Testing Mechanisms in
Charitable giving
René Bekkers
Center for Philanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
1
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
2
Why do people give?
People give more (often) when
1. There is a clear need
2. They are being asked
3. Costs are lower, and benefits are higher
4. They care about the recipients
5. They receive social benefits
6. They receive psychological benefits
7. The cause matches their values
8. Donations are perceived to be efficient
need
solicitation
costs/benefits
altruism
reputation
self-rewards
values
efficacy
Source: Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). ‘A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of
Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40(5): 924-973. Available at www.understandingphilanthropy.com
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
3
Unpublished?
Published
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
4
These did not work.
• Picture recipients on fundraising letters (-€40k).
• Calling alumni by current fraternity members.
• Reminding people of an event that made them
feel grateful.
• Reminding people of an event that made them
feel happy.
• Giving people more positive social information.
• Giving students the names of charity
ambassadors.
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
5
Published - Unpublished
• Picture recipients on fundraising letters (-€40k).
• Calling alumni by current fraternity members.
• Reminding people of an event that made them
feel grateful.
• Reminding people of an event that made them
feel happy.
• Giving people more positive social information.
• Giving students the names of charity
ambassadors.
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
6
These did not work either.
•
•
•
•
•
Reducing the anonymity of donations.
Giving the option of forfeiting anonymity.
Switching the default from ‘giving’ to ‘keeping’.
Telling people they are a helpful person.
Telling people the government lowered its
subsidy, increasing the need for donations.
• Showing students stylized eyespots.
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
7
% donating
But real watching eyes….
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7
17
18
24
18
60
61
19
74
base
donated 0
3-4 November 2014
donated 5
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
donated 10
8
Suggesting a €35 contribution
120
Frequency
100
80
60
40
20
0
<10
10
15
20
25
no reference
3-4 November 2014
30
35
40
45
50
>50
reference €35
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
9
60
Framing price reductions as
matches vs. rebates
50
40
30
20
10
0
no reduction (full price) 33% rebate (price=0.67) 50% match (price=0.67)
donates
3-4 November 2014
proportion of reward donated
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
10
60
Framing price reductions as
matches vs. rebates
50
40
30
20
10
0
no reduction (full price) 50% rebate (price=0.50) 100% match (price=0.50)
donates
3-4 November 2014
proportion of reward donated
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
11
Future Experiments
1. Giving with Moral Care
2. Crowdfunding Innovation Narratives
3. Global Solidarity Experiment
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
12
1. Giving with moral care
• The moral principle of care as a trait is
strongly predictive of generosity,
particularly towards people in need.
• Can a manipulation of the state of moral
care increase giving? Does it work through
warm glow (duty?) and / or altruism?
• Randomizing care through induction, a
writing task or semantic priming.
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
13
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
14
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
15
2. Crowdfunding Innovation
• An untapped potential of wealth remains
uninvested in social and technological
innovations serving the public good.
• How do prosocial impact and innovation
narratives affect venture philanthropy?
• Randomizing prices and matching grants
for training and workshops to estimate
long term impact.
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
16
3. Global Solidarity Experiment
• How prosocial are choices in online social
dilemma games across nations?
• Pairing individuals with other participants
and charities as recipients.
• Manipulate social distance and similarity of
gender, nation, race, religion of recipients.
• Provide social information: actual choices
of other participants.
3-4 November 2014
Behavioral Economics and
Philanthropy Conference
17