ArticleScientific reports2025
Demographic variation in charitable giving and helping across 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeing and deciding to help: neural and attentional mechanisms of prosociality in younger and older adults.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- A comparative "report card" wellbeing assessment of 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study.Discover global society · 2026Article
- Childhood predictors of charitable giving and helping across 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Global Flourishing Study: Study Profile and Initial Results on Flourishing.Nature. Mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prosocial behaviors play a vital role in promoting individual and societal well-being. Charitable giving and helping strangers are two important expressions of prosociality; yet we know little about how these behaviors differ across sociodemographic indicators cross-nationally. Using data from the Global Flourishing Study, a diverse and international sample of 202,898 individuals across 22 countries, we examined distributions of charitable giving and helping (binary variables, yes/no) across nine demographic factors (age, gender, marital status, employment status, religious service attendance, education, immigration status, race and ethnicity, and religious affiliation) and culturally diverse countries. Unadjusted proportions of charitable giving and helping in the past month varied substantially between countries for charitable giving (from 0.10 [Japan] to 0.79 [Indonesia]) and helping (from 0.11 [Japan] to 0.83 [Nigeria]). Random effects meta-analyses confirmed that rates of charitable giving and helping differed among some demographic groups (e.g., more charitable giving with older age, less helping with older age, increased charitable giving and helping with more education) and that rates of charitable giving and helping across all demographic factors differed between countries. Better understanding how various sociodemographic factors may be associated with prosocial behaviors, and how these associations differ internationally, may help to inform interventions designed to enhance prosociality around the world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.