Using Charity Performance Metrics as an Excuse Not to Give

References

• Andreoni J, Sanchez AL (2014) Do beliefs justify actions or do actions justify beliefs? An experiment on stated beliefs, revealed beliefs, and social-image motivation. Working paper, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Rao JM, Trachtman H (2017) Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. J. Political Econom. 125(3):625–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C (1995) Biased Judgments of fairness in bargaining. Amer. Econom. Rev. 85(5):1337–1343.Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Engl F, Weber RA (2014) Does willful ignorance deflect punishment?—An experimental study. Eur. Econom. Rev. 70(August):512–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Batista C, Silverman D, Yang D (2015) Directed giving: Evidence from an inter-household transfer experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 118(October):2–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bénabou R, Tirole J (2016) Mindful economics: The production, consumption, and value of beliefs. J. Econom. Perspect. 30(3):141–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Broberg T, Ellingsen T, Johannesson M (2007) Is generosity involuntary? Econom. Lett. 94(1):32–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Meer J, Williams JF (2017) Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66(C):9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butera L, Horn J (2014) Good news, bad news, and social image: The market for charitable giving. George Mason University Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science (ICES) working paper, George Mason University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Butera L, Houser D (2018) Delegating altruism: Toward an understanding of agency in charitable giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 155:99–109.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA (2013) Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 91(July):93–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coffman LC (2011) Intermediation reduces punishment (and reward). Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconom. 3(4):1–30.Google Scholar
• Coffman L (2017) Intermediaries in fundraising inhibit quality-driven charitable donations. Econom. Inquiry 55(1):409–424.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana J, Cain DM, Dawes RM (2006) What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 100(2):193–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dana J, Weber RA, Kuang JX (2007) Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econom. Theory 33(1):67–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danilov A, Saccardo S (2016) Disguised discrimination. Working paper, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List J, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):1–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Di Tella R, Perez-Truglia R, Babino A, Sigman M (2015) Conveniently upset: Avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others’ altruism. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(11):3416–3442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebrahim A, Rangan V K (2010) The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2003) Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? J. Public Econom. 87(3):681–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experiment. Econom. 11(3):234–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Herberich D, Meer J (2017) A field experiment on directed giving at a public university. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66(C):66–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engel C (2011) Dictator games: A meta study. Experiment. Econom. 14(4):583–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Exley CL (2015) Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: The role of risk. Rev. Econom. Stud. 83(2):587–628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Exley CL, Kessler JB (2018) Motivated errors. HBS Working Paper 18-07, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Exley CL, Petrie R (2018) The impact of a surprise donation ask. J. Public Econom. 158(February):152–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Szech N (2013) Organizations, diffused pivotality and Immoral outcomes. IZA Discussion Paper 7442, IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
• Feiler L (2014) Testing models of information avoidance with binary choice dictator games. J. Econom. Psych. 45(December):253–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fong CM, Oberholzer-Gee F (2011) Truth in giving: Experimental evidence on the welfare effects of informed giving to the poor. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):436–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Ariely D (2012) The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. J. Personality Social Psych. 102(3):445–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D (2013) Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93(September):285–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gino F, Norton MI, Weber RA (2016) Motivated bayesians: Feeling moral while acting egoistically. J. Econom. Perspect. 30(3):189–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giving USA Foundation (2015) Giving USA 2015: The annual report on philanthropy. Technical report, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Keenan EA, Gneezy A (2014) Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science 346(6209):632–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Saccardo S, Serra-Garcia M, van Veldhuizen R (2016) Bribing the self. Working paper, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.Google Scholar
• Golman R, Hagmann D, Loewenstein G (2017) Information avoidance. J. Econom. Literature 55(1):1–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golman R, Loewenstein G, Moene KO, Zarri L (2016) The preference for belief consonance. J. Econom. Perspect. 30(3):165–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gordon TP, Knock CL, Neely DG (2009) The role of rating agencies in the market for charitable contributions: An empirical test. J. Accounting Public Policy 28(6):469–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman Z (2014) Strategic ignorance and the robustness of social preferences. Management Sci. 60(11):2659–2665.Link, Google Scholar
• Grossman Z, van der Weele JJ (2017) Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 15(1):173–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haisley EC, Weber RA (2010) Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games Econom. Behav. 68(2):614–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamman JR, Loewenstein G, Weber RA (2010) Self-Interest through delegation: An additional rationale for the principal-agent relationship. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(4):1826–1846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hope Consulting (2010) Money for good the US market for impact investments and charitable gifts from individual donors and investors. Technical report, Hope Consulting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
• Hsee CK (1996) Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 66(1):122–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huck S, Rasul I (2011) Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):351–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hwang H, Powell WW (2009) The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(2):268–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamdar A, Levitt SD, List JA, Mullaney B, Syverson C (2015) Once and done: Leveraging behavioral economics to increase charitable contributions. SPI Working Paper 55, Science of Philanthropy Initiative, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(5):1774–1793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, Wood DH (2017) The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66(C):1–8.Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA, Shafir E (2011) Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 95(5):344–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessler JB, Milkman KL, Yiwei Zhang C (2019) Getting the rich and powerful to give. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print April 26, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3142.Google Scholar
• Knuttson M, Martinsson P, Wollbrant C (2013) Do people avoid opportunities to donate? A natural field experiment on recycling and charitable giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 93(September):71–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2000) Fair Shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1092.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson T, Capra MC (2009) Exploiting moral wiggle room: Illusory preference for fairness? A comment. Judgment Decision Making 4(6):467–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP, Malmendier U, Weber RA (2012) Sorting in experiments with application to social preferences. Amer. Econom. J.: Appl. Econom. 4(1):136–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li SX, Eckel C, Grossman PJ, Brown TL (2015) Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government. Econom. Lett. 133(August):51–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin SC, Schaumberg RL, Reich T (2016) Sidestepping the rock and the hard place: The private avoidance of prosocial requests. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 64(May):35–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Linardi S, McConnell MA (2011) No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):445–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matthey A, Regner T (2011) Do I really want to know? A cognitive dissonance-based explanation of other-regarding behavior. Games 2(1):114–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2014) Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 103(July):113–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2017) Does fundraising create new giving? J. Public Econom. 145(January):82–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meier S (2007) Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 5(6):1203–1222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: When begin good frees us to be bad. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 4(5):344–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Metzger L, Günther I (2019) Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment. J. Dev. Economics. 136:18–33.Google Scholar
• Niehaus P (2014) A theory of good intentions. Working paper, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.Google Scholar
• Null C (2011) Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):455–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nyborg K (2011) “I don’t want to hear about it”: Rational ignorance among duty-oriented consumers. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 79(3):263–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oberholzer-Gee F, Eichenberger R (2008) Fairness in extended dictator game experiments. B.E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 8(1):1–21.Google Scholar
• Pittarello A, Leib M, Gordon-Hecker T, Shalvi S (2015) Justifications shape ethical blind spots. Psych. Sci. 26(6):794–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regner T (2018) Reciprocity under moral wiggle room: Is it a preference or a constraint? Experiment. Econom. 21(4):779–792.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwardman P, van der Weele JJ (2016) Deception and self-deception. Tinbergen Institute discussion paper, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
• Shalvi S, Eldar O, Bereby-Meyer Y (2012) Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psych. Sci. 23(10):1264–1270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shalvi S, Dana J, Handgraaf MJJ, De Dreu CKW (2011) Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 115(2):181–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shalvi S, Gino F, Barkan R, Ayal S (2015) Self-serving justifications doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 24(2):125–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder ML, Kleck RE, Strenta A, Mentzer SJ (1979) Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. J. Personality Social Psych. 37(12):2297–2306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trachtman H, Steinkruger A, Wood M, Wooster A, Andreoni J, Murphy JJ, Rao JM (2015) Fair weather avoidance: Unpacking the costs and benefits of “avoiding the ask.” J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):8–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van der Weele JJ (2014) Inconvenient truths: Determinants of strategic ignorance in moral dilemmas. Working paper, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
• van der Weele JJ, Kulisa J, Kosfeld M, Friebel G (2014) Resisting moral wiggle room: How robust is reciprocal behavior? Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconom. 6(3):256–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Iwaarden J, van der Wiele T, Williams R, Moxham C (2009) Charities: How important is performance to donors? Internat. J. Quality Reliability Management 26(1):5–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yörük BK (2016) Charity ratings. J. Econom. Management Strategy 25(1):195–219.Crossref, Google Scholar