Not everyone wants the celebrity of having a plaque on a campus bench or their name on a Penn building.
Last month's $10 million anonymous donation will enhance Penn's finances for 2005, but this act of generosity will bring no glory or recognition to the donor.
"In my experience, it runs the full gamut," said John Zeller, vice president for development and alumni relations, as to why donors may opt for anonymity.
From religious motivations to simple modesty, individuals forgo the satisfaction of seeing their names published next to large sums for "very personal" reasons, Zeller said.
But last month's anonymous donation was just a fraction of the money Penn receives annually in contributions. In the 2004 fiscal year, Penn received $336,989,000 in total contributions, according to Zeller.
The University ranks fourth in the nation for fundraising, according to a RAND Corporation survey.
Operations and Information Management professor Rachel Croson describes the reasons for which people give money to organizations as being internally motivated -- resulting from an emotional connection to the recipient, for example -- or more socially motivated, as in the case of a desire to gain status among peers.
Thus, anonymous donors may feel sufficiently secure socially or may specifically not want people to know they have made a donation.
"If it's public that they made a big donation ... suddenly everybody is going to be after them for money," Croson said.
Donations may also be anonymous due to a constraint -- the result of a condition that is unexpectedly satisfied.
"For example, you write a will that says my money goes to my son, unless he marries this woman I don't approve of, at which point the money gets anonymously donated to a charity," Croson said.
On the other hand, some donors may consider anonymity a purer representation of morality because the individual acted charitably without the intent to earn others' admiration, said Psychology professor Jon Baron.
"I think this reason is a misconception of the nature of morality, a historical residue of Kantianism, which holds roughly that truly moral behavior, if pure, cannot be enjoyable," Baron said.
Some experts say the idea that philanthropy should not be a reciprocal exchange may arise from the way people think about altruism.
In economics, altruism is defined as a delivery of a benefit at the cost to the self.
The question is whether the psychological boost received from a good social reputation can be considered a benefit.
Moreover, an anonymous gift may be anonymous only to a specific audience.
For example, anonymous donors could still discuss the donation with their friends and thus obtain a sheen for their reputation.
Religious perspectives can also cast a different light on the phenomenon.
"In Judaism, the anonymous gift is the highest mitzvah, I'm told," Psychology professor Martin Seligman said.
The word "mitzvah" refers to a good deed.
Penn alumna Carole Karsch, a senior associate at fundraising firm Schultz & Williams -- which previously counseled the University -- said that there are no blanket rules when it comes to patterns of giving and recognition.
"Major gifts are very individual," Karsch said, adding, "Some people want bells and whistles and some just don't want any fuss."
