2018
DOI: 10.1111/ecin.12742
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Round Giving: A Field Experiment on Suggested Donation Amounts in Public‐television Fundraising

Abstract: Direct-mail fundraisers commonly provide a set of suggested donation amounts to potential donors, in addition to a write-in option. Standard economic models of charitable fundraising do not predict an impact of suggested amounts on charitable giving. However, our field experiments on direct-mail solicitations to over 10,000 members of a public television station tell a different story. We find that changing one of the suggested amounts in an ask string from $100 to $95 reduces the number of gifts greater than … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
17
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Especially since intrinsic motivation can change over time, possibly in response to defaults. In combination with our findings on an interaction with donors' intrinsic motivation, this suggests research on machine learning algorithms setting personalized default values may be promising (Mills, 2020;Peer et al, 2020;Sunstein, 2013;Yeung, 2018), but also challenging (Reiley & Samek, 2019). Based on available donor information, defaults could be set so as to maximize the probability of realizing the highest possible contribution to the charitable organization, or environmental cause.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Especially since intrinsic motivation can change over time, possibly in response to defaults. In combination with our findings on an interaction with donors' intrinsic motivation, this suggests research on machine learning algorithms setting personalized default values may be promising (Mills, 2020;Peer et al, 2020;Sunstein, 2013;Yeung, 2018), but also challenging (Reiley & Samek, 2019). Based on available donor information, defaults could be set so as to maximize the probability of realizing the highest possible contribution to the charitable organization, or environmental cause.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Specifically, to the extent that potential donors interpret the default option as a recommended contribution to the charitable cause, our paper is related to studies that examine how giving is affected by directly requesting (Fraser, Hite, & Sauer, 1988;Edwards & List, 2014) or explicitly suggesting (Adena et al, 2014;Goswami & Urminsky, 2016) specific donation levels during solicitation. Similarly, the literature on "appeal scales" (i.e., providing donors with a vector of multiple suggested contribution levels; see Weyant & Smith, 1987;Desmet & Feinberg, 2003;Adena & Huck, 2016;Reiley & Samek, 2017) is related in that there is a partial overlap in the channels through which appeal scales and defaults may affect behavior (e.g., recommendations or anchoring). Finally, interventions based on statements like "every penny helps" (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976;Fraser, Hite, & Sauer, 1988) or the provision of information about other donors' behavior (Frey & Meier, 2004;Shang & Croson, 2009) are potentially related to defaults, as they may also affect behavior by transmitting information or shaping social norms.…”
Section: A Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Suggested Ask Amount. Several experimental studies have focused on the relationship between suggesting an amount to give, and the resulting behavior (De Bruyn & Prokopec, 2013;Edwards & List, 2014;Fielding & Knowles, 2015;Goswami & Urminsky, 2016;Reiley & Samek, 2019). In one study, Edwards & List (2014) asked US college graduates to donate to their alma mater.…”
Section: Fundraising Practices and Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, fundraisers may want to keep the suggested amounts in multiples of $5 or $10, as donors seem to prefer round numbers, and it is easier to give a suggested amount than to pick another one. In fact, response may be suppressed if "strange" numbers are suggested, because it is easier to not give than to write in one's own amount (Reiley & Samek, 2019).…”
Section: Fundraising Practices and Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%