How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money

References

• 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, 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
• Aerts W, Van Campenhout G, Van Caneghem T (2008) Clustering in dividends: Do managers rely on cognitive reference points? J. Econom. Psych. 29(3):276–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Albers W, Albers G (1983) On the prominence structure of the decimal system. Adv. Psych. 16:271–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J. Public Econom. 92(5):1047–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Altmann S, Falk A, Heidhues P, Jayaraman R, Teirlinck M (2019) Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Rev. Econom. Statist. 101(5):808–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J. Political Econom. 97(6):1447–1458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Econom. J. 100(401):464–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barbieri S, Malueg DA (2014) Increasing fundraising success by decreasing donor choice. J. Public Econom. Theory 16(3):372–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butera L, Horn J (2020) “Give less but give smart”: Experimental evidence on the effects of public information about quality on giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 171:59–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cadsby CB, Maynes E (1999) Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: Experimental evidence. J. Public Econom. 71(1):53–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cartwright EJ, Mirza Z (2021) Charitable giving when donors are constrained to give a minimum amount. Oxford Econom. Papers 73(1):295–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chou EY, Murnighan JK (2013) Life or death decisions: Framing the call for help. PLoS One 8(3):e57351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Converse BA, Dennis PJ (2018) The role of “prominent numbers” in open numerical judgment: Strained decision makers choose from a limited set of accessible numbers. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 147:94–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cryder CE, Loewenstein G, Scheines R (2013) The donor is in the details. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 120(1):15–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S (2009) Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):315–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diederich J, Goeschl T (2014) Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its determinants: Field-experimental evidence. Environment. Resource Econom. 57(3):405–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diederich J, Eckel CC, Epperson R, Goeschl T, Grossman PJ (2022) Subsidizing unit donations: Matches, rebates, and discounts compared. Experiment. Econom. 25(2):734–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards JT, List JA (2014) Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 114:1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epperson R, Reif C (2019) Matching subsidies and voluntary contributions: A review. J. Econom. Survey 33(5):1578–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Exley CL (2020) Using charity performance metrics as an excuse not to give. Management Sci. 66(2):553–563.Link, Google Scholar
• Falk A (2007) Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica 75(5):1501–1511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fraser C, Sauer PL, Hite RE (1988) Increasing contributions in solicitation campaigns: The use of large and small anchorpoints. J. Consumer Res. 15(2):284–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fuchs C, de Jong MG, Schreier M (2020) Earmarking donations to charity: Cross-cultural evidence on its appeal to donors across 25 countries. Management Sci. 66(10):4820–4842.Link, Google Scholar
• Gangadharan L, Grossman PJ, Jones K, Leister CM (2018) Paternalistic giving: Restricting recipient choice. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 151:143–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghesla C, Grieder M, Schmitz J (2019) Nudge for good? Choice defaults and spillover effects. Frontiers Psych. 10:178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goswami I, Urminsky O (2016) When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. J. Marketing Res. 53(5):829–846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman PJ, Eckel CC (2015) Giving vs. taking for a cause. Econom. Lett. 132:28–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hildebrand D, DeMotta Y, Sen S, Valenzuela A (2017) Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) contribution type. J. Consumer Res. 44(4):738–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huck S, Rasul I, Shephard A (2015) Comparing charitable fundraising schemes: Evidence from a natural field experiment and a structural model. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 7(2):326–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hungerman DM, Ottoni-Wilhelm M (2021) Impure impact giving: Theory and evidence. J. Political Econom. 129(5):1553–1614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobsson F, Johannesson M, Borgquist L (2007) Is altruism paternalistic? Econom. J. (London) 117(520):761–781.Google Scholar
• Jung MH, Perfecto H, Nelson LD (2016) Anchoring in payment: Evaluating a judgmental heuristic in field experimental settings. J. Marketing Res. 53(3):354–368.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, Wood DH (2017) The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:1–8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessler JB, Milkman KL (2018) Identity in charitable giving. Management Sci. 64(2):845–859.Link, Google Scholar
• Kesternich M, Löschel A, Römer D (2016) The long-term impact of matching and rebate subsidies when public goods are impure: Field experimental evidence from the carbon offsetting market. J. Public Econom. 137:70–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Korvorst M, Damian MF (2008) The differential influence of decades and units on multidigit number comparison. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. 61(8):1250–1264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacetera N, Pope DG, Sydnor JR (2012) Heuristic thinking and limited attention in the car market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(5):2206–2236.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
• Latour SA, Manrai AK (1989) Interactive impact of informational and normative influence on donations. J. Marketing Res. 26(3):327–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis J, Small D (2019) Ineffective altruism: Giving less when donations do more good. Preprint, submitted June 26, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3399121.Google Scholar
• List JA, Lucking Reiley D (2002) The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. J. Political Econom. 110(1):215–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Litman L, Robinson J (2020) Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Litman L, Robinson J, Abberbock T (2017) Turkprime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 49(2):433–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Löschel A, Sturm B, Vogt C (2013) The demand for climate protection: Empirical evidence from Germany. Econom. Lett. 118(3):415–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason W, Suri S (2012) Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1):1–23.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. Developmental Econom. 136:18–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ottoni-Wilhelm M, Vesterlund L, Xie H (2017) Why do people give? Testing pure and impure altruism. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(11):3617–3633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment Decision Making 5(5):411–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pope D, Simonsohn U (2011) Round numbers as goals: Evidence from baseball, sat takers, and the laboratory. Psych. Sci. 22(1):71–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rand DG (2012) The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J. Theoretical Biology 299:172–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reiley D, Samek A (2019) Round giving: A field experiment on suggested donation amounts in public-television fundraising. Econom. Inquiry 57(2):876–889.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross J, Irani L, Silberman MS, Zaldivar A, Tomlinson B (2010) Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, New York), 2863–2872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schulz JF, Thiemann P, Thöni C (2018) Nudging generosity: Choice architecture and cognitive factors in charitable giving. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 74:139–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sonnemans J (2006) Price clustering and natural resistance points in the Dutch stock market: A natural experiment. Eur. Econom. Rev. 50(8):1937–1950.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weyant JM, Smith SL (1987) Getting more by asking for less: The effects of request size on donations of charity. J. Appl. Social Psych. 17(4):392–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zarghamee HS, Messer KD, Fooks JR, Schulze WD, Wu S, Yan J (2017) Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:137–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zizzo DJ (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 13:75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar