Is Charitable Giving a Zero-Sum Game? The Effect of Competition Between Charities on Giving Behavior

References

• Achtziger A, Alós-Ferrer C, Wagner AK (2015) Money, depletion, and prosociality in the dictator game. J. Neuroscience Psych. Econom. 8(1):1–14.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
• 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
• Andreoni J, Gale WG, Scholz JK, Straub J (1996) Charitable contributions of time and money. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
• Baron DP (2008) Managerial contracting and corporate social responsibility. J. Public Econom. 92(1-2):268–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bekkers R (2015) When and why matches are more effective subsidies than rebates. Deck C, Fatas E, Rosenblat T, eds. Research in Experimental Economics, vol. 18 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom), 183–211.Google Scholar
• Bernasconi M, Corazzini L, Kube S, Maréchal MA (2009) Two are better than one! Individuals’ contributions to unpacked public goods. Econom. Lett. 104(1):31–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blackwell C, McKee M (2003) Only for my own neighborhood? Preferences and voluntary provision of local and global public goods. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 52(1):115–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Meer J, Williams JF (2017) Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Meer J, Williams JF (2019) Why do people volunteer? An experimental analysis of preferences for time donations. Management Sci. 65(4):1455–1468.Link, Google Scholar
• Cairns J, Slonim R (2011) Substitution effects across charitable donations. Econom. Lett. 111(2):173–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Holder P (2018) Charity in the laboratory: Matching, competition, and group identity. Management Sci. 65(3):1398–1407.Link, Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Experiment. Econom. 14(1):47–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corazzini L, Cotton C, Valbonesi P (2015) Donor coordination in project funding: Evidence from a threshold public goods experiment. J. Public Econom. (August 2015) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272715001000 128:16–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Damgaard MT, Gravert C (2018) The hidden costs of nudging: Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising. J. Public Econom. (January) 157:15–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis DD (2006) Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects. Judgment Decision Making 1(1):13–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis DD, Millner EL, Reilly RJ (2005) Subsidy schemes and charitable contributions: A closer look. Experiment. Econom. 8(2):85–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Murphy JJ (2019) Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities. Eur. Econom. Rev. 112(February):91–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):1–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Oliveira AC, Croson RT, Eckel C (2011) The giving type: Identifying donors. J. Public Econom. 95(5):428–435.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. 66:58–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Guney B, Uler N (2020) Independent vs. coordinated fundraising: Understanding the role of information. Eur. Econom. Rev. 127(August):103476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2003) Rebate vs. matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? J. Public Econom. 87(3-4):681–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2006) Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. Southern Econom. J. 72(4):794–807.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
• Ek C (2017) Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 136:45–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellingsen T, Johannesson M (2009) Time is not money. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 72(1):96–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engel C (2011) Dictator games: A meta study. Experiment. Econom. 14(4):583–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epperson R, Reif C (2019) Matching subsidies and voluntary contributions: A review. J. Econom. Surveys 33(5):1578–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erlandsson A, Björklund F, Bäckström M (2015) Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 127:1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fellner G, Lünser GK (2014) Cooperation in local and global groups. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 108:364–373.Crossref, 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
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.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
• Gee L, Meer J (2019) The altruism budget: Measuring and encouraging charitable giving. NBER Working Paper No. w25938, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Keenan EA, Gneezy A (2014) Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science 346(6209):632–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):114–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harwell H, Eckel C, Meneses D, Moceri C, Rauckhorst M, Zindler A (2015) Did the ice bucket challenge drain the philanthropic reservoir?: Evidence from a real-donation laboratory experiment. Working paper, Texas A&M University, College Station.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
• 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, 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
• Kogut T, Ritov I (2005) The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? J. Behav. Decision Making 18(3):157–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2010) Mixed feelings: Theories of and evidence on giving. J. Public Econom. 94(3):279–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krasteva S, Yildirim H (2013) (Un)informed charitable giving. J. Public Econom. 106:14–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krasteva S, Yildirim H (2016) Information, competition, and the quality of charities. J. Public Econom. 144:64–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krieg J, Samek A (2017) When charities compete: A laboratory experiment with simultaneous public goods. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:40–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lange A, Schmitz J, Schwirplies C (2018) Inequality, role reversal and cooperation in multiple group membership settings. Working paper, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
• Lapointe S, Perroni C, Scharf K, Tukiainen J (2018) Does market size matter for charities? J. Public Econom. 168:127–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: A survey of experimental research. Kagel J, Roth A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 111–194.Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econom. Perspect. 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lilley A, Slonim R (2014) The price of warm glow. J. Public Econom. 114:58–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maxwell JW, Lyon TP, Hackett SC (2000) Self-regulation and social welfare: The political economy of corporate environmentalism. J. Law Econom. 43(2):583–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2014) Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 103:113–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2017) Does fundraising create new giving? J. Public Econom. 145:82–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J, Rosen HS (2011) The ABC’s of charitable solicitation. J. Public Econom. 95(5-6):363–371.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
• Null C (2011) Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. J. Public Econom. 95(5):455–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perroni C, Pogrebna G, Sandford S, Scharf K (2019) Are donors afraid of core costs? Economies of scale and contestability in charity markets. Econom. J. (London) 129(622):2608–2636.Google Scholar
• Rand DG, Nowak MA (2013) Human cooperation. Trends Cognitive Sci. 17(8):413–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinstein D (2010) Substitution between (and motivations for) charitable contributions: An experimental study. Discussion paper, University of Essex, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
• Reinstein DA (2011) Does one contribution come at the expense of another? B.E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 11(1):1–54.Google Scholar
• Rose-Ackerman S (1982) Charitable giving and excessive fundraising. Quart. J. Econom. 97(2):193–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubaltelli E, Hysenbelli D, Dickert S, Mayorga M, Slovic P (2020) Asymmetric cost and benefit perceptions in willingness-to-donate decisions. J. Behav. Decision Making 33(3):304–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scharf K (2014) Impure prosocial motivation in charity provision: Warm-glow charities and implications for public funding. J. Public Econom. 114:50–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scharf K, Smith S, Wilhelm M (2015) Do disaster appeals reduce other donations? Evidence from the UK. Working paper, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
• Scharf KA, Smith S, Wilhelm M (2017) Lift and shift: The effect of fundraising interventions in charity space and time. Working Paper W17/20, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
• Schmitz J (2019) Temporal dynamics of pro-social behavior—an experimental analysis. Experiment. Econom. 22:1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small DA, Loewenstein G (2003) Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. J. Risk Uncertainty 26(1):5–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Diepen M, Donkers B, Franses PH (2009) Does irritation induced by charitable direct mailings reduce donations? Internat. J. Res. Marketing 26(3):180–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mayorga M, Peters E (2014) Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS One 9(6):e100115.Crossref, Google Scholar