Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:45:07.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing donation menus: on charitable giving for cancer research – evidence from a natural field experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2019

MARIANNA BAGGIO Open the ORCID record for MARIANNA BAGGIO [Opens in a new window]  and
MATTEO MOTTERLINI
MARIANNA BAGGIO*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
MATTEO MOTTERLINI
Affiliation:
CRESA, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan Italy
*
*Correspondence to: Marianna Baggio, Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy. Email: marianna.baggio@unitn.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Behavioral economics research has helped with understanding charitable behavior and has shown that charities can encourage donations by carefully designing their pledges. However, there is still scope to extend current research on who gives, what drives the decision to donate and at what levels, especially when behavioral insights are applied in context. In cooperation with a major Italian charity for cancer research, this study implements a natural direct mail field experiment, with over 150,000 letters sent to donors. By exploring the behavioral responses to different donation anchors, evidence was found that, within the given framework, including donation menus significantly increased the average amount donated without affecting the likelihood of donation. Furthermore, introducing additional explanations of how to make a payment significantly increased overall returns. Lastly, individual heterogeneity (high- and low-frequency donors, as well as senior and junior donors) had a direct effect on donations.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 417 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. and Johansson-Stenman, O. (2007), Anonymity, Reciprocity and Conformity: Evidence from Voluntary Contributions to a Natural Park in Costa Rica. Department of Economics Working Papers in Economics, Göteborg University, (245). Göeborg.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (2016), The Economics of Philanthropy and Fundraising. Books. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Rao, J. M. (2011), ‘The power of the ask: How communication affects selfishness, empathy and altruism’, Journal of Public Economic 95, 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, A. J., Chetty, R., Feldstein, M. and Saez, E. (2013), The Economics of Philanthropy and Fundraising. Books. North Holland.Google Scholar
BIT (2013), Applying Behavioral Insights to Charitable Giving.Google Scholar
BIT (2017), The BIT Updated Report 2016–17.Google Scholar
Charities Aid Foundation (2018), World Giving Index 2018.Google Scholar
De Bruyn, A. and Prokopec, S. (2013), ‘Opening a donor's wallet: The influence of appeal scales on likelihood and magnitude of donation’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 23–4, 496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, P. (1999), ‘Asking for less to obtain more’, Journal of Interactive Marketing 13(3): 55–65.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, P. and Feinberg, F. (2003), ‘Ask and ye shall receive: The effect of the appeals scale on consumers donation behavior’, Journal of Economic Psychology 3(24): 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickert, S., Sagara, N. and Slovic, P. (2001), ‘Affective motivations to help others: a two-stage model of donation decisions’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. T. and List, J. A. (2014), ‘Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment’, Journal of Public Economics 114, 1–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C., Hite, R. and Sauer, P. (1988), ‘Increasing contributions in solicitation campaigns: The use of large and small anchor points’, Journal of Consumer Research 284–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. and Boo, H. C. (2011), ‘A literature review of the anchoring effect’, The Journal of Socio- Economics 40, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, I. and Urminsky, O. (2016), ‘When Should the Ask Be a Nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations’, Journal of Marketing Research 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. Y. and Feinberg, F. (2013), Modeling Scale Attraction Effects: an Application to Charitable Dona- tions and Optimal Laddering. NA - Advances in Consumer Research 41.Google Scholar
Parbhoo, O., Davis, K., Reynolds, R., Piyush, T., Trewn, P. and Welch, S. (2018), Best of intentions – Using behavioural design to unlock charitable giving. Ideas42Google Scholar
Rooney, P., Steinberg, K. and Schervish, P. G. (2004), ‘Methodology is destiny: the effect of survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering’, Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly 33(4): 628–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargeant, A. (2008), ‘Donor retention: an exploratory study of door-to-door recruits’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marleting 13(1): 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, O., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., Algate, F., Gallagher, R., Nguyen, S., Ruda, S., Sanders, M., Pelenur, M., Gyani, A., Harperand, H., Reinhard, J. and Kirkman, E. (2014), EAST - Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. Books. Behavioural Insights Team.Google Scholar
Shang, J. and Croson, R. (2009), ‘A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods’, The economic journal 119, 1422–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. E. and Berger, P. D. (1996), ‘The impact of direct marketing appeals on charitable marketing effectiveness’, Journal of the Academy of Market- ing Science, 24, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Books. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), ‘Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases’, Science 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warwick, M. (2003), Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Weyant, J. M. and Smith, S. L. (1987), ‘Getting more by asking for less: The effects of request size on donations of charity’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar