitored (Sooter & Ugazio, 2023). However, the potential of technology to explain charity causes to children in a more vivid and intuitive manner remains.

Philanthropic citizenship and wealth transfer

The importance of educating Gen Alpha on philanthropy

One of the subjects that has received limited attention is the exploration of how wealthy children can be engaged in philanthropy from an early age to ensure they grow up to be major donors. The lack of research on this topic is in sharp contrast to the fact that, due to generational changes, the wealth transfer that will end in control of Generation Alpha amounts to £ 5.5 trillion in the UK alone (Fairbairn, 2024). The combination of wealth transfer and various social development is expected to result in Gen Alpha being the wealthiest generation in the history of humankind, making them the potentially most prolific generation in terms of donations and philanthropic work (Fairbairn, 2024). Early intervention is necessary, particularly in light of the growing prominence of anti-philanthropic philosophies (Bernholz, 2021). Furthermore, concerns about the weakening sense of community also justify interest in this subject, as philanthropy is (or should be) more than just donating; rather, it should be paired with concerns for others and the desire to benefit and strengthen communities (Bernholz, 2021). Some authors argue that it is not sufficient to target individuals and attempt to disperse the detrimental narratives (Breeze, 2021). Instead, what is needed is systematic education of donors that would equip them with the knowledge to donate and contribute in a meaningful, sustainable, and ethical manner (Breeze, 2021). The concept of philanthropic citizenship is closely aligned with this proposition.

How wealthy children understand charities

The unique study on wealthy children in the UK found that, in alignment with academics’ concerns, children view charity as doing something noble or good for those who are less fortunate and in need of help (Fairbairn, 2024). The relation between donors and beneficiaries is understood as donors being able to make beneficiaries happy and beneficiaries being grateful for this (Fairbairn, 2024). This is known as the benevolent concept of charity, and it is considered to be harmful and opposed to the principle of philanthropic citizenship because it perpetuates the power imbalance between donors and beneficiaries (Kenway & Fahey, 2019). Doing good is mostly understood through the concept of money and monetary donations (Fairbairn, 2024). Despite being aware of the concept of donating, children had a limited understanding of charities and their importance to broader communities, apart from acting as vehicles for distributing monetary donations from donors (Fairbairn, 2024). The importance of educating children about charities and causes, as proposed in one of the previous article sections, is thus confirmed based on results from this highly specific sample as well.

Exposure to charities and motivation to donate

Another source of support for the strategy of partnering with schools comes from findings showing that children favoured charities they are familiar with (Fairbairn, 2024). In most cases, familiarity was either due to charity being local and children being exposed to it organically or a charity being presented through school activities (Fairbairn, 2024). Schools were also identified as the main reason for familiarity with national and international charities (Fairbairn, 2024). However, regardless of the level of familiarity, most children emphasised that they were most interested in charities that cater to animals. This finding is consistent with national donation preferences, as charities focused on animals have consistently received the highest number of donations in the UK over the last couple of years. The study also looked into key motivations behind children’s engagement with charities and fundraising activities. The most common motivator was fairness and equality, followed by observing a need and feeling a good or warm glow (Fairbairn, 2024). Less frequently, children are motivated by the desire to make people happy, while the smallest number of children stated that they are motivated by a connection to the cause or the expectation of a personal benefit (Fairbairn, 2024). Again, the low ranking of being connected to a cause signals lower levels of engagement with charities as entities and a limited understanding of the general cause behind them.

The central role of schools in charity exposure

The importance of school as the key point of contact between children and charities was confirmed in the sample of UK children coming from wealthy families. The study reported that, while children are exposed to philanthropic activities through family-related events and practices, 90% of the sample stated that their primary contact with charities came through school. (Fairbairn, 2024) Most children (73%) also reported being confident in their knowledge of charities and understanding the causes they support, which contrasts with the previously reported lack of knowledge on this subject (Fairbairn, 2024). Another factor that emerged as a differentiator between schools is that some schools do not pay attention to highlighting the name of the charity in a fundraiser, while others do (Fairbairn, 2024). In schools where the names of charities are known, there is an additional positive effect, as children are more likely to engage with additional charities and ensure they are cited by name (Fairbairn, 2024). This suggests that even simple practices, such as ensuring the charity's name and logo are visible, can help gain traction and become a household name, even without a marketing budget.

Conclusion

Societal shifts and the inevitable transfer of wealth created an environment where philanthropic citizenship has a pivotal role in securing future support for charities. There is ample evidence that schools are at the heart of efforts to build philanthropic citizenship; however, specific practices do not seem to be fully aligned with literature recommendations. Charity marketing activities can be utilised to provide guidance and secure resources that complement and, when needed, correct current practices, ensuring that a true philanthropic spirit is promoted rather than a transactional approach. Furthermore, this article demonstrates that, despite the frequency of fundraising activities, children have a limited to no understanding of what charities are, what they stand for, and the causes they support. This is a missing link in a broader system and one that requires swift reaction. Based on the analysis presented in this article, it can be concluded that charities should be more actively involved in activities targeting children. Once embedded in these settings, special attention needs to be paid to educational activities, so that children can develop a proper understanding of the context within which individual charitable activities take place. Such engagement should be evidence-based, informed by the latest research, and, relying on developmental psychology, delivered in an age-appropriate manner. The latter might represent a challenge, especially for charities that lack access to experts in this area; however, a close collaboration with schools and teachers can again be a solution to this challenge. Across the board, close collaboration between schools and charities emerges as the most effective solution.

References

Barrett, M. D., & Pachi, D. (2019). Youth Civic and political engagement. Routledge.

Bernholz, L. (2021). How We Give Now. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12772.001.0001

Bjorhovde, P. O. (2002). Teaching philanthropy to children: Why, how, and what. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2002(36), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pf.3601

Body, A., Lau, E., & Josephidou, J. (2019). Our Charitable Children: Engaging Children in Charities and Charitable Giving.

Body, Alison, & Hogg, E. (2018). What mattered ten years on? young people’s reflections on their involvement with a charitable youth participation project. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1492101

Body, Alison, Lau, E., & Josephidou, J. (2020). Engaging children in meaningful charity: Opening‐up the spaces within which children learn to give. Children & Society, 34(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12366

Body, Alison, Lau, E., Cameron, L., & Ali, S. (2021). Developing a children’s rights approach to fundraising with children in primary schools and the ethics of cultivating philanthropic citizenship. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1730

Body, Alison. (2024). Raising philanthropic children: Moving beyond virtuous philanthropy, towards transformative giving and empowered citizenship. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1833

Breeze, B. (2021). In Defence of Philanthropy. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1wgvb5v

Fairbairn, F. (2024). Cultivating young philanthropists: Children, Philanthropy and wealth transfer. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1874

Flynn, E., Ehrenreich, S. E., Beron, K. J., & Underwood, M. K. (2014). Prosocial behavior: Long‐term trajectories and Psychosocial Outcomes. Social Development, 24(3), 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12100

Gorczyca, M., & Hartman, R. L. (2017). The new face of philanthropy: The role of intrinsic motivation in millennials’ attitudes and intent to donate to charitable organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1326349

Hope, E. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2014). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the civic engagement of Black Youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12117

Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for Critical Citizenship Education. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170903560444

Kenway, J., & Fahey, J. (2019). The gift economy of elite schooling: The changing contours and contradictions of privileged benefaction. New Sociologies of Elite Schooling, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204529-6

Kumar, A., & Chakrabarti, S. (2021). Charity donor behavior: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 35(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1905134

Leimgruber, K. L., Shaw, A., Santos, L. R., & Olson, K. R. (2012). Young children are more generous when others are aware of their actions. PLoS ONE, 7(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048292

Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Sharkey, J., Mayworm, A., Scacchi, L., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2014). How school can teach civic engagement besides Civic Education: The role of Democratic School Climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3–4), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9669-8

Louis, W. R., Thomas, E., Chapman, C. M., Achia, T., Wibisono, S., Mirnajafi, Z., & Droogendyk, L. (2019). Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members’ charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12436

Malin, A. J., & Pos, A. E. (2014). The impact of early empathy on alliance building, emotional processing, and outcome during experiential treatment of depression. Psychotherapy Research, 25(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.901572

Nolas, S. (2015). Children’s participation, Childhood Publics and Social Change: A Review. Children & Society, 29(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12108

Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., Zhang, Y., Estell, D. B., & Perdue, N. H. (2016). Raising charitable children: The effects of verbal socialization and role-modeling on children’s giving. Journal of Population Economics, 30(1), 189–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0604-1

Ottoni‐Wilhelm, M., Estell, D. B., & Perdue, N. H. (2013). Role‐modeling and conversations about giving in the socialization of adolescent charitable giving and volunteering. Journal of Adolescence, 37(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.010

Paulin, M., J. Ferguson, R., Jost, N., & Fallu, J.-M. (2014). Motivating millennials to engage in charitable causes through social media. Journal of Service Management, 25(3), 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-05-2013-0122

Power, S., & Taylor, C. (2018). The mainstreaming of charities into schools. Oxford Review of Education, 44(6), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1438255

Singh, J., Teng, N., & Netessine, S. (2019). Philanthropic campaigns and customer behavior: Field experiments on an online taxi booking platform. Management Science, 65(2), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2887

Sooter, N. M., & Ugazio, G. (2023). Virtual reality for philanthropy: A promising tool to innovate fundraising. Judgment and Decision Making, 18. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.15

van Deth, J. W., Abendschön, S., & Vollmar, M. (2010). Children and politics: An empirical reassessment of early political socialization. Political Psychology, 32(1), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00798.x

Wagaman, M. A. (2011). Social Empathy as a framework for adolescent empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.564045

Weber, P. C., & Thayer, A. N. (2017). Planting the seeds of civil society: An assessment of philanthropy education in K–12 schools. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 7(3), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.18666/jnel-2017-v7-i3-6149

Weisman, C. E. (2008). Raising charitable children. F.E. Robbins & Sons.

Westheimer, J., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2024). What kind of citizen?: Educating our children for the common good. Teachers College Press.