How Low Can You Go?
    An Investigation into Matching Gifts
    in Fundraising

McCarty, Sara Helms; Diette, Timothy M.; Holloway, Betsy Bugg

doi:10.1561/105.00000075

Cited by 3 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Helms McCarty et al . () do not find a significant impact on checkbook giving when considering matching rates of 0.1 and 1 in the field. Karlan et al .…”

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 74%

“…However, Lukas et al (2010) do not identify a significant effect for a matching rate of 0.25 and in the laboratory experiment by Charness and Holder (2019) the increase due to a linear match of 1 is merely significant in the case of a one-sided test. Similarly, Helms McCarty et al (2018) do not find a significant impact on checkbook giving when considering matching rates of 0.1 and 1 in the field. Karlan et al (2011) are the only ones who identify a significant negative effect for a subgroup of their sample, with the aggregate effect on the whole sample not being significantly different from zero.…”

Section: Does Linear Matching Affect Short-term Giving?mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…This effect is substantial since the likelihood of contributing in the control group is 1.8%. In Huck and Rasul (2011), Gee and Schreck (2018) and Helms McCarty et al (2018) the differences in response rates between the control group and the treatment group, which receives a linear match of 1, amount to 0.5, 0.8 and 0.6 percentage points with baseline response rates of 3.7%, 1.6% and 3.0%, respectively. Since all three papers have a substantially lower number of observations than Karlan and List (2007), insignificant effects might result from a lack of power.…”

Section: Does Linear Matching Affect Short-term Giving?mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Such lack of responsiveness with regard to the magnitude of matching is supported by Bekkers () for matching rates of 0.5 and 1, as well as Helms McCarty et al . () for matching rates of 0.1 and 1. However, it is in contrast to the significant positive impact of increases in the matching rate found in laboratory experiments (Eckel et al ., , for matching rates of 0.25, 0.5, and 1; Adena and Huck, , for matching rates of 0.5, 1, 1.5).…”

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A matching rate of 1 has proven to be effective in crowding in donations in several settings (Davis, ; Gneezy et al ., , Huck et al ., ; Kesternich et al ., ). However, there are cases in which it did not work out (Davis, ; Karlan et al ., ; Helms McCarty et al ., ) and sometimes smaller matching rates have been sufficient (Davis, ; Huck et al ., ; Eckel and Grossman, ).…”

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Matching Subsidies and Voluntary Contributions: A Review

Epperson

Reif

2019

Journal of Economic Surveys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a synthesis of the experimental literature on matching subsidies in the context of charitable giving. We classify results according to four different outcome variables frequently considered in the literature and address (i) short‐term effects of linear matching, (ii) the role of the matching rate, (iii) context‐dependence of behavioural responses, (iv) the relevance of the price of giving, (v) long‐term effects and (vi) nonlinear matching schemes. Based on this comprehensive review, we highlight several avenues for future research, such as putting stronger emphasis on competition in fundraising, long‐term effects or heterogeneity in responses.

show abstract

“…Similarly, Helms McCarty et al . () do not find a significant impact on checkbook giving when considering matching rates of 0.1 and 1 in the field. Karlan et al .…”

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Does Linear Matching Affect Short-term Giving?mentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Does Linear Matching Affect Short-term Giving?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Matching Subsidies and Voluntary Contributions: A Review

Epperson

Reif

2019

Journal of Economic Surveys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An influential result in the literature on charitable giving is that matching subsidies dominate rebate subsidies in raising funds. We investigate whether this result extends to “unit donation” schemes, a popular alternative form of soliciting donations. There, the donors’ choices are over the number of units of a charitable good to fund at a given unit price, rather than the amount of money to give. Comparing matches and rebates as well as simple discounts on the unit price, we find no evidence of dominance in our online experiment: the three subsidy types are equally effective overall. At a more disaggregated level, rebates lead to a higher likelihood of giving, while matching and discount subsidies lead to larger donations by donors. This suggests that charities using a unit donation scheme enjoy additional degrees of freedom in choosing a subsidy type. Rebates merit additional consideration if the primary goal is to attract donors.

show abstract

Subsidizing Unit Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared

Diederich

Eckel

Epperson

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How Low Can You Go? An Investigation into Matching Gifts in Fundraising

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Matching Subsidies and Voluntary Contributions: A Review

Matching Subsidies and Voluntary Contributions: A Review

Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared

Subsidizing Unit Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About