Does Online Fundraising Increase Charitable Giving? A Nationwide Field Experiment on Facebook

References

• Adena M (2016) Nonprofit organizations, free media and donor’s trust. J. Econom. 118(3):239–263.Google Scholar
• Adena M, Huck S (2019) Giving once, giving twice: A two-period field experiment on intertemporal crowding in charitable giving. J. Public Econom. 172(1):127–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adena M, Huck S (2020) Online fundraising, self-image, and the long-term impact of ask avoidance. Management Sci. 66(2):722–743.Link, Google Scholar
• Adena M, Huck S (2022) Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 200(1):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adena M, Huck S, Rasul I (2014) Charitable giving and nonbinding contribution-level suggestions evidence from a field experiment. Rev. Behav. Econom. 1(3):275–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alatas V, Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Hanna R, Olken BA (2016) Network structure and the aggregation of information: Theory and evidence from Indonesia. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(7):1663–1704.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Altmann S, Falk A, Heidhues P, Jayaraman R, Teirlinck M (2018) Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Rev. Econom. Statist. 101(5):808–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1995) Warm-glow vs. cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):1–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Rao JM (2011) The power of asking: How communication affects selfishness, empathy, and altruism. J. Public Econom. 95(7–8):513–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Chassang S, Snowberg E (2017a) Decision theoretic approaches to experiment design and external validity. Banerjee AV, Duflo E, eds. Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, vol. 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 141–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO (2019) Using gossips to spread information: Theory and evidence from two randomized controlled trials. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(6):2453–2490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Banerji R, Berry J, Duflo E, Kannan H, Mukerji S, Shotland M, Walton M (2017b) From proof of concept to scalable policies: Challenges and solutions, with an application. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(4):73–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Karlan D, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zinman J (2010) What’s advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing field experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 125(1):263–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilodeaua M, Slivinski A (1997) Rival charities. J. Public Econom. 66(3):449–467.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blake T, Nosko C, Tadelis S (2015) Consumer heterogeneity and paid search effectiveness: A large-scale field experiment. Econometrica 83(1):155–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bøg M, Harmgart H, Huck S, Jeffers AM (2012) Fundraising on the internet. Kyklos 65(1):18–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer AD, Marlow C, Settle JE, Fowler JH (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489(7415):295–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castillo M, Petrie R, Wardell C (2014) Fundraising through online social networks: A field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation. J. Public Econom. 114(1):29–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Li X, MacKie-Mason J (2005) Online fund-raising mechanisms: A field experiment. Contributions Econom. Anal. Policy 5(2):4.Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Dupas P (2010) Free distribution or cost-sharing? Evidence from a randomized malaria prevention experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 125(1):1–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deryugina T, Marx BM (2021) Is the supply of charitable donations fixed? Evidence from tornadoes. Amer. Econom. Rev. Insights 3(3):383–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donkers B, van Diepen M, Franses PH (2017) Do charities get more when they ask more often? Evidence from a unique field experiment. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66(1):58–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drago F, Mengel F, Traxler C (2020) Compliance behavior in networks: Evidence from a field experiment. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 12(2):96–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman PJ, Milano A (2007) Is more information always better? An experimental study of charitable giving and Hurricane Katrina. Southern Econom. J. 74(2):388–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faizullabhoy I, Korolova A (2018) Facebook’s advertising platform: New attack vectors and the need for interventions. Preprint, submitted March 27, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.10099.Google Scholar
• Filiz-Ozbay E, Uler N (2019) Demand for giving to multiple charities: An experimental study. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 17(3):725–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gallier C, Goeschl T, Kesternich M, Lohse J, Reif C, Römer D (2023) Inter-charity competition under spatial differentiation: Sorting, crowding, and spillovers. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 216(1):457–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gee LK, Meer J (2019) The altruism budget: Measuring and encouraging charitable giving. Powell WW, Bromley P, eds. The Nonprofit Sector A Research Handbook, 3rd ed. (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA), 558–565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Keenan EA, Gneezy A (2014) Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science 346(6209):632–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grieder M, Schmitz J, Schubert R (2021) Asking to give: Moral licensing and pro-social behavior in the aggregate. Preprint, submitted September 9, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3920355.Google Scholar
• Hager A (2019) Do online ads influence vote choice? Political Comm. 36(3):376–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heß S (2017) Randomization inference with Stata: A guide and software. Stata J. 17(3):630–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jayaraman R, Kaiser M, Teirlinck M (2023) Charitable donations to natural disasters: Evidence from an online platform. Oxford Econom. Papers 75(4):902–922.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson GA, Lewis RA, Nubbemeyer EI (2017) Ghost ads: Improving the economics of measuring online ad effectiveness. J. Marketing Res. 54(6):867–884.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 No. 025, Science of Philantrophy Initiative, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Kessler JB, Milkman KL (2018) Identity in charitable giving. Management Sci. 64(2):845–859.Link, Google Scholar
• Krieg J, Samek A (2017) When charities compete: A laboratory experiment with simultaneous public goods. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66(1):40–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacetera N, Macis M, Slonim R (2012) Will there be blood? Incentives and substitution effects in pro-social behavior. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 4(1):186–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Tucker C (2019) Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads. Management Sci. 65(7):2966–2981.Link, Google Scholar
• Landry CE, Lange A, List JA, Price MK, Rupp NG (2006) Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):747–782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landry CE, Lange A, List JA, Price MK, Rupp NG (2010) Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(3):958–983.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lange A, Stocking A (2012) The complementarities of competition in charitable fundraising. Working Paper No. 32, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Lewis RA, Rao JM (2015) The unfavorable economics of measuring the returns to advertising. Quart. J. Econom. 130(4):1941–1973.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis RA, Reiley DH (2014) Online ads and offline sales: Measuring the effect of retail advertising via a controlled experiment on Yahoo! Quant. Marketing Econom. 12(3):235–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis RA, Rao JM, Reiley DH (2015) Measuring the effects of advertising: The digital frontier. Goldfarb A, Greenstein SM, Tucker CE, eds. Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 191–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2014) Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 103(1):113–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2017) Does fundraising create new giving? J. Public Econom. 145(1):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
• Müller S, Rau HA (2019) Too cold for warm glow? Christmas-season effects in charitable giving. PLoS One 14(5):e0215844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petrova M, Perez-Truglia R, Simonov A, Yildirim P (2024) Are political and charitable giving substitutes? Evidence from the United States. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print February 5, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.00845.Google Scholar
• Reinstein D (2011) Does one charitable contribution come at the expense of another? B.E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 11(1):40.Google Scholar
• Reinstein D (2007) Substitution between (and motivations for) charitable contributions: An experimental study. Economics Discussion Papers 2935, University of Essex, Department of Economics, Colchester, UK.Google Scholar
• Rose-Ackerman S (1982) Charitable giving and “excessive” fundraising. Quart. J. Econom. 97(2):193–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scharf K, Smith S, Ottoni-Wilhelm M (2022) Lift and shift: The effect of fundraising interventions in charity space and time. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 14(3):296–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 4(3):199–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Yörük BK (2009) How responsive are charitable donors to requests to give? J. Public Econom. 93(9–10):1111–1117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young A (2018) Channeling Fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results. Quart. J. Econom. 134(2):557–598.Crossref, Google Scholar