a literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Main article content.

Fundraising, Charitable giving, Donations, Experimental methods

This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between 2007-2019. Interest in studying fundraising spans many disciplines, each of which tends to focus on different aspects, supporting earlier claims that fundraising has no single academic “home.” Most of the literature focuses on two key areas: the philanthropic environment in which fundraising occurs, largely focused on potential donors’ experiences, preferences, and motivations; and testing fundraising tactics and techniques that result in different behavior by potential donors. More than 40% of the experiments were published in Economics journals. Correspondingly, topics such as warm glow and mechanisms such as lotteries, raffles, and auctions are well represented. Experimental studies largely omit the practical and the ethical considerations of fundraisers and of beneficiaries. For instance, studies focusing on the identified victim phenomenon often stereotype beneficiaries in order to foster guilt among donors and thereby increase giving. We identify several opportunities for research to examine new questions to support ethical and effective fundraising practice and nonprofit administration.

Article Sidebar

Article details.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Manuscripts accepted for publicaction in JBPA are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC-BY 4.0). It allows all uses of published manuscripts but requires attribution.

The CC-BY license applies also to data, code and experimental material, except when it conflicts with a prior copyright. Common courtesy requires informing authors of new uses of their data, as well as acknowledging the source.

Modal Header

Browse Econ Literature

Working papers
Software components
Book chapters
JEL classification

More features

Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Author & abstract
59 References
3 Citations
Most related
Related works & more

Corrections

(Bowling Green State University)

(University of Wisconsin-Whitewater)

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher, references listed on ideas.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

2020, Journal of Behavioral Public Administration

Related Papers

Indranil Goswami

We present a complete empirical case study of fundraising campaign decisions that demonstratesthe importance of in-context field experiments. We first design novel matching-basedfundraising appeals. We derive theory-based predictions from the standard impure altruismmodel and solicit expert opinion about the potential performance of our interventions. Boththeory-based prediction and descriptive advice suggest improved fundraising performance from aframing intervention that credited donors for the matched funds (compared to a typical matchframing). However, results from a natural field experiment with prior donors of a non-profitshowed significantly poorer performance of this framing compared to a regularly framedmatching intervention. This surprising finding was confirmed in a second natural fieldexperiment, to establish the ground truth. Theoretically, our results highlight the limitations ofboth impure altruism models and of expert opinion in predicting complex “warm glow”motivati...

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Ronen Bar-el

Phoebe Koundouri

International Economic Review

Sander Onderstal , ARTHUR Schram

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Sander Onderstal

Craig Landry

Lilia Zhurakhovska

While increasingly popular in many domains crowdfunding remains largely under-researched and little is known about the best way to encourage participation and boost contributions. In an artefactual field experiment we implement a crowdfunding campaign for a club good—an institute’s summer party with free food, drinks, and music—and offer a diverse range of staggered rewards for contributions. In a 2x2 design, we vary suggested amounts (€10 or €20) and test different wordings regarding the nature of contributions. We find that higher suggestions shift the median and the mode of contributions from €5 to €10 while the response rate remains largely unchanged. We also find evidence in favor of a “donation” frame that generates higher income than a straight “contribution” frame which, according to word maps that explore the associative content of the different frames, hints at the role of warm glow. Fundamentally, our results suggest that more experiments to explore the efficacy of crowdfunding campaigns may be as promising as experiments on charitable fundraising have proven to be.

Journal of Public Economics

Ragan Petrie

Laboratory researchers in economics assiduously protect the confidentiality of subjects. Why? Presumably because they fear that the social consequences of identifying subjects and their choices would significantly alter the economic incentives of the game. But these may be the same social effects that institutions, like charitable fund-raising, are manipulating to help overcome free riding and to promote economic efficiency. We present an experiment that unmasks subjects in a systematic and controlled way. We show that, as intuition suggests, identifying subjects has significant effects. Surprisingly, we found that two supplemental conditions meant to mimic common fund-raising practices actually had the most dramatic influences on behavior.

RELATED PAPERS

pekayon 2019

robin dunbar

Carlo Spinedi

Grandon Gill

Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe

Hennie Van Coller

International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents

Ilker Uckay

Emergency Medicine Journal

Jana Šeblová

Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC2016)

Samfundslederskab i Skandinavien

Brian Andersen

Research in Number Theory

Celsa-Beatriz Carrión-Berrú

Christopher Raab

Alexandru NEMTOI

Marina De Rossi

Humanitaire Enjeux Pratiques Debats

Georges Berghezan

ASEAN Marketing Journal

rudi gunawan

Summa Phytopathologica

Leonardo Luiz

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Helga Bergmeister

Archives of Current Research International

Anitha Menon

LK 3.1 Best Practice

arXiv (Cornell University)

Steven Lidia

Ross Altheimer

sabar barokah

Journal of Molecular Liquids

Mohammad Hadi Ghatee

Diagnostics

Susana Espinoza

RELATED TOPICS

We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration Vol 3(1), pp. 1-19 DOI: 10.30636/jbpa.31.129 Research Article A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Abhishek Bhati*, Ruth K. Hansen†

Abstract: This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms moti- vating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between 2007-2019. Interest in studying fundraising spans many disci- plines, each of which tends to focus on different aspects, supporting earlier claims that fundraising has no sin- gle academic “home.” Most of the literature focuses on two key areas: the philanthropic environment in which fundraising occurs, largely focused on potential donors’ experiences, preferences, and motivations; and testing fundraising tactics and techniques that result in different behavior by potential donors. More than 40% of the experiments were published in Economics journals. Correspondingly, topics such as warm glow and mecha- nisms such as lotteries, raffles, and auctions are well represented. Experimental studies largely omit the prac- tical and the ethical considerations of fundraisers and of beneficiaries. For instance, studies focusing on the identified victim phenomenon often stereotype beneficiaries in order to foster guilt among donors and thereby increase giving. We identify several opportunities for research to examine new questions to support ethical and effective fundraising practice and nonprofit administration.

Keywords: Fundraising, Charitable giving, Donations, Experimental methods

onprofit organizations play a central role in organizations is growing, and at the same time N public administration by delivering public government grants and contracts are becoming goods and services along with public agencies increasingly competitive (Bhati, 2018). These recent (Young, 2006). Both government funds and private trends have prompted scholars across disciplines in philanthropy support nonprofit organizations, and the social sciences and public administration to study the constraints upon which that funding is different aspects of fundraising as it directly affects contingent will affect the type and quality of the the success of nonprofit organizations (Kim, Mason, services provided by nonprofits (e.g., Lipsky & Smith, & Li, 2017). 1993; Marwell & Calabrese, 2014). At the same time, Currently, much of this literature in fundraising nonprofits are established to support government focuses on two major areas: (1) who gives, examining entities, such as associations to support libraries sociodemographic details of donors such as income, (Schatteman & Bingle, 2015), schools (Nelson & age, gender, employment, etc.; and (2) why people give, Gazley, 2014), universities (Worth, 2016), or parks investigating personal benefits, values, and incentives (Cheng, 2019). The nonprofit sector is experiencing (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Lindahl & Conley, 2002; increased competition for donations: the number of Waters, 2016; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). It has been nearly ten years since the most recent * Assistant Professor, Department of Political comprehensive review (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). Science, Bowling Green State University In that time, scholars have called for research † Assistant Professor, Department of Management, that identifies causal relationships to complement University of Wisconsin - Whitewater other observational and correlational research Address correspondence to Abhishek Bhati at methods (James, Jilke, & Van Ryzin, 2017, p. 3). ( [email protected] ) Copyright: © 2020. The authors license this article Experimental research is a good method by which to under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution test competing explanations and establish causality, 4.0 International License. tying rigorous research methods to real-world

Bhati & Hansen, 2020 practice (Jilke, Van de Walle, & Kim, 2016). Whether giving, only a limited number of public and nonprofit the design emphasizes control (laboratory management studies use experiments” (p. 416). experiments) or external validity (field experiments), Heeding these calls, while also recognizing the experimental research has much to offer to the substantial contribution of studies that use many theorization and practice of fundraising (Kim et al. different and complementary approaches to 2017). Mason (2013) also argues for the importance producing knowledge, we focus here on experiments of randomized, controlled field experiments to better to highlight their contributions to our understanding understand causal relationships, and finds that of fundraising. We systematically review studies using experimental research methods are underrepresented experimental methods during the period 2007 to within a leading nonprofit journal, Nonprofit and 2019 across diverse disciplines. This review extends Voluntary Sector Quarterly. A previous collection of earlier reviews such as Lindahl & Conley (2002) and experimental research on the topic of giving explored Bekkers & Wiepking (2011) (which collected data issues of judgment, decision making, and emotions through 2007) but is also more narrowly focused on (Oppenheimer & Olivola, 2011). More recently, Kim fundraising studies using experimental methods. We et al. (2017) maintain that “despite a growing body of structure the review into two major areas: (1) Donors’ experimental research on altruism and charitable Experiences, Preferences, and Motivations is divided into

Table 1 Summary of Key Articles Using Experiments in Charitable Giving, 2008-2019

Authors Year Journal Mechanism tested Findings Falk 2007 Eco Solicitation Small gift in mailer increases like- lihood of getting a donation Small, Loewen- 2007 OBHDP Images Sympathy for identified victim stein & Slovic can be suppressed but at the same time sympathy for large scale problem does not increase Dunn, Aknin, & 2008 Science Altruism & warm glow Spending on others increases Norton happiness more than spending on oneself Liu & Aaker 2008 JCR Solicitation Nudging solicitation from amount of money to amount of time increases giving Ariely, Bracha, & 2009 AER Reputation & social In public, people want to be seen Meier pressure as acting prosocially. In private, extrinsic incentives work better. Small & Verrochi 2009 JMR Images Participants are more willing to donate to sad child image than happy Piff, Kraus, Cote, 2010 JPSP Values Lower income individuals are Cheng & Keltner more generous because they sub- scribe to more egalitarian values DellaVigna, List & 2012 QJE Reputation & social In door-to-door solicitation peo- Malmendier pressure ple feel social pressure to say yes Andreoni, Rao & 2017 JPE Reputation & social Making avoidance difficult in- Trachtman pressure creases giving and verbal ask is more effective Note: AER – American Economic Review; Eco- Econometrica; JPSP – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ; JMR – Journal of Marketing Research; JCR – Journal of Consumer Research; OBHDP – Organizational Behavior and Human Development Processes; QJE – The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1) several themes focusing on (a) the psychological the data. Then, we performed a series of descriptive benefits of giving, such as warm glow (or “joy of analyses of the data, including analyzing papers by giving”), and debates between altruism in the year, by journal, by the primary discipline of the economic sense, altruistic values, and warm glow; (b) journal, and by citations. Finally, we identified key reputation and social pressure; and (c) efficacy and papers among each theme by using the citations values. The second area, (2) Fundraising Practices & index, as suggested by Ma & Konrath (2018). See Techniques is divided into themes focusing on (a) Table 1 for summary of key articles using images and messages; (b) suggesting gift amounts; experiments in charitable giving from 2007 to 2019. and (c) social events such as auctions, raffles, and On average, 15 articles reporting on fundraising walks/runs. Overall, we incorporate practical and the experiments were published each year during this ethical considerations for fundraising practice. period. The largest disciplinary contributor was Economics, with 81 articles published in 31 journals. Methodology & Data Psychology and Social Psychology (combined) published 34 articles in 18 journals; disciplines within We performed an analysis of experimental studies Business (combined) published 29 articles in 15 that help us understand fundraising, reviewing a total journals; and journals focused on some aspect of of 187 articles published in 83 journals across diverse Nonprofit studies (combined with Public disciplines. Articles were identified through a Administration) produced 27 articles in 7 journals. systematic search of (a) online full text of publishers Articles were categorized by the primary focus of the such as Wiley, Emerald, SpringerLink, Sage, and journal in which they were published. Since journals Elsevier; (b) academic databases such as PsychInfo, may serve topics that cross disciplinary fields, the PubMed, Web of Sciences, and EconLit; (c) Google primary description used by the journal itself was Scholar; (d) our own literature databases; and (e) used in categorization. See Appendix A for a references cited in the articles found, using key words complete list of categories and journals, and the such as donations, philanthropy, charitable giving, number of articles in each. fundraising and experimental design. Our analyses synthesize findings, placing them We reviewed papers that were published after within a structure that highlights the duality of donor Bekkers & Wiepking (2011) ceased data collection in motivation and fundraising practice. We also offer a late 2007, and continuing into 2019, performing the critical eye, examining assumptions and the interests search between November 2018 and September of various stakeholders in the fundraising process – 2019. Similar to Lindahl & Conley (2002), we focus the donors, the organizations, its client beneficiaries, on how people and organizations engage in and the fundraisers themselves. Based on this work, fundraising. We limit our analysis to those using we offer suggestions for both research opportunities experimental processes, including public goods and fundraising practice. games, dictator games, etc., which are commonly used within behavioral economics. We excluded Findings studies of donations of blood, tissue, and human biologics. We also excluded studies of donations of In this section, we categorize the fundraising studies time and expertise. Although these are valuable into two major themes: (1) Donors’ Experiences, resources, they are conceptually distinct from the Preferences, and Motivations, focusing on factors why financial focus we typically expect of fundraising donors give money to charities; and (2) Fundraising (Worth, 2016, p. 6). Practices & Techniques, analyzing different methods We used a content analysis approach. For each used by charities in soliciting donations. paper, we developed notes to analyze the key Donors’ Experiences, Preferences, and research questions, experimental methods used, key Motivations. There is an extensive literature on findings, and the number of citations using Google prosocial behavior . Here, we have bounded these Scholar. Then, we carefully developed themes using topics by focusing on those addressing the voluntary both the a priori categories developed by previous donation of money to charities. This section is prominent fundraising literature reviews (Bekkers & divided into three further sections reflecting the most Wiepking, 2011; Lindahl & Conley, 2002), which are prominent themes: (a) altruism, altruistic values, and well-known to nonprofit researchers, and using an warm glow; (b) reputation and social pressure; and (c) iterative process to identify emergent themes from efficacy and values.

Bhati & Hansen, 2020

Altruism, Altruistic Values, and Warm Glow. However, Krishna (2011) argues prosocial spending There is ongoing tension in the literature about may function differently in the case of purchasing motivations of donors to give. Economists have cause-related products, as the purchase may be defined “pure altruism” as concern for a given public perceived as an egoistic act, and therefore not good or outcome, often complemented by “warm increase happiness. Another study found evidence of glow,” a psychological benefit from the act of giving increased giving as a method of guilt reduction in and of itself (Andreoni, 1989; 1990). In our (Ohtsubo & Watanabe, 2013). analysis we found several studies in economics Reputation and Social Pressure. Prior following Andreoni’s work, attempting to parse pure experimental studies have suggested that giving altruism from warm glow. Crumpler & Grossman increases one’s positive self-image, as the donor is (2008) designed an experimental study to isolate and seen as kind and benevolent and experiences an measure the magnitude of warm glow, using six improved reputation (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). sessions of a dictator game with 150 university Bekkers & Wiepking (2011) further state, “the effect students in a laboratory setting. They found that of reputation on giving increases with the value of warm glow was significant and motivated a approval received by donors” (p. 951). In our analysis, substantial portion of giving. In a field experiment we found several studies suggesting that information with 122 children between 3-5 years old, List & about others’ high contributions positively influences Samak (2013) found evidence of pure altruism and participants’ donation, supporting the premise that not warm glow, and argued that warm glow in adults, approval would be perceived as valuable (Croson, as found by Crumpler and Grossman (2008), might Handy, & Shang, 2009; Croson & Shang, 2008; Güth, develop over time through socialization processes. Levati, Sutter, & Heijden, 2007; Huck, Rasul, & The size of the gift considered also seems to be tied Shephard, 2015; Jones & Linardi, 2014; Karlan & to different motivations, with larger donors McConnell, 2014; Kessler, 2017; Kumru & responding better to promotion of charity Vesterlund, 2010; Martin & Randal, 2008; Shang & effectiveness, but smaller donors responding Croson, 2009; Yuan, Wu, & Kou, 2018). One negatively to the same message, suggesting that large prominent field experiment by Shang & Croson wealthy donors are driven by altruism whereas small (2009) found participants, who had already decided donors are motivated by warm glow motives (Karlan to donate, gave more when informed about others’ & Wood, 2017). The closeness of a giver’s high contributions. Similar results were found by relationship to the recipient also affects the size of other studies where donors changed their donations giving, suggesting that the strength of altruistic based on the information of previous contribution behavior may be “target dependent” (Ben-Ner & (Croson et al., 2009; Croson & Shang, 2008; Güth et Kramer, 2011). al., 2007; Huck et al., 2015). Following on this idea of Social psychologists have used altruism to mean social pressure, Martin & Randal (2008) conducted a concern for others, such as the presence of prosocial field experiment in an art museum where they values. Using this approach, undergraduate students manipulated donations by displaying different reported lower intentions to give to Make-A-Wish amounts of money (empty, 50-cent, $5 and $50) in a Foundation when presented with both altruistic and transparent box. The propensity to donate was egoistic motives, compared to either altruistic highest in the 50-cent treatment, indicating a norm to motives or egoistic motives separately, suggesting make a small contribution. that participants may consider altruistic and egoistic People are likely to give more when others are motives as incompatible (Feiler, Tost, & Grant, 2012). present, as they want to be seen as doing good. Even Prosocial spending on others – acting on altruistic the presence of a solicitor creates social pressure, values – promotes happiness for the giver (Aknin, which is difficult to resist (Alpizar, Carlsson, & Dunn, & Norton, 2012; Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, Johansson-Stenman, 2008; Alpizar & Martinsson, 2008; Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2014). Dunn et al. 2013; Andreoni, Rao, & Trachtman, 2017; Ariely, (2014) tested this prosocial spending hypothesis in Bracha, & Meier, 2009; Mason, 2016; Reinstein & 120 countries and found a positive relationship. The Riener, 2012). In an important study conducted by “strength of relationship varied among countries, Ariely et al. (2009) using both laboratory and field individuals in poor and rich countries alike reported experiment methods, people wanted to be seen by more happiness if they engaged in prosocial spending” others when acting prosocially. The presence of a (p. 42), suggesting altruistic values may be universal. solicitor increased donations by 25% over those

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1) made in private among lone travelers in a national or Perceived Donation Efficacy (PDE), does not park in Costa Rica (Alpizar & Martinsson, 2013). have a direct relationship with giving (Carroll & Reinstein & Riener (2012) agree with Bekkers & Kachersky, 2019; Vollan, Henning, & Staewa, 2017). Wiepking (2011) that it is not just being observed that Vollan et al. (2017) suggest that efficacy is not matters, but also the perceived value of the positively associated with fundraising because most observer’s opinion. The strength of the “reputation- donors assume the organization has already earned a seeking effect” they observed depended upon the seal of quality, and therefore emphasizing their nature and closeness of individuals’ relationships efficacy might make donors skeptical. Perhaps with peers in the experiment. Publicly acknowledging concern for effectiveness is also often raised as a participating donors can also increase donations convenient excuse for what is essentially more self- (Mason, 2016). But sometimes the reputation aspect regarding preferences (Exley, 2016). But perhaps the works in favor of social norms for conformity , rather situation matters -- Rasul & Huck (2010) find that the than increased generosity: donors may choose to mere presence of a lead donor signals to others that donate within a popular range to avoid standing out the particular nonprofit is of high quality, increasing in either a positive or negative way (Jones & Linardi, others’ giving. 2014; Zafar, 2011). Large organizations might have more capacity Giving can increase the perceived to bring about changes in the lives of beneficiaries, trustworthiness of donors (Fehrler & Przepiorka, or efficacy towards a cause, but donors may prefer to 2013) and the desirability of both men and women as support smaller organizations (Borgloh, Dannenberg, long-term relationship prospects (Barclay, 2010). & Aretz, 2013; Bradley, Lawrence, & Ferguson, High income (and thus high status) participants can 2019). Borgloh et al. (2013) conducted a field be motivated to give more if they believe that they experiment with non-student populations and found are providing an example for low-income that participants chose small organizations with low participants (Kumru & Vesterlund, 2010). Social revenues over large organizations. They argue that pressure can influence not just the amount, but also preferring small organizations suggests that the likelihood of giving. DellaVigna, List, & participants feel their donation will make more of an Malmendier (2012) studied door-to-door fundraising impact on the small organization’s ability to grow and solicitations and argued that people give because they help the beneficiaries more than a gift to large feel social pressure to say “yes.” Other studies by organizations. Similar “underdog effect” results were Andreoni et al. (2017) and Jasper & Samek (2014) found by Bradley et al., (2019) where donors found similar results. Interestingly, DellaVigna, List, supported the charity with least other support. Malmendier, & Rao (2013) found that men and Other means of evaluating effectiveness include women were equally generous in a door-to-door preferring local giving over giving further away, as solicitation; however, women were less generous if it donors associate physical closeness with greater was easy for them to avoid the solicitor. The impact (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2017), and researchers concluded that women may be more preferencing higher proportions of service over sensitive to social cues, and this may affect their higher absolute numbers (Bartels & Burnett, 2011). prosocial behavior. Men’s social behavior depends Bartels & Burnett (2011) found that experiment on the sex of the observer – they tend to contribute participants preferred a program that saved 50% (50 more when observed by the opposite sex, rather than lives out of 100) to a program that saved 25% (60 a male or no observer, while varying the sex of the lives saved out of 240), despite the fact that the observer “did not significantly vary across three second program saved 10 more lives. observer conditions. Findings support the notion Of course, effectiveness will also be evaluated that men’s generosity might have evolved as a mating differently by people who value different things. signal” (Iredale, Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008, p. 386). Donors see the work of nonprofits as a way to Efficacy and Values. Efficacy refers to the change the world, so whether a particular cause or “perception of donors that contributions make a organization is more or less attractive depends on the difference to the cause they are supporting” (Bekkers values and attitudes of a given donor. Donors want & Wiepking, 2011, p. 942) – and donors are more to improve the issues they care about, and those likely to give if they feel their gift will make a particular issues are tied to their sense of identity. For difference. Surprisingly, some studies in our current instance, people who identify with environmentalism analysis of experimental articles suggest that efficacy, give to environmental organizations (Simon,

Trötschel, & Dähne, 2008). Another important study negative feelings into a positive emotion; so, images in this area examined socioeconomic status, and of a sad child increase giving (Basil, Ridgway, & Basil, found lower income individuals more generous, 2008; Merchant et al., 2010). Fisher & Ma (2014) trusting, helpful, and charitable than their upper-class found using images of attractive children in counterparts (Piff, Kraus, Cote, Cheng, & Keltner, fundraising appeals also led to a negative effect on 2010). They argue that participants with less empathy and actual helping behavior . disposable income are more generous than higher Cockrill & Parsonage (2016) argue that income individuals because lower income shocking images, in isolation, decrease the viewer’s circumstances correlate with more egalitarian values intent to agree with the cause. They found emotions and feelings of compassion . There is also evidence of most associated with an increased likelihood of “karmic-investment” behavior, in which people act helping the charity financially were compassion, relief, more prosocially when they are hoping for the interest, surprise, and shame. However, Albouy satisfactory resolution of an uncertain event, such as (2017) argues that negative emotions such as fear, waiting for an acceptance letter, a job offer, or sadness, and shock increase intent to donate. In a medical test results (Converse, Risen, & Carter, 2012). dictator game, Van Rijn, Barham, & Sundaram- Converse et al. (2012) encourage fundraisers to solicit Stukel (2017) found that using videos that highlight donations when people are awaiting results from the situational difference between donors and uncertain events. Interestingly, Malhotra (2010) beneficiaries (“negative/ traditional” approach) found religious people more likely than non-religious fosters guilt in viewers, and is more effective in individuals to engage in prosocial behavior on days raising donations than using “positive” videos that when they attend services, but on other days the level highlight similarities. Cao & Jia (2017) found that sad of religiosity does not have any behavioral effect. images versus happy images garner stronger donation intentions among participants who were Fundraising Practices & Techniques less involved with the charity, but the reverse was true for highly involved participants. This suggests Studies of fundraising techniques may vary one that committed donors are more able to think though aspect of an appeal in order to observe donor a problem and need of beneficiaries, and hence behaviors such as participation or size of donation. happy images make committed donors feel their In this section, we include three categories that are donation is making a difference. prominent in both the collected experimental Studies have suggested that the framing of literature and in fundraising practice: (a) usage of fundraising written appeals also affects how donors images and messages; (b) suggested ask amount; and perceive the cause, and their subsequent decision to (c) fundraising events: auctions, raffles, and give. A negatively framed fundraising message (the walks/runs. consequences of not giving) was found to be more Usage of Images and Messages. In our effective when coupled with the use of statistical review, we found two prominent themes emerging information about the beneficiaries, while a that focused on the relationship between images in positively framed message (the outcomes of making solicitations and giving: (a) sad versus happy children, a gift) was more effective when coupled with the use and (b) a single child versus a group. Studies suggest of emotional information (Das, Kerkhof, & Kuiper, that images of children with sad faces increase 2008). In addition, participants’ giving intentions sympathy and guilt for not giving among donors, were higher for messages that addressed goal thereby increasing donation intentions (Albouy, 2017; attainment (Chang & Lee, 2009; Das et al., 2008). Allred & Amos, 2018; Cao & Jia, 2017; Cockrill & Chou & Murnighan (2013) found that using a “loss Parsonage, 2016; Fisher & Ma, 2014; Hideg & Van message” (e.g., your action can “prevent a death” – Kleef, 2017; Merchant, Ford, & Sargeant, 2010; Small which is still an outcome of positive action) is more & Verrochi, 2009). In a laboratory experiment with likely to increase intentions to volunteer and donate university students and staff, participants were more than a positive message (e.g., your action can “save a willing to donate when they saw a sad child versus a life”). Erlandsson, Nilsson, & Västfjäll (2018) argue happy child’s face (Small & Verrochi, 2009). Studies that donation behavior and attitudes towards charity by social psychologists argue that the image of a child appeals do not always go hand in hand. They argue with a sad face makes viewers feel guilty or sad, and that it’s “possible to hate a negative charity appeal giving gives them an opportunity to convert such and be angry at the organization behind it but still

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1) donate money after seeking it or alternatively, to love 2018). Using a student population (N=121), Small et a charity appeal and the organization behind it but al. (2007) found that discussing the details about the still refrain from donating” (p. 23). In summary, these full scale of a large problem reduced sympathy studies highlight the cognition discontinuity among towards “identified victims” or single victims, and donors making a decision to give based on seeing did not generate sympathy for the larger number of images of beneficiaries. At one level, donors like to victims. Adding to the findings of Small et al. (2007), see children in a positive light; but they may donate Kogut & Ritov (2007) found that identifying a single to a sad faced child if that image induces sadness and victim increases the participant’s generosity only guilt. when the victim is from a participant’s in-group (i.e. Attribution also plays a role in how messages are sharing participants’ identity name representing perceived. Across experiments, Zagefka, Noor, certain region). Smith et al. (2013) added that donors Brown, de Moura, & Hopthrow (2011) found that may donate to multiple victims when they perceive more donations are given to victims of natural them as entitative – comprising a single coherent unit, disasters than to those affected by human-caused such as a mother with four children. Cryder et al. disasters, such as genocide, because donors feel that (2013) using three field and lab experiments found natural disasters could happen to anyone, and that donors' perception of impact of their donation the victim has no blame in the situation. increases giving as they feel they money is making a Adding to this tension, Hudson, Vanheerde- difference in the lives of the beneficiaries. Hudson, Dasandi, & Gaines (2016), examined the Västfjäll et al. (2014) re-tests the findings by common practice of “traditional” fundraising appeals designing different experiments testing one or more that intentionally appeal to guilt and pity with components together, and finds that affective feeling depictions of “poor, malnourished, suffering, and toward a charitable cause is highest when the victim typically African, children” (Hudson et al., 2016, p.3) is single. They argue that as the number of victims to prompt donations to international development increases, donors feel their contribution will be less organizations. Using a survey experiment (N=701) impactful. However, in a different study by Soyer & Hudson et al. (2016) confirmed that this practice Hogarth (2011), donations increased with the does tend to generate giving, while also priming number of potential beneficiaries, but at a decreasing negative emotions such as repulsion that drive rate. It seems that there is more to learn about this potential donors away and may diminish future phenomenon, as we try to understand the engagement. “Alternative” fundraising appeals, circumstances that affect readers’ perceptions. which highlight commonalities between the Suggested Ask Amount. Several experimental recipients and donors, activate hope rather than guilt studies have focused on the relationship between and anger. “Alternative” appeals also increased the suggesting an amount to give, and the resulting likelihood of a donation and improved readers’ sense behavior (De Bruyn & Prokopec, 2013; Edwards & of personal efficacy. Hence, nonprofits using List, 2014; Fielding & Knowles, 2015; Goswami & “traditional” approaches may be trading long-term Urminsky, 2016; Reiley & Samek, 2019). In one study, effects for short-term donations, and should Edwards & List (2014) asked US college graduates to consider the long-term effects their fundraising donate to their alma mater. Those who received a raising appeals may have on donors. specific ask amount were more likely to respond, and Other scholars have focused on the to send a gift near the suggested number. Similarly, phenomenon known as “identified victim effect,” Fielding & Knowles (2015) found that a verbal where participants are more likely to respond invitation to donate is more impactful than visual emotionally and help single beneficiaries than they clues in isolation, as it acts as peer pressure on the are to help wider groups of individuals (Cryder, donor. Also, the effect of a verbal invitation is larger Loewenstein, & Scheines, 2013; Dickert, Kleber, if participants have more loose change, as it is more Västfjäll, & Slovic, 2016; Erlandsson, Björklund, & convenient to give change and reduce the peer Bäckström, 2015; Genevsky, Västfjäll, Slovic, & pressure and guilt of not making a donation. Knutson, 2013; Hsee, Zhang, Lu, & Xu, 2013; Kogut Often, response cards enclosed with a mailing & Kogut, 2013; Kogut & Ritov, 2007; Small, will have a range of suggested donation amounts, Loewenstein, & Slovic, 2007; Smith, Faro, & Burson, with the first amount referred to as the “anchor,” 2013; Soyer & Hogarth, 2011; Västfjäll, Slovic, because of its ability to anchor perceptions relative to Mayorga, & Peters, 2014; Yeomans & Al-ubaydli, it. Evidence suggests that providing a relatively low

Bhati & Hansen, 2020 anchor will increase the amount of response to the knowledge of others’ bids. Lab experiments have appeal (De Bruyn & Prokopec, 2013; Goswami & tended to support the theory that an all-pay format – Urminsky, 2016), although it may also result in lower in which everyone bidding must pay their bid for an giving per donor than a response card with no item whether or not they win – will result in higher anchoring amount (Goswami & Urminsky, 2016). contributions than the common winner-pay auction De Bruyn & Prokopec (2013) find that is it possible (Faravelli & Stanca, 2012; Schram & Onderstal, 2009). to counteract the effect on gift size by increasing the However, all-pay auctions are not commonly used in amount between each suggested gift, so that there is fundraising. This may be because outside the lab, a steeper increase. However, fundraisers may want people are more likely to perceive a choice as to to keep the suggested amounts in multiples of $5 or whether or not to participate. In natural field $10, as donors seem to prefer round numbers, and it experiments within an existing fundraising event, is easier to give a suggested amount than to pick more people participated, and more was raised, in an another one. In fact, response may be suppressed if auction in which only the winner paid the highest bid “strange” numbers are suggested, because it is easier (Carpenter, Holmes, & Matthews, 2007). Both the to not give than to write in one’s own amount (Reiley prizes offered and charitable inclination are factors & Samek, 2019). affecting bidding. Evidence shows that, within an Donors seem to have internal reference points, auction, some prizes generate more interest than to which suggestions are compared: ask too little or others (Carpenter, et al., 2007). Separately, when too much, and the request will not be persuasive (De identical items were placed for auction in both a non- Bruyn & Prokopec, 2017). Fundraisers can use the charitable context and a charitable context, those in last gift received for guidance in establishing the which a charity or charities benefitted from the anchor amount (De Bruyn & Prokopec, 2013). higher price paid sold for a higher price (Leszczyc & However, introducing any default may also distract Rothkopf, 2010). from other positive information about the charity Raffles. All else being equal, using a lottery or that is included within the appeal (Goswami & raffle prompts people to contribute more than simply Urminsky, 2016). It should also be noted that donors’ asking for donations – people generally respond well giving standards – expectations about appropriate to the chance to win a prize (Lange, List, & Price, donation amounts – vary across different methods of 2007). In a lab experiment using a “self-financing” solicitation, such as door-to-door or direct mail (or 50/50) raffle, in which money is collected in a (Wiepking & Heijnen, 2011). short period of time while participants are present, Fundraising and Events: Auctions, Raffles, and half the money contributed (the “pot”) was and Walks/Runs. Special events are commonly donated to charity, sharing information about the used in fundraising, which may relate to social size of the pot after a first round of ticket sales motivations such as solicitation (being prompted to increased the tickets sold in a second round (Goerg, attend, and subsequent asks throughout an event); Lightle, & Ryvkin, 2016). Another common form of costs and benefits (as in a dinner, entertainment, or a raffle is one in which tickets, each of which chance to win something); altruism (when they care represents one chance to win, are available over a about the organization’s activities); reputation (as in longer period of time, often several weeks, with being seen as a charitable person); psychological proceeds benefiting a local charity. In a field benefits (such as contributing to one’s self-image, or experiment in which proceeds benefited local enjoying the company of others); and values (when poverty relief, Carpenter & Matthews (2017) found the cause being supported aligns well with the that two variations performed better than the individual’s priorities). While no experiments standard linear raffle (in which each ticket sells for addressed the gala-type event, we did find the same price). The highest income resulted from experiments that addressed three aspects commonly pricing with discounts for purchasing more tickets. associated with special events: auctions, raffles, and Another variant, in which people received the same walks/runs for charity: number of chances for any amount donated over a Auctions. Multiple forms of auctions exist, for floor amount, also resulted in higher income than example: oral auctions, in which an auctioneer calls simply selling tickets at a fixed price (Carpenter & out ascending bids; silent auctions, in which bids are Matthews, 2017). written down or communicated electronically; sealed, Charitable Walks/Runs. When people are or blind, auctions, in which bidders have no suffering, such as from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1) or another chronic illness, or depression leading to demographics of likely donors, it would be helpful to suicide, they will donate more when there is effort or test whether other motivations differ systematically, discomfort, such as physical exertion, involved in such as whether older adults’ motivations differ from their donation compared to a similar event that is those of younger or mid-life adults. purely social. This decision is mediated by individuals’ A fourth insight pertains to the role of reputation perception of the act as meaningful, suggesting a and social pressure. Several studies suggested donors psychological benefit (Olivola & Shafir, 2013) contribute more after knowledge of others’ donations (Croson et al., 2009; Croson & Shang, Discussion & Conclusion 2008), which also supports the idea of giving standards raised in Wiepking & Heijnen (2011). This study provides a rigorous review and analysis of A fifth insight is that efficacy (or PDE) toward a experimental studies on charitable fundraising cause does not have a direct relationship with giving reported across many disciplinary journals and joins (Carroll & Kachersky, 2019; Vollan et al., 2017). others in calling for high-quality experimental Studies have suggested that donors tend to support research in the nonprofit fundraising field. We smaller or less supported organizations known as develop themes in two areas: (1) donors’ experiences, “underdog effect” as they feel their giving is making preferences, and motivations, and (2) fundraising a difference to these organizations (Borgloh et al., practices and techniques. Our review of the past 2013; Bradley et al., 2019). Also, Bartels & Burnett decade’s published research suggests that the (2011) found participants are more willing to give to majority centers around donor motivation and programs that save higher proportions of individuals behavior, focusing on why donors give and how even if it means lesser lives as they feel their nonprofits can promote more giving. In this section, contribution is making a difference to a large we share important insights from the review of the percentage of people. literature, followed by suggestions for future Sixth, we found evidence that sad face images researchers of fundraising, and practical insights for increase sympathy and guilt, and thereby increase practitioners. donations (Cao& Jia; Merchant et al., 2010; Small & First, prosocial spending on others promotes Verrochi, 2009), and that donors respond to an happiness and warm glow among donors (Aknin et “identified victim effect” (Cryder et al., 2013; Dickert al. 2012; Dunn et al. 2008; Dunn et al., 2014). et al., 2016; Genevsky et al., 2013). Hudson et al. Second, “warm glow,” or the “joy of giving,” may (2016) suggest that charities should adopt a long- result from a socialization process, as evidence term strategy to cultivate and educate donors about suggests children give because of pure altruism (List the real issues rather than simply focusing on & Samak, 2013). That said, a recent study by Body, emotional images or message framing to attract more Lau & Josephidou (2019) highlighted the common donations in the short term. One way to educate practice of encouraging transactional fundraising donors is by bringing more voices of beneficiaries in among children, such as encouraging fundraising fundraising and tell more complete stories, efforts through incentive rewards, rather than particularly about needy or marginalized people, engaging children about their ideas and values about rather than just overwhelmingly focusing on donor giving. They argue that a more critical engagement of motivation to give (Bhati & Eikenberry, 2016). Also, children in ideas of giving often results in increased the relationship between the race of beneficiaries and effort to support causes that matter to them – generosity should be further explored to understand potentially a different goal than that of the whether how beneficiaries are represented is leading organizations incentivizing the transactional to stereotyping poor and contributing to racial bias fundraising efforts. This both illustrates the (Fong & Luttmer, 2011). socialization process in action, and suggests that a Seventh, lab experiments support the argument different approach to engaging with children around of an all pay auction format (Faravelli & Stanca, 2012; fundraising can support their altruistic impulses. Schram & Onderstal, 2009; but see our caveats below Third, Karlan & Wood (2017) suggested donor under Practical and Ethical Considerations and Future motivation differs based on the size of the gift. For Research), and that raffles promote giving (Lange et al., instance, they found that large donors are driven by 2007). altruism; on the other hand, smaller donors are Eighth, we found only handful of studies driven by warm glow motives. Given the focusing on using experimental design outside of

U.S., consistent with the findings of Ma & Konrath that fundraising has no single “academic home in (2018) regarding most of the nonprofit literature, higher education” (Mack, Kelly, & Wilson, 2016, p. including experimental studies in nonprofits, is 180), but the disciplines prevalent in our review differ produced in Anglosphere countries. from those previously identified - Public Relations, Ninth, very few of the experiments addressed Marketing, and Nonprofit Management (Mack et al. issues of fundraising management. Studies explored 2016). We examined the top ten ranked articles for the importance of task significance in fundraising citations. Of these, five addressed donor motivation performance (Grant, 2008); potential donors’ and behavior; one examined task significance – an response to the communication implicit within issue of interest broadly within organizational fundraisers’ titles in the context of a possible behavior, but here analyzed specifically using sophisticated charitable gift (James, 2016); and the fundraisers; and six studied strategic considerations cultural embeddedness of donor behavior across of fundraising practice. Of the top ten, four were international borders (Banerjee & Chakravarty, 2014; Economics journals, three were Business journals, Špalek & Berná, 2012; see Wiepking & Handy, 2015 and two were Psychology journals. On the one hand, for a more comprehensive treatment). Given the the distribution suggests that the most influential reliance of charitable organizations on both the journals in experimental fundraising research are not income generated by charitable gifts and, relatedly, among those focused primarily on Public, Nonprofit, having the right staff in place to meet fundraising or Philanthropic Studies. On the other hand, goals (Nonprofit Research Collaborative, 2015), Economics, Business, and Psychology are all well- issues of management in fundraising in the U.S. and established areas of study with large numbers of around the world seem a worthy avenue for further affiliated scholars, and we do not know whether the research. For example, when one compares the scholars citing these articles are studying fundraising activities of fundraising (Breeze, 2017) with the or some other related topic. That analysis is beyond definition of leadership as “the ability to influence a the scope of this paper. group toward the achievement of a vision or set of Practical and Ethical Considerations and Future goals” (Robbins & Judge, 2019), an entire arm of Research: Past economic research has been leadership literature can be implicated in enthusiastic about structuring charitable auctions in understanding how fundraisers work with donors all-pay formats to increase the funds contributed, and organizations. although since evidence from field experiments is at A less bright, but ethically important odds with evidence from laboratory experiments, management topic involves the interaction of social research into the boundary conditions is needed preferences and hiring practices. In a study of door- (Schram & Onderstal, 2009). However, there are to-door fundraising in North Carolina, minority other considerations, among them legal and ethical fundraisers received fewer gifts, and a lower total standards. Auctions are often regulated, and are not amount, compared to Caucasian fundraisers, legal in all jurisdictions (National Council of regardless of the race of the household approached Nonprofits, 2019). Additionally, money paid for bids (List & Price, 2009). Sadly, this is consistent with at auction or chances at a lottery are not tax other evidence of widespread racial bias. Nonprofits, deductible for charitable purposes in the US, particularly those with a mission of promoting social although donations are. In recent years, the paddle justice, should consider how to incorporate this raise has gained popularity, in which an audience is mission into their administrative practice, as well as given a short presentation about the charity’s work, raising funds for their programs. and an auctioneer invites people to raise their auction Tenth, although there is a robust experimental paddles (or their hands) to make a publicly observed fundraising literature, these studies are not often pledge to donate at a given level, with no material published in journals focusing on Public, Nonprofit, prize. Since the charity benefits similarly and the cost or Philanthropic Studies. While there is evidence that is less for the individual donating (compared to Nonprofit Studies may be consolidating as a bidding), it may be ethically preferable for fundraisers discipline (Ma & Konrath, 2018), examining the past to prefer paddle raises over all-pay auction formats. twelve years’ evidence demonstrates that fundraising Therefore, we cannot support the enthusiastic is also studied experimentally across many other recommendations for fundraising practitioners to fields, notably Economics, Psychology, and Business. embrace all-pay auctions, but we do recommend that This finding aligns with others who have asserted researchers evaluate the relative effectiveness of the-

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1) se two options. experimental research is incomplete, at best, and In this paper, we found that the majority of the biased at worst. Just as managing for short term literature on fundraising techniques focuses on results can have negative consequences for the long donor motivations and behavior: very few studies term, the emphasis on short term fundraising results focus on beneficiaries or fundraisers. Generally, most may not be a good strategy in the long term for the experiments focusing on fundraising practices and charity, its donors, or its clients. For example, if a techniques focus on donors’ responses, with the goal charity, responding to experimental evidence, of increasing the amount of money transferred to the intentionally induces feelings of shock or shame so charity. Lab experiments, in particular, tend to that people can relieve those feelings with a gift, what measure one-shot transactional giving opportunities, is the long-term effect of people’s willingness to read representing the effort of constantly trying to acquire charitable appeals? How does it affect how they new donors, and they may treat the kind of charity think of that charity? How does it affect how they recipient as generic. Research design decisions are think of the people served by that charity? Evidence sometimes oddly contradictory to studies of donor from a study on global poverty suggests that such motivation, which show that donors’ giving decisions tactics do negatively affect readers’ perception of are strongly aligned to their values, preferences, and efficacy (Hudson, et al., 2016). Considerations such identity, and that strong attachment to a charity or a as this inform fundraising professional codes of cause results in different evaluation choices than a ethics, such as that of the Association of Fundraising casual or prospective donor. While these Professionals (AFP, 1964, 2014). Similarly, if experiments may have high internal validity, real- fundraisers take to heart the “Karmic Investment” world circumstances may result in different behavior approach, soliciting donations when people are than that performed in the lab (e.g. all-pay auctions awaiting results from uncertain events (Converse et perform well in lab experiments (Schram & al., 2012), it may result in predatory behavior and Onderstal, 2009; Faravelli & Stanca, 2012) but see exploiting vulnerabilities to raise donations in the poor participation in field experiments (Carpenter et short term. This is counter to a professional “duty al, 2007). Similarly, recommended fundraising of care” for donors (Lewis, 2019), or, put another practice includes acquiring new donors – but also way, valuing the interests and well-being of donors retaining them, engaging them, and cultivating a (AFP, 1964, 2014). We encourage researchers to closer relationship, which is understood to result in a consider ethical ideals and practice when designing change in behavior over time (Worth, 2016). studies and considering their application. Working with existing donors requires different Practical Considerations for Fundraisers: strategies than acquiring first time donors, notably incorporating donor stewardship, an element of • Auctions: Research supports the received fundraising practice that incorporates elements of wisdom that prizes should be selected with the demonstrating gratitude to donors, responsibility to audience in mind, and that more people will stakeholders, reporting on project developments, participate (and more money will be raised) by and relationship nurturing strategies (Waters, 2009). continuing to have only the winner with the Similarly, the motivations of individuals who give highest bid pay, rather than requiring all bidders may change as they interact with and continue to to pay, regardless of who wins the prize. support a charity, often increasing their commitment • Raffles: In states where charitable raffles are over time (e.g. Karlan & Wood, 2017). In 2018, 97% legal, charities can increase the funds raised by of American and Canadian charities surveyed either giving a volume discount for purchasing reported using major gift and planned giving a greater number of tickets, or by selling tickets methods, which rely on these relationship-building as “pay what you want” with a floor price. If the strategies (Nonprofit Research Collaborative, 2019). raffle is a 50/50, sell tickets in at least two waves, This practice tends to be highly individual, which is and share the size of the pot before beginning harder to examine experimentally, but survey the second wave. research has confirmed that donors who give more • Walks/ Runs: These work best when benefitting often perceive a stronger relationship with the a cause where people are suffering, not causes organization than one-time donors (Waters, 2008). for human enjoyment. Treat the participants’ This raises an ethical aspect in recognizing that exertion as a tribute to others in need. the emphasis on short term fundraising results in • Stewardship: Make use of stewardship materials

to not only thank donors, but also to educate & Wiepking (2011) review of donor motivations, them further about the issues and whole tying the recent experimental literature of this supply personhood of the clients benefitting from their side of philanthropy to its counterpart on the gifts. This may include addressing a fuller scope demand side: fundraising practice. We offer a of issues, some policy considerations, etc. – but stakeholder-informed perspective of both the should in all cases take care not to diminish the practices of fundraising and the research that informs personhood of clients by reducing their voice or it. Finally, we offer suggestions to both researchers agency. Instead, build on commonalities and practitioners in the area of charitable fundraising. between the clients and donors. Acknowledgments This paper updates and consolidates our knowledge of experimental studies across multiple behavioral The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and professional disciplines that inform the practice for their helpful suggestions, Richard Steinberg, of fundraising. It reviews the disciplines and outlets Andrew Burk, and session participants at the 2019 for this research, and selectively extends the Bekkers ARNOVA conference.

Aknin, L., Dunn, E., & Norton, M. (2012). Happiness runs https://afpglobal.org/sites/default/files/attachment in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback s/2019-03/CodeofEthics.pdf loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Banerjee, P., & Chakravarty, S. (2014). Psychological Journal of Happiness, 13(2), 347–355. ownership, group affiliation and other-regarding Albouy, J. (2017). Emotions and prosocial behaviours: A behaviour: Some evidence from dictator games. study of the effectiveness of shocking charity Global Economics and Management Review, 19(1–2), 3–15. campaigns. Recherche et Applications En Marketing, 32(2), Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some 4–25. effects of third-party generosity on audience Allred, A., & Amos, C. (2018). Disgust images and perceptions. British Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 123– nonprofit children’s causes. Journal of Social Marketing, 135. 1(8), 120–140. Bartels, D., & Burnett, R. (2011). A group construal Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-stenman, O. (2008). account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence preference and moral judgment. Journal of Experimental from voluntary contributions to a national park in Social Psychology, 47(1), 50–57. Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1047– Basil, D., Ridgway, N., & Basil, M. (2008). Guilt and giving: 1060. A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology Alpizar, F., & Martinsson, P. (2013). Does it matter if you & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23. are observed by others? Evidence from donations in Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of the field. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(1), empirical studies of philanthropy. Nonprofit and 74–83. Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Ben-ner, A., & Kramer, A. (2011). Personality and altruism Applications to charity and Ricardian in the dictator game: Relationship to giving to kin, equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447- collaborators competitors, and neutrals. Personality and 1458. Individual Differences, 51(3), 216–221. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to Bhati, A. (2018). Market, gender, race: Representation of poor public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The people in fundraising materials used by international Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477. nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) (Published Andreoni, J., Rao, J., & Trachtman, H. (2017). Avoiding doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska at the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and Omaha, U.S. charitable giving. Journal of Political Economy, 125(3), Bhati, A., & Eikenberry, A. (2016). Faces of the needy: The 625–653. portrayal of destitute children in the fundraising Ariely, B., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing good or campaigns of NGOs in India. International Journal of doing well? Image motivation and monetary Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 31–42. incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Body, A., Lau, E., & Josephidou, J. (2019). Engaging Review, 99(1), 544-555. children in meaningful charity: Opening‐up the Association of Fundraising Professionals. (1964; 2014). spaces within which children learn to give. Children & Code of ethical standards. Society. DOI:10.1111/chso.12366.

Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1)

Borgloh, S., Dannenberg, A., & Aretz, B. (2013). Small is evidence on persuasion . Journal of Applied beautiful — Experimental evidence of donors’ Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175. preferences for charities. Economics Letters, 120(2), De Bruyn, A., & Prokopec, S. (2013). Opening a donor ’s 242–244. wallet: The influence of appeal scales on likelihood Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2019). When and magnitude of donation. Journal of Consumer the relatively poor prosper: The underdog effect on Psychology, 23(4), 496–502. charitable donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector DellaVigna, S., List, J., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing Quarterly, 48(1), 108-127. for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Breeze, B. (2017). The new fundraisers: Who organises charitable Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1–56. giving in contemporary society? Policy Press. DellaVigna, S., List, J., Malmendier, U., & Rao, G. (2013). Cao, X., & Jia, L. (2017). The effects of the facial The importance of being marginal: Gender expression of beneficiaries in charity appeals and differences in generosity. American Economic Review, psychological involvement on donation intentions. 103(3), 586-590. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(4), 457–473. Dickert, S., Kleber, J., Västfjäll, D., & Slovic, P. (2016). Carpenter, J., Holmes, J., & Matthews, P. (2007). Charity Mental imagery, impact, and affect: A mediation auctions: A field experiment. The Economic Journal, model for charitable giving. PLoS ONE, 11(2), 118(525), 92–113. e0148274. Carpenter, J., & Matthews, P. H. (2017). Using raffles to Dunn, E., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. (2008). Spending fund public goods: Lessons from a field experiment. money on others promotes happiness. Science, Journal of Public Economics, 150, 30–38. 319(5870), 1687–1688. Carroll, R., & Kachersky, L. (2019). Service fundraising Dunn, E., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. (2014). Prosocial and the role of perceived donation efficacy in spending and happiness: Using money to benefit individual charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, others pays off. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 99, 254–263. 23(1), 41-47. Chang, C.-T., & Lee, Y.-K. (2009). Framing charity Edwards, J., & List, J. (2014). Toward an understanding of advertising: Influences of message framing, image why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal1. Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910–2935. Journal of Public Economics, 114, 1–13. Cheng, Y. (2019). Nonprofit spending and government Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). provision of public services: Testing theories of Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived government – nonprofit relationships. Journal of Public responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 238–254. proportion dominance effect and in-group effect Chou, E., & Murnighan, J. (2013). Life or death decisions: respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Framing the call for help. PLoS ONE, 8(3) e57351. Process, 127, 1–14. Cockrill, A., & Parsonage, I. (2016). Hocking people into Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). action: Does it still work? An empirical analysis of Attitudes and donation behavior when reading emotional appeals in charity advertising. Journal of positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 401–413. Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(4), 444–474. Converse, B., Risen, J., & Carter, T. (2012). Investing in Exley, C. (2016). Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: Karma: When wanting promotes helping. Psychological The role of risk. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), Science, 23(8), 923-930. 587–628. Croson, R., Handy, F., & Shang, J. (2009). Keeping up with Falk, A. (2007). Gift exchange in the the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501-1511. social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Faravelli, M., & Stanca, L. (2012). Single versus multiple- Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(4), 467–489. prize all-pay auctions to finance public goods: An Croson, R., & Shang, J. (2008). The impact of downward experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior and social information on contribution decisions. Organization, 81(2), 677–688. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 221–233. Fehrler, S., & Przepiorka, W. (2013). Charitable giving as Crumpler, H., & Grossman, P. (2008). An experimental a signal of trustworthiness: Disentangling the test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics, signaling benefits of altruistic acts. Evolution and 92(5), 1011–1021. Human Behavior, 34(2), 139-145. Cryder, C., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The Feiler, D., Tost, L., & Grant, A. (2012). Mixed reasons, donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and missed givings: The costs of blending egoistic and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 15–23. altruistic reasons in donation requests. Journal of Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1322–1328. effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of Fielding, D., & Knowles, S. (2015). Can you share some charity goal attainment, message framing, and change for charity? Experimental evidence on verbal

cues and loose change effects in a dictator game. Jasper, C. R., & Samek, A. S. (2014). Increasing charitable Experimental Economics, 18(4), 718–730. giving in the developed world. Oxford Review of Fisher, R., & Ma, Y. (2014). The price of being beautiful: Economic Policy, 30(4), 680–696. Negative effects of attractiveness on empathy for Jilke, S., Van de Walle, S., & Kim, S. (2016). Generating children in need. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), usable knowledge through an experimental approach 436–450. to public administration. Public Administration Fong, C., & Luttmer, E. (2011). Do fairness and race Review, 76(1), 69-72. matter in generosity? Evidence from a nationally Jones, D., & Linardi, S. (2014). Wallflowers: Experimental representative charity experiment. Journal of Public evidence of an aversion to standing out. Management Economics, 95(5–6), 372–394. Science, 60(7), 1757–1771. Genevsky, A., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., & Knutson, B. Karlan, D., & McConnell, M. (2014). Hey look at me: The (2013). Neural underpinnings of the identifiable effect of giving circles on giving. Journal of Economic victim effect: affect shifts preferences for giving. The Behavior & Organization, 106, 402–412. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 17188–17196. Karlan, D., & Wood, D. (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Goerg, S., Lightle, J., & Ryvkin, D. (2016). Priming the Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail charitable pump: An experimental investigation of fundraising experiment. Journal of Behavioral and two-stage raffles. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 508-519. Experimental Economics, 66, 1–8. Goswami, I., & Urminsky, O. (2016). When should the ask Kessler, B. (2017). Announcements of support and public be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on good provision. American Economic Review, 107(12), charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 3760–3787. 53(5), 829–846. Kim, M., Mason, D., & Li, H. (2017). Experimental Grant, A. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job research for nonprofit management: Charitable giving performance effects, relational mechanisms, and and fundraising. In O. James, S. Jilke, & G. Van Ryzin boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93(1), (Eds.), Experiments in Public Management Research (pp. 108–124. 415–435). Cambridge University Press. Güth, W., Levati, M., Sutter, M., & Van Der Heijden, E. Kogut, T., & Kogut, E. (2013). Exploring the relationship (2007). Leading by example with and without between adult attachment style and the identifiable exclusion power in voluntary contribution victim effect in helping behavior. Journal of experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 1023– Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 651–660. 1042. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). "One of us": Outstanding Hideg, I., & Van Kleef, G. (2017). When expressions of willingness to help save a single identified compatriot. fake emotions elicit negative reactions: The role of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, observers' dialectical thinking. Journal of Organizational 104(2), 150–157. Behavior, 38(8), 1196–1212. Krishna, A. (2011). Can supporting a cause decrease Hsee, C., Zhang, J., Lu, Z., & Xu, F. (2013). Unit asking: donations and happiness? The cause marketing A method to boost donations and beyond. Psychological paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 338–345. Science, 24(9), 1801–1808. Kumru, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2010). The effect of status Huck, S., Rasul, I., & Shephard, A. (2015). Comparing on giving. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 709– charitable fundraising schemes: Evidence from a 735. natural field experiment and a structural model. Lange, A., List, J., & Price, M. (2007). A fundraising American Economic Review: Economic Policy, 7(2), 326– mechanism inspired by historical tontines: Theory 369. and experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, Hudson, D., Vanheerde-Hudson, J., Dasandi, N., & 91(9), 1750–1782. Gaines, N. (2016). Emotional pathways to Leszczyc, P., & Rothkopf, M. (2010). Charitable motives engagement with global poverty: An experimental and bidding in charity auctions. Management Science, analysis. 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Political 56(3), 399–413. Science Association, (September 2015), 1–29. Lewis, P. (2019). Different perspectives: Fundraising Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing excellence must be guided by an ethical approach. off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Advancing Philanthropy, October 1, 2019. Evolutionary Psychology , 6(3), 386–392. https://afpglobal.org/news/different-perspectives- James, O., Jilke, S., & Van Ryzin, G. (2017). Experiments in fundraising-excellence-must-be-guided-ethical- public management research: Challenges and contributions. approach Cambridge University Press. Lindahl, W., & Conley, A. (2002). Literature review: James, R. (2016). Phrasing the charitable bequest inquiry. Philanthropic fundraising. Nonprofit Management and VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Leadership, 13(1), 91–112. Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 998–1011. Lipsky, M., & Smith, S. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: the welfare

state in the age of contracting. Harvard University Press. Ohtsubo, Y., & Watanabe, E. (2013). Unintentional unfair List, J., & Samak, A. (2013). Exploring the origins of behavior promotes charitable donation. Letters on charitable acts: Evidence from an artefactual field Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 4(1), 1–4. experiment with young children. Economics Letters, Olivola, C., & Shafir, E. (2013). The martyrdom effect: 118(3), 431–434. When pain and effort increase prosocial contributions. Liu, W., & Aaker, J. (2008). The happiness of giving: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(1), 91- 105. time-ask effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 543- Oppenheimer, D., & Olivola, C. (2011). The science of giving: 557. Experimental approaches to the study of charity. Psychology Ma, J., & Konrath, S. (2018). A century of nonprofit Press. studies: Scaling the knowledge of the Field. Piff, P., Kraus, M., Cote, S., Cheng, B., & Keltner, D. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1139–1158. social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality Mack, C., Kelly, K., & Wilson, C. (2016). Finding an and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784. academic home for fundraising: a multidisciplinary Rasul, I., & Huck, S. (2010). Transactions costs in study of scholars’ perspectives. International Journal of charitable giving: Evidence from two field Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(3), 180–194. experiments. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Malhotra, D. (2010). (When) are religious people nicer? Policy, 10(1), 1–32. Religious salience and the “Sunday Effect” on pro- Reiley, D., & Samek, A. (2019). Round giving: A field social behavior. Judgement and Decision Making, 5(2), experiment on suggested donation amount in public- 138–143. television fundraising. Economic Inquiry, 57(2), 876– Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour 889. affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2012). Reputation and Behavior & Organization, 67(1), 228–238. influence in charitable giving: An experiment. Theory Marwell, N., & Calabrese, T. (2014). A deficit model of and Decision, 72(2), 221–243. collaborative governance: Government – nonprofit Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2019). Organizational behavior. fiscal relations in the provision of child welfare Pearson Education. services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Schatteman, A., & Bingle, B. (2015). Philanthropy Theory, 25(4), 1031–1058. supporting government: An analysis of local library Mason, D. P. (2013). Putting charity to the test: A case for funding. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 1(2), 74– field experiments on giving time and money in the 86. nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Schram, A., & Onderstal, S. (2009). Bidding to give: An Quarterly, 42(1), 193–202. experimental comparison of auctions for charity. Mason, D. (2016). Recognition and cross-cultural International Economic Review, 50(2), 431–457. communications as motivators for charitable giving: Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in A field experiment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector charitable contribution: The impact of social Quarterly, 45(1), 192–204. 8 information on the voluntary provision of public Merchant, A., Ford, J., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422–1439. organizations’ storytelling influence on donors’ Simon, B., Trötschel, R., & Dähne, D. (2008). Identity emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, affirmation and social movement support. European 63(7), 754–762. Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 935–946. National Council of Nonprofits. (n.d.). Games of chance, Small, D., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy raffles, and charity auctions. Retrieved Feb. 5, 2020 and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought from https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools- on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. resources/games-of-chance-raffles-and-charity- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, auctions 102(2), 143–153. Nelson, A., & Gazley, B. (2014). The rise of school- Small, D., & Verrochi, N. (2009). The face of need: Facial supporting nonprofits. Education Finance and Policy, emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal 9(4), 541–566. of Marketing Research, 46(6), 777–787. Nonprofit Research Collaborative. (2015). Nonprofit Smith, R., Faro, D., & Burson, K. (2013). More for the fundraising study. Many: The influence of entitativity on charitable https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5baac8ebe66 giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 961–976. 6691ace309ac7/t/5c0c4308aa4a99d4b6b4a3eb/1544 Soyer, E., & Hogarth, R. (2011). The size and distribution 307466076/Winter+2015.pdf of donations: Effects of number of recipients. Nonprofit Research Collaborative. (2019). Nonprofit Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 616–628. fundraising survey and donor survey. Špalek, J., & Berná, Z. (2012). Effectiveness of charitable

lottery design: Experimental evidence from the Czech Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A Republic and Russia. Ekonomick Časopis, 60(3), 239– literature review of predictors of charitable giving. 258. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Tonin, M., & Vlassopoulos, M. (2014). An experimental Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. investigation of intrinsic motivations for giving. Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (2015). The palgrave handbook of Theory and Decision, 76(1), 47–67. global philanthropy. Palgrave Macmillan. Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Too far to help: Wiepking, P., & Heijnen, M. (2011). The giving standard: The effect of perceived distance on the expected Conditional cooperation in the case of charitable impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Personality and Social Psychology, 112(6), 860–876. Sector Marketing, 16(1), 13-22. Van Rijn, J., Barham, B., & Sundaram-Stukel, R. (2017). Worth, M. (2016). Fundraising: Principles and practice. Sage An experimental approach to comparing similarity- Publications, Inc. and guilt-based charitable appeals. Journal of Behavioral Yeomans, M., & Al-ubaydli, O. (2018). How does and Experimental Economics, 68, 25–40. fundraising affect volunteering? Evidence from a Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., & Peters, E. (2014). natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for 64, 57-72. a single child in need. PLoS ONE, 9(6), 1–10. Young, D. (2006). Complementary, supplementary, or Vollan, B., Henning, K., & Staewa, D. (2017). Do adversarial? Nonprofit-government relations. In E. campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase Boris & E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofit & government: donations? Evidence from a survey experiment. Collaboration & Conflict (pp. 37–80). The Urban Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(4), 500–518. Institute. Waters, R. (2008). Applying relationship management Yuan, M., Wu, J., & Kou, Y. (2018). Donors’ social class theory to the fundraising process for individual and their prosocial reputation. Social Psychology, 49(4), donors. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 73- 205–218. 87. Zafar, B. (2011). An experimental investigation of why Waters, R. (2009). Measuring stewardship in public individuals conform. European Economic Review, 55(6), relations: A test exploring impact on the fundraising 774-798. relationship. Public Relations Review, 35, 113-119. Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., de Moura, R., & Waters, R. (2016). The current landscape of fundraising Hopthrow, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: practice. In T. Jung, S. D. Phillips, & J. Harrow (Eds.), responses to natural and humanly caused events. The routledge companion to philanthropy (pp. 423–437). European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 353–363. Routledge.

Analytic categories of disciplines and journals

Key: Bold indicates a primary category (# of journals - # of articles) Bold italicized indicates a sub-category (# of journals - # of articles) Name of Journal (# of articles)

Economics (31 – Psychology/ Business Nonprofits & Other (12 – 16) 81) Social Disciplines (15 – Public Psychology (18 – 29) Administration (7 34) – 27) American Psychology (12 – Advertising (3 – Art Management Biology (6 – 6) Economic 22) 4) (1 – 1) Journal: Economic Policy (1) American Applied International International Journal of Economic Review Psychology (1) Journal of Journal of Art Neuroscience (1) (4) Advertising (1) Management (1) Applied British Journal of Journal of Nonprofit & Letters on Economics (1) Psychology (1) Advertising (1) Public Sector (6 – Evolutionary 26) Behavioral Science (1) Applied Current Journal of Nonprofit and NeuroImage (1) Economics Directions in Advertising Voluntary Sector Letters (1) Psychological Research (2) Quarterly (8) Science (1) Ecological Journal of Business, Voluntas (3) Philosophical Economics (3) Applied General (2 – 7) Transactions of the Psychology (1) Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (1) Econometrica (1) Journal of Journal of International Evolution and Behavioral Business Research Journal of Human Behavior (1) Decision Making (4) Nonprofit and (3) Voluntary Sector Marketing (6) Economic Inquiry Journal of Journal of International Ethology (1) (3) Happiness Studies Consumer Review on Public (1) Psychology (3) and Nonprofit Marketing (1) Economics Journal of Finance (1 – 1) Journal of Communication (1 Letters (3) Personality and Nonprofit & Public – 1) Social Psychology Sector Marketing (2) (1) Ekonomický Judgment & Financial Nonprofit Journal of Applied časopis Decision Making Accountability & Management & Communication (Economic (5) Management in Leadership (7) Research Governments,

Magazine -- Public Services Slovak) (1) and Charities (1) European Personality and Management (3 International Economic Review Individual – 6) Development (2 – (1) Differences (1) 2) Experimental Psychological Journal of Journal of Economics (6) Science (3) Organizational Development Behavior (1) Effectiveness (1) Games and Evolutionary Management The Journal of Economic Psychology (1) Science (2) Development Behavior (1) Studies (1) Global Theory and Organizational Science, General (2 Economics and Decision (2) Behavior and – 6) Management Human Decision Review (1) Processes (3) International Social Marketing (6 – PLoS ONE (4) Economic Review Psychology (6 – 11) (2) 12) Journal of Asian Journal of International Science (2) Behavioral and Social Psychology Journal of Experimental (1) Research in Economics (9) Marketing (1) Journal of European Journal Journal of Technology (1 – 1) Economic of Social Marketing Behavior & Psychology (2) Research (4) Organization (8) Journal of Journal of Journal of Social Expert Systems with Economic Applied Social Marketing (1) Applications (1) Psychology (3) Psychology (2) Journal of Journal of Recherche et Political Economy Experimental Applications en (1) Social Psychology Marketing (1) (4) Journal of Public Personality and Journal of Economic Theory Social Psychology Consumer (1) Bulletin (2) Research (3) Journal of Public Social Psychology Psychology & Economics (18) (1) Marketing (1) Journal of the European Economic Association (1) Kyklos (1) Oxford Review of Economic Policy (1) Review of Behavioral Economics (1)

Southern Economic Journal (1) The American Economic Review (1) The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy (1) The Economic Journal (2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1) The Review of Economic Studies (1) The Scandinavian Journal of Economics (1)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 12 April 2021

An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits

John A. List ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-3848 1 , 2 , 3 ,
James J. Murphy ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5619-5693 4 ,
Michael K. Price ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0239-9652 2 , 3 , 5 &
Alexander G. James ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0838-8575 4

Nature Human Behaviour volume 5 , pages 1339–1348 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

1837 Accesses

6 Citations

118 Altmetric

Metrics details

Human behaviour
Social policy

We partnered with Alaska’s Pick.Click.Give. programme to implement a statewide natural field experiment with 540,000 Alaskans designed to examine two of the main motivations for charitable giving: concerns for the benefits to self (impure altruism or ‘warm glow’) or concerns for the benefits to others (pure altruism). Our empirical results highlight the relative importance of appeals to self: individuals who received such an appeal were 6.6% more likely to give and gave 23% more than counterparts in the control group. Yet, a message that instead appealed to recipient benefits (motivated by altruism) had no statistically significant effect on average donations relative to the control group. We also find evidence of long-run effects of warm-glow appeals in the subsequent year. Our results have import for theoreticians and empiricists interested in modelling charitable giving as well as practitioners and policymakers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on Springer Link
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

a literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Loneliness trajectories over three decades are associated with conspiracist worldviews in midlife

People are surprisingly hesitant to reach out to old friends

Participatory action research

Data availability.

The data used in this study are available at https://osf.io/ycafq/ .

Code availability

We used Stata version 16 for the data analysis. The Stata code is available at https://osf.io/ycafq/ .

Chen, Y. & MacKie-Mason, J. K. Online fund-raising mechanisms: a field experiment. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 5 , 4 (2006).

Google Scholar

Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. South Econ. J. 72 , 794–807 (2006).

Karlan, D. & List, J. A. Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 97 , 1774–1793 (2007).

Article Google Scholar

Meier, S. Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 5 , 1203–1222 (2007).

Huck, S. & Rasul, I. Matched fundraising: evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econ. 95 , 351–362 (2011).

Scharf, K. & Smith, S. The price elasticity of charitable giving: does the form of tax relief matter? Int. Tax. Public Financ. 22 , 330–352 (2015).

Morgan, J. Financing public goods by means of lotteries. Rev. Econ. Stud. 67 , 761–784 (2000).

Goeree, J. K., Maasland, E., Onderstal, S. & Turner, J. L. How (not) to raise money. J. Polit. Econ. 113 , 897–918 (2005).

Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K. & Rupp, N. G. Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: evidence from a field experiment. Q. J. Econ. 121 , 747–782 (2006).

Carpenter, J., Holmes, J. & Matthews, P. H. Charity auctions: a field experiment. Econ. J. 118 , 92–113 (2008).

Elfenbein, D. W. & McManus, B. A greater price for a greater good? Evidence that consumers pay more for charity-linked products. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2 , 28–60 (2010).

Frey, B. S. & Meier, S. Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing ‘conditional cooperation’ in a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 94 , 1717–1722 (2004).

Shang, J. & Croson, R. A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econ. J. 119 , 1422–1439 (2009).

Murphy, J. J., Batmunkh, N., Nilsson, B. & Ray, S. The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods: a replication study. Res. Exp. Econ. 18 , 41–50 (2015).

Falk, A. Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica 75 , 1501–1511 (2007).

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. & Johansson-Stenman, O. Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J. Public Econ. 92 , 1047–1060 (2008).

Chao, M. Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 7301–7306 (2017).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Meer, J. Brother Can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. J. Public Econ. 95 , 926–941 (2011).

Castillo, M., Petrie, R. & Wardell, C. Fundraising through online social networks: a field experiment on peer-to-peer solicitation. J. Public Econ. 114 , 29–35 (2014).

Smith, S., Windmeijer, F. & Wright, E. Peer effects in charitable giving: evidence from the (running) field. Econ. J. 125 , 1053–1071 (2015).

Andreoni, J. Toward a theory of charitable fund-raising. J. Polit. Econ. 106 , 1186–1213 (1998).

List, J. A. & Lucking-Reiley, D. The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. J. Polit. Econ. 110 , 215–233 (2002).

Vesterlund, L. The informational value of sequential fundraising. J. Public Econ. 87 , 627–657 (2003).

Potters, J., Sefton, M. & Vesterlund, L. Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: an experimental study. Econ. Theory 33 , 169–182 (2007).

Bracha, A., Menietti, M. & Vesterlund, L. Seeds to succeed? Sequential giving to public projects. J. Public Econ. 95 , 416–427 (2011).

Andreoni, J. Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Q. J. Econ. 110 , 1–21 (1995).

Crumpler, H. & Grossman, P. J. An experimental test of warm glow giving. J. Public Econ. 92 , 1011–1021 (2008).

Null, C. Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving. J. Public Econ. 95 , 455–465 (2011).

Tonin, M. & Vlassopoulos, M. Disentangling the sources of pro-socially motivated effort: a field experiment. J. Public Econ. 94 , 1086–1092 (2010).

Imas, A. Working for the ‘warm glow’: on the benefits and limits of prosocial incentives. J. Public Econ. 114 , 14–18 (2014).

Tonin, M. & Vlassopoulos, M. An experimental investigation of intrinsic motivations for giving. Theory Decis. 76 , 47–67 (2014).

Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., Vesterlund, L. & Xie, H. Why do people give? Testing pure and impure altruism. Am. Econ. Rev. 107 , 3617–3633 (2017).

Singh, J., Teng, N. & Netessine, S. Philanthropic campaigns and customer behavior: field experiments on an online taxi booking platform. Manag. Sci. 65 , 913–932 (2019).

Brunel, F. F. & Nelson, M. R. Explaining gendered responses to ‘help-self’ and ‘help-others’ charity ad appeals: the mediating role of world-views. J. Advert. 29 , 15–28 (2000).

White, K. & Peloza, J. Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support. J. Mark. 73 , 109–124 (2009).

Feiler, D. C., Tost, L. P. & Grant, A. M. Mixed reasons, missed givings: the costs of blending egoistic and altruistic reasons in donation requests. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 , 1322–1328 (2012).

Baek, T. H., Yoon, S., Kim, S. & Kim, Y. Social exclusion influences on the effectiveness of altruistic versus egoistic appeals in charitable advertising. Mark. Lett. 30 , 75–90 (2019).

Andreoni, J. Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J. Polit. Econ. 97 , 1447–1458 (1989).

Andreoni, J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ. J. 100 , 464 (1990).

DellaVigna, S., List, J. A. & Malmendier, U. Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Q. J. Econ. 127 , 1–56 (2012).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Knutsson, M., Martinsson, P. & Wollbrant, C. Do people avoid opportunities to donate? A natural field experiment on recycling and charitable giving. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 93 , 71–77 (2013).

Trachtman, H. et al. Fair weather avoidance: unpacking the costs and benefits of ‘avoiding the ask’. J. Econ. Sci. Assoc. 1 , 8–14 (2015).

Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M. & Trachtman, H. Avoiding the ask: a field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. J. Polit. Econ. 125 , 625–653 (2017).

Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J. & Strickland, A. J. Social identity and preferences. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 , 1913–1928 (2010).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kessler, J. B. & Milkman, K. L. Identity in charitable giving. Manag. Sci. 64 , 845–859 (2018).

Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K. & Rupp, N. G. Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 , 958–983 (2010).

Gneezy, U. & List, J. A. Putting behavioral economics to work: testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica 74 , 1365–1384 (2006).

Ferraro, P. J. & Price, M. K. Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95 , 64–73 (2013).

Allcott, H. & Rogers, T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104 , 3003–3037 (2014).

Chen, Y., Harper, F. M., Konstan, J. & Li, S. X. Social comparisons and contributions to online communities: a field experiment on MovieLens. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 , 1358–1398 (2010).

Chen, Y., Lu, F. & Zhang, J. Social comparisons, status and driving behavior. J. Public Econ. 155 , 11–20 (2017).

Gallus, J. Fostering public good contributions with symbolic awards: a large-scale natural field experiment at Wikipedia. Manag. Sci. 63 , 3999–4015 (2017).

Hahn, R., Metcalfe, R. D., Novgorodsky, D. & Price, M. K. The behavioralist as policy designer: the need to test multiple treatments to meet multiple targets. National Bureau for Economic Research https://www.nber.org/papers/w22886 (2016).

Holladay, S., LaRiviere, J., Novgorodsky, D. & Price, M. Prices versus nudges: what matters for search versus purchase of energy investments? J. Public Econ. 172 , 151–173 (2019).

Allcott, H. & Greenstone, M. Measuring the welfare effects of residential energy efficiency programs. NBER Working Paper 23386 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23386 (National Bureau for Economic Research, 2017).

Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C. & Milkman, K. L. The effect of providing peer information on retirement savings decisions. J. Financ. 70 , 1161–1201 (2015).

Seira, E., Elizondo, A. & Laguna-Müggenburg, E. Are information disclosures effective? Evidence from the credit card market. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 9 , 277–307 (2017).

Fellner, G., Sausgruber, R. & Traxler, C. Testing enforcement strategies in the field: threat, moral appeal and social information. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11 , 634–660 (2013).

Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D. & Vlaev, I. The behavioralist as tax collector: using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. J. Public Econ. 148 , 14–31 (2017).

Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95 , 1082–1095 (2011).

Costa, D. L. & Kahn, M. E. Energy conservation ‘nudges’ and environmentalist ideology: evidence from a randomized residential electricity field experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11 , 680–702 (2013).

Asensio, O. I. & Delmas, M. A. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , E510–E515 (2015).

Brent, D. A., Cook, J. H. & Olsen, S. Social comparisons, household water use, and participation in utility conservation programs: evidence from three randomized trials. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2 , 597–627 (2015).

Ito, K., Ida, T. & Tanaka, M. Moral suasion and economic incentives: field experimental evidence from energy demand. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 10 , 240–267 (2018).

Brandon, A., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., Price, M. K. & Rundhammer, F. Testing for crowd out in social nudges: evidence from a natural field experiment in the market for electricity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 5293–5298 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M. & Antia, K. D. An empathy-helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund-raising appeals. J. Consum. Res. 35 , 519–531 (2008).

Hsieh, C.-T. Do consumers react to anticipated income changes? Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund. Am. Econ. Rev. 93 , 397–405 (2003).

Kueng, L. Explaining consumption excess sensitivity with near-rationality: evidence from large predetermined payments. NBER Working Paper 21772 https://www.nber.org/papers/w21772 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015).

Evans, W. N. & Moore, T. J. The short-term mortality consequences of income receipt. J. Public Econ. 95 , 1410–1424 (2011).

Jones, D. & Marinescu, I. The labor market impacts of universal and permanent cash transfers: evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund. NBER Working Paper 24312 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24312 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018).

Watson, B., Guettabi, M. & Reimer, M. Universal cash and crime. Rev. Econ. Stat. 102 , 678–689 (2020).

Kingma, B. R. An accurate measurement of the crowd-out effect, income effect, and price effect for charitable contributions. J. Polit. Econ. 97 , 1197–1207 (1989).

Andreoni, J. An experimental test of the public-goods crowding-out hypothesis. Am. Econ. Rev. 83 , 1317–1327 (1993).

Payne, A. A. Does the government crowd-out private donations? New evidence from a sample of non-profit firms. J. Public Econ. 69 , 323–345 (1998).

Andreoni, J. & Payne, A. A. Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising? Am. Econ. Rev. 93 , 792–812 (2003).

Andreoni, J. & Payne, A. A. Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of charities. J. Public Econ. 95 , 334–343 (2011).

Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J. & Johnston, R. M. An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis. J. Public Econ. 89 , 1543–1560 (2005).

Andreoni, J., Payne, A. & Smith, S. Do grants to charities crowd out other income? Evidence from the UK. J. Public Econ. 114 , 75–86 (2014).

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35 , 472–482 (2008).

Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 , 913–923 (2008).

Pruckner, G. J. & Sausgruber, R. Honesty on the streets: a field study on newspaper purchasing. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11 , 661–679 (2013).

Harbaugh, W. T. What do donations buy? A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. J. Public Econ. 67 , 269–284 (1998).

Andreoni, J. & Petrie, R. Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising. J. Public Econ. 88 , 1605–1623 (2004).

Ariely, D., Bracha, A. & Meier, S. Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Am. Econ. Rev. 99 , 544–555 (2009).

Lacetera, N. & Macis, M. Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 76 , 225–237 (2010).

Karlan, D. & McConnell, M. A. Hey look at me: the effect of giving circles on giving. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 106 , 402–412 (2014).

Morgan, J. & Sefton, M. Funding public goods with lotteries: experimental evidence. Rev. Econ. Stud. 67 , 785–810 (2000).

Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K. & Rupp, N. G. Using donor gifts to drive fundraising: theory and evidence from a natural field experiment. Working Paper https://cla.auburn.edu/economics/assets/File/UsingGiftstoDriveFundraising.pdf (Univ. Georgia, 2012).

Sieg, H. & Zhang, J. The importance of managerial capacity in fundraising: evidence from land conservation charities. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 30 , 724–734 (2012).

Eckel, C. C., Herberich, D. H. & Meer, J. A field experiment on directed giving at a public university. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 66 , 66–71 (2017).

Gabaix, X. & Laibson, D. Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Q. J. Econ. 121 , 505–540 (2006).

Gabaix, X. A sparsity-based model of bounded rationality. Q. J. Econ. 129 , 1661–1710 (2014).

Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. J. Econ. Perspect. 21 , 153–174 (2007).

List, J. A. Young Selfish and male: field evidence of social preferences. Econ. J. 114 , 121–149 (2004).

DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., Malmendier, U. & Rao, G. The importance of being marginal: gender differences in generosity. Am. Econ. Rev. 103 , 586–590 (2013).

Bernedo, M., Ferraro, P. J. & Price, M. The persistent impacts of norm-based messaging and their implications for water conservation. J. Consum. Policy 37 , 437–452 (2014).

Meer, J. The habit of giving. Econ. Inq. 51 , 2002–2017 (2013).

Deck, C. & Murphy, J. J. Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities. Eur. Econ. Rev. 112 , 91–106 (2019).

Filiz-Ozbay, E. & Uler, N. Demand for giving to multiple charities: an experimental study. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 17 , 725–753 (2019).

Lee, S. & Feeley, T. H. The identifiable victim effect: a meta-analytic review. Soc. Influ. 11 , 199–215 (2016).

List, J. A. Non est disputandum de generalizability? A glimpse into the external validity trial. NBER Working Paper 27535 https://www.nber.org/papers/w27535 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).

Harrison, G. W. & List, J. A. Field experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 42 , 1009–1055 (2004).

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466 , 29 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. Andreoni and D. Wood along with seminar participants at Boston University, Chapman University and the University of California San Diego, the 2014 Science of Philanthropy Initiative meetings and the 2015 meetings of the Allied Social Sciences Association for comments that greatly influenced this manuscript. The authors thank J. Holz and F. Rundhammer for excellent research assistance, and in particular H. Beatty at Pick.Click.Give.; N. Kemppel, J. Lavoie and K. St. John at the Alaska Community Foundation; I. Dutton and D. Kaplan at the Rasmuson Foundation for their enthusiasm and support for this project; and the Alaska PFD for providing the data. Financial support for this project was provided to J.J.M. by the Rasmuson Foundation and to J.A.L. and M.K.P. by the John Templeton Foundation (award # 38909) through the Science of Philanthropy Initiative. M.K.P. acknowledges the National Science Foundation for financial support under grant award #1658743 ‘Using Field Experiments and Naturally Occurring Data to Understand How State Policies Impact Charitable Giving’. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

John A. List

National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA

John A. List & Michael K. Price

College of Business and Economics, Research School of Economics, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Department of Economics, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA

James J. Murphy & Alexander G. James

Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies, Culverhouse College of Commerce, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

Michael K. Price

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.A.L., J.J.M. and M.K.P. conceived, designed and implemented the study. J.J.M. coordinated with the State of Alaska PFD for data access. A.G.J. analysed the data. J.A.L., J.J.M., M.K.P. and A.G.J. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Murphy .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Ann-Kathrin Koessler, Jonathan Meer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Tables 1–17 and Supplementary Fig. 1.

Reporting summary

Peer review information, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

List, J.A., Murphy, J.J., Price, M.K. et al. An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits. Nat Hum Behav 5 , 1339–1348 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01095-8

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2020

Accepted : 08 March 2021

Published : 12 April 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01095-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

When ai meets internet public welfare: a study of the impact of intelligent customer service avatars on individual online donation behavior.

Xiaozhi Huang
Meiting Wei
Siyuan Xiang

Current Psychology (2024)

Warming up cool cooperators

Eamonn Ferguson
Claire Lawrence
Tanya E. Davison

Nature Human Behaviour (2023)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Approaching Certain Fundraising Methods and a Revised Theory of Planned Behavior in an Experimental Framework

Conference paper
First Online: 21 February 2024
Cite this conference paper

Andreea-Angela Șeulean 3

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Included in the following conference series:

International Conference on Modern Trends in Business Hospitality and Tourism

76 Accesses

The fundraising process could be referred to as being a focal point that defines the overall performance of a certain nonprofit organization. In this regard, the idea of differentiating among a wide variety of methods by which the needed funds are procured entails a greater interest from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. Consequently, the current paper aims to reveal the manner in which a series of fundraising methods and certain factors integrated within the theory of planned behavior influence the individuals’ decision in terms of donating. Thus, the paper renders the content of a marketing experiment that was operationalized on a sample of 750 respondents on the basis of using a self-administered questionnaire. The general theoretical framework that substantiated the given research endeavor was represented by the conceptual model of the theory of planned behavior in extended form. In terms of the obtained results, these indicated the fact that the influence exerted by the subsequent fundraising methods on the individuals’ donation intention is not a significant one from a statistical viewpoint. Nevertheless, the paper could be considered a notable preamble associated with approaching the theory of planned behavior in an experimental setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Article Google Scholar

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Social cognitive determinats of blood donation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (7), 1431–1457.

Becker, A., Boenigk, S., & Willems, J. (2020). In nonprofits we trust? A large-scale study on the public’s trust in nonprofit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 32 (2), 189–216.

Bennett, R. (2012). Why urban poor donate: a study of low-income charitable giving in London. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41 (5), 870–891.

Brunel, F., & Nelson, M. R. (2000). Explaining gendered responses to ‘help-self’ and ‘help-others’ charity ad appeals: The mediating role of world-views. Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 15–28.

da Silva, L. C., Mainardes, E. W., Teixeira, A. M. C., & Costa Júnior, L. (2020). Brand orientation of nonprofit organizations and its relationship with the attitude toward charity and donation intention. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17 , 353–373.

Grigore, G., et al. (2020). Drama and discounting in the relational dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 174 , 65–88.

Grigore, G., et al. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in liquid times. Journal of Business Ethics, 174 , 763–782.

Hou, J., Du, L., & Tian, Z. (2009). The effects of nonprofit brand equity on individual giving intention: Mediating by the self-concept of individual donor. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14 (3), 215–229.

Hou, J., Lü, J., & Du, L. (2010). Individual donors’ giving intention and behavior: Effect of their perceptual determinants on the nonprofit organization (pp. 1–4). IEEE.

Google Scholar

Kemp, E., Kennett-Hensel, P. A., & Kees, J. (2013). Pulling on the heartstrings: Examining the effects of emotions and gender in persuasive appeals. Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 69–79.

Knowles, S. R., Hyde, M. K., & White, K. M. (2012). Predictors of young people’s charitable intentions to donate money: An extended theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (9), 2096–2110.

Kumar, A., & Chakrabarti, S. (2023). Charity donor behavior: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 35 (1), 1–46.

Labăr, A. V. (2008). SPSS pentru științele educației: metodologia analizei datelor în cercetarea pedagogică . Polirom.

Lee, Y., Won, D., & Bang, H. (2014). Why do event volunteers return? Theory of planned behavior. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 11 (3), 229–241.

Lwin, M., Phau, I., & Lim, A. (2013). Charitable donations: empirical evidence from Brunei. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 5 (3), 215–233.

Lwin, M., Phau, I., & Lim, A. (2014). An investigation of the characteristics of Australian charitable donors. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26 (4), 372–389.

Minguez, A., & Sese, F. J. (2021). Understanding the effectiveness of social influence appeals in charitable giving: the roles of affinity with the cause, and past giving behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 29 (3), 375–386.

Mittelman, R., & Rojas-Méndez, J. (2018). Why Canadians give to charity: An extended theory of planned behaviour model. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15 , 189–204.

Peloza, J., & Steel, P. (2005). The price elasticities of charitable contributions: a meta-analysis. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 24 (2), 260–272.

Ranganathan, S. K., & Sen, S. (2012). Examining charitable donation process in South India: role of gender. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17 (2), 108–121.

Sepulcri, L. M. C. B., Mainardes, E. W., & Pascuci, L. (2022). Non-profit brand orientation as a strategic communication approach. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16 (4), 572–598.

Shelley, L., & Polonsky, M. J. (2002). Do charitable causes need to segment their current donor base on demographic factors? An Australian examination. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (1), 19–29.

Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17 (5), 363–386.

Urbain, C., Gonzalez, C., & Gall-Ely, M. L. (2013). What does the future hold for giving? An approach using the social representations of Generation Y. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18 (3), 159–171.

Urbonavicius, S., Adomaviciute, K., Urbutyte, I., & Cherian, J. (2019). Donation to charity and purchase of cause-related products: The influence of existential guilt and experience. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 18 (2), 89–96.

van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Current Psychology, 30 (4), 355–374.

Wiepking, P., & Heijnen, M. (2011). The giving standard: Conditional cooperation in the case of charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16 (1), 13–22.

Wunderink, S. R. (2002). Individual financial donations to charities in The Netherlands: Why, how and how much? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10 (2), 21–39.

Yörük, B. K. (2012). Do charitable solicitations matter? A comparative analysis of fundraising methods. Fiscal Studies, 33 (4), 467–487.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centrul de Cercetare și Antreprenoriat în Turism și Ospitalitate (CeCATO), Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Andreea-Angela Șeulean

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreea-Angela Șeulean .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Adina Letiția Negrușa

Monica Maria Coroş

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Șeulean, AA. (2024). Approaching Certain Fundraising Methods and a Revised Theory of Planned Behavior in an Experimental Framework. In: Negrușa, A.L., Coroş, M.M. (eds) Sustainable Approaches and Business Challenges in Times of Crisis. ICMTBHT 2022. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48288-5_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48288-5_14

Published : 21 February 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-48287-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-48288-5

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

PERSPECTIVE article

Climate donations inspired by evidence-based fundraising.

$\r\nRen Ryba$

1 Southern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
2 School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Everyone has an opportunity to contribute to climate solutions. To help people engage with this opportunity, it is critical to understand how climate organizations and fundraisers can best communicate with people and win their financial support. In particular, fundraisers often rely on practical skills and anecdotal beliefs at the expense of scientific knowledge. Fundraisers could be motivated to achieve a substantial boost in funding for climate solutions, if there is evidence of the financial gains that science-based fundraising makes available. In this Perspective, we provide a preliminary foray into such evidence. We bring together findings from philanthropic research and climate psychology to identify what factors can help captivate donors. Then, through an experimental study of a charitable appeal for a climate charity, we show how putting these factors into practice may contribute toward an increase in donated money. This provides optimism that evidence-based fundraising can inspire donors to contribute much-needed resources toward climate solutions.

Introduction

When it comes to climate solutions, non-profit organizations have a vital role to play ( Osuri, 2010 ). These charities further climate research and policy by funding research into new technologies, developing mitigation strategies, and educating the public ( Osuri, 2010 ; Nisbet, 2018 ), particularly important roles given the failure of developed nations to deliver public money ( Roberts et al., 2021 ). To perform these roles in society, charities generally rely on donations from the public ( Yen et al., 1997 ; Verssimo et al., 2018 ). However, there remains a chasm between the current size of the climate non-profit sector and the resources that are needed to effectively confront climate change ( Yeo, 2019 ). So, for climate charities to maximize their impact, it is critical to understand what motivates people to engage with them ( Ryba and Connell, 2020 ).

As fundraising remains an emerging profession, many fundraisers and the charities they support adopt the mind-set that fundraising is more of an art than a science ( Cremades and Corcoran, 2016 ; Phillips, 2016 ). Fundraisers often emphasize practical skills and anecdotal beliefs at the expense of theoretical and empirical knowledge ( Lindahl and Conley, 2002 ; Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Aldrich, 2016 ). This is despite the inroads that have been made in the scientific literature into how non-profit organizations can use messages to increase their appeal to donors ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Whillans, 2016 ) and, separately, what drives people’s concern for climate change ( Weber, 2010 , 2016 ; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica, 2014 ). For fundraising to meaningfully contribute to urgently needed climate solutions, organizations have the opportunity to adopt an evidence-based perspective on how to engage with donors. And for the organizations that do so, the financial rewards may be substantial ( Oppenheimer and Olivola, 2011 ).

In particular, at the center of successful fundraising campaigns is an inspiring message to donors ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Whillans, 2016 ). Crafting an inspiring message is cost-effective for climate charities, which makes this an accessible, tractable way to maximize the impact of fundraising efforts in this resource-scarce sector ( Ramutsindela et al., 2013 ; Waldron et al., 2013 )—all it requires is the motivation to put empirical findings into practice ( Whillans, 2016 ).

The non-profit sector can potentially unlock millions of dollars for climate solutions, if there is evidence of the financial gains that science-based fundraising makes available. Here, we show how such evidence may be provided. We bring together findings from philanthropic research and climate psychology to identify what factors can help captivate donors. Then, through an experimental study of a charitable appeal for a climate charity, we show how putting these factors into practice may cause an increase in donated money.

The Science of Climate Charity

At the interface of environment and fundraising is an emerging literature on how to spur financial support for environmental non-profits ( Yen et al., 1997 ; Bulte et al., 2005 ; Israel, 2007 ; Markowitz et al., 2013 ; Vollan et al., 2017 ; Lundberg et al., 2019 , 2020 ; Nelson et al., 2019 ). Field, laboratory and online studies have identified a range of factors that encourage charitable donations to environmental causes in scenarios involving real money ( Christie, 2007 ; Uehleke and Sturm, 2017 ; Shreedhar and Mourato, 2019 ). For example, a donor might give more money if a message evokes emotions rather than social norms ( Bergquist et al., 2020 ); if a message highlights humanity’s responsibility ( Shreedhar and Mourato, 2019 ); if a message emphasizes charismatic or flagship species ( Thomas-Walters and Raihani, 2017 ; Verssimo et al., 2018 ; Shreedhar and Mourato, 2019 ); if a message emphasizes threatened species ( Veríssimo et al., 2017 ); if a message focuses on the non-human beneficiaries of donations ( Batavia et al., 2018 ); or even if a message features amusing memes ( Lenda et al., 2020 ).

More specifically, some researchers have begun to investigate the components of an effective message in the context of real-money donations for climate solutions ( Löschel et al., 2013 ). Here, a donor may make give more money if a message emphasizes the impact of anthropogenic climate change, rather than extreme weather events ( Ellis et al., 2016 ); if a message features scientific information from experts about the impacts of climate change ( Milinski et al., 2006 ); if the location of the mitigation is made salient ( Diederich and Goeschl, 2018 ); if the message emphasizes the impact on incomes of future generations ( Svenningsen, 2019 ); if the message is framed as doing good, rather than undoing harm ( Blasch, 2014 ); and possibly if a message highlights social norms ( Löschel et al., 2017 ; Goeschl et al., 2018 ).

However, these studies are relatively few, and they represent only a subset of the many components of an effective message that have been identified by research on fundraising and, separately, public engagement with climate ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica, 2014 ; Weber, 2016 , 2010 ; Whillans, 2016 ). So, if climate charities are to make the most of their resources, there is a potentially lucrative opportunity to take advantage of these complementary bodies of literature. Here, we show the potential monetary gains that may arise from doing so, through an experimental study involving real donors giving real money to a climate charity.

Crafting Captivating Messages: An Experimental Study

A climate organization that engages with the literature on effective messaging may receive significant financial returns. To provide preliminary evidence on these financial benefits, we now turn to our experimental study.

Data Collection

We created three textual messages that each aimed to solicit donations for a climate organization, Coalition for Rainforest Nations 1 ( Halstead, 2018 ). The messages were the same in content and logical flow, but they differed systematically in eight components known to influence the effectiveness of charity messages or climate messages ( Ryba et al., 2021 ). This way, we could assess how the different combinations of message characteristics influence the money donated. The combinations of each of the eight components present in each of the three messages are described in Table 1 . The eight components themselves were:

Table 1. The eight components used to craft messages of different impact levels.

• Impact . A charity message may be more engaging if that message emphasizes the concrete effects that a donation would bring about – in other words, the difference that the donor can make ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Whillans, 2016 ).

• Motives . Research has suggested that readers may donate more if a charity message highlights benefits to donors, such as tax benefits or the opportunity to leave a legacy. However, there is a danger that self-interested motives can conflict with altruistic motives ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Zaval et al., 2015 ; Whillans, 2016 ).

• Endorsement . Some research has found that readers may engage more with charity messages if those messages highlight the endorsement of an authority or public figure ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; de Vries and Lubart, 2019 ).

• Co-benefits . A number of studies have found that climate messages may be more effective if they emphasize the fact that acting on climate change may bring co-benefits. For example, a message may emphasize economic benefits that also arrive by action on climate ( Maibach et al., 2008 ; Markowitz and Shariff, 2012 ; van der Linden et al., 2015 ; Weber, 2016 ; Roser-Renouf and Maibach, 2018 ; Ballew et al., 2019 ).

• Frame . Messages may garner greater support if the content does not discuss climate directly, but instead uses a non-climate frame such as air pollution or health. The effectiveness of this choice also depends on the relevance of the issue ( Whitmarsh et al., 2013 ; Walker et al., 2018 ).

• Proximity . Many research studies have suggested that messages are more engaging when they emphasize consequences that are nearby in space and time. This has been studied in both charitable donations and concern for climate change. However, results are often complex and context-specific ( Spence et al., 2012 ; Evans et al., 2014 ; Milfont et al., 2014 ; Stoknes, 2014 ; Brügger et al., 2015a , b ; McDonald et al., 2015 ; van der Linden et al., 2015 ; Wiest et al., 2015 ; Rickard et al., 2016 ; Weber, 2016 ; Everuss et al., 2017 ; Jones et al., 2017 ; Singh et al., 2017 ; Brugger and Pidgeon, 2018 ; Johannsen et al., 2018 ; Lee et al., 2018 ; Roser-Renouf and Maibach, 2018 ; Schuldt et al., 2018 ; Chen, 2019 ; Chu and Yang, 2019 ; Kim and Ahn, 2019 ; Mildenberger et al., 2019 ; Romero-Canyas et al., 2019 ; Wang et al., 2019 ).

• Social norms . Some studies have found evidence that readers express greater concern for climate change if a message mentions that the readers’ peers are also concerned ( Gifford, 2011 ; Kahan et al., 2012 ; Markowitz and Shariff, 2012 ; Stoknes, 2014 ; van der Linden, 2015 ; van der Linden et al., 2015 ; Ballew et al., 2019 ).

• Growing risk . Messages that emphasize that the issue of climate change is increasing in severity may increase reader concern ( Krosnick et al., 2006 ; Maibach et al., 2008 , 2010 ; Myers et al., 2012 ; Hornsey et al., 2016 ; Berger et al., 2019 ; Chen, 2019 ).

The three messages, which were constructed using systematic combinations of the above characteristics, were designated as high, medium, and low impact based on findings from existing research. The combinations of characteristics present in each of the three messages are summarized in Table 1 . These messages constitute the experimental treatment in this study (see Supplementary Information for full messages).

The core outcome variable in this study is the amount of money donated to the designated charitable organization. We recruited participants from undergraduate science classrooms. We asked each participant to read one of the three messages, assigned at random via an online survey platform (SurveyMonkey). Each participant was informed, via the survey page, that we were giving them $10 in cash. They were offered the opportunity to donate some amount of this cash to the charity. They were told that they could donate any amount from $0 to 10, and that they would keep any money they did not donate.

To correct for differences in donations due to personal factors ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011 ), we also collected data on their characteristics, including their demographics, beliefs, and worldviews, using a survey. At the end, participants received the money they chose to keep, and the money they chose to give was donated to the charity as a lump sum. Participants were also offered the chance to give general feedback. All donations and survey responses were anonymous. Participants were not made aware of the experimental manipulation until after the experiment.

We approached three classrooms, consisting of 79 students, for participation. We selected this number as 55 participants, allowing for 70% completion, achieved a power above 0.95 given an R-squared value of 0.20 and a significance level of 0.05 for multiple regression with 5 predictors ( Cohen, 1992 ). All 79 students chose to participate, and 70 participants (24 high-impact, 24 medium-impact, 22 low-impact) gave complete responses. We only analyzed complete responses, as required by principal component analysis.

Data was collected during three sessions in March and April 2020. The first two sessions were conducted in university laboratories in Adelaide, Australia during teaching hours. The third session (15 participants) was conducted online, since university campuses closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in between sessions of data collection. Participants in the online session were given a version of the experiment where the money was hypothetical only. Existing research shows that hypothetical rewards and real rewards can yield similar findings ( Kühberger et al., 2002 ; Locey et al., 2011 ), although divergences have been documented ( Vlaev, 2012 ). We include the hypothetical participants in the statistical model, but also generate a model where they are excluded to examine the effects of this decision (see Discussion).

The experiment and survey were approved by the School of Psychology Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Adelaide (approval number: H-2020/06).

Statistical Analysis

We generated linear regression models to assess how donation size was affected by the message and the variables corresponding to the demographics, worldviews, and political beliefs. However, many of those latter variables were highly correlated. To transform these correlated donor characteristics into a set of uncorrelated variables, we applied principal component analysis (PCA). This produced a set of principal components (PCs) that each consisted of a linear combination of donor characteristics. We retained the first three components (PC1, PC2, PC3) based on the criterion of Lott (1973), applicable for principal component regression as performed here ( Jolliffe, 2002 ). On the first component (PC1), a lower position corresponded to the political left, support for progressive parties, concern about climate change, and an egalitarian worldview; a higher position corresponded the political right, support for conservative parties, less concern about climate change, and a hierarchical worldview. On the second component (PC2), a lower position corresponded to younger age, less financial security, and an individualist worldview; a higher position corresponded to older age, greater financial security, and a communitarian worldview. On the third component (PC3), a lower position corresponded to lower religious beliefs, older age, and an individualist worldview; a higher position corresponded to greater religious beliefs, younger age, and a communitarian worldview. We note that these are only some of the items that compose each of the PCs; for the visualization, see Supplementary Information .

We generated linear regression models to assess how donation size was affected by the message and the covariates, as represented by the retained PCs ( Table 2 ). We allowed for interaction terms between the message and each PC, as interactions between message characteristics and donor characteristics have been found in previous research ( McDonald et al., 2015 ; Rickard et al., 2016 ; e.g., Kim and Ahn, 2019 ).

Table 2. Linear regression model for the effects of message impact and personal characteristics on money donated.

In our models, we expressed message-impact as a continuous variable. We encountered no need to restrict the response variable to between $0 and 10, as the linear model did not make predictions outside this range. Finally, to express results in a way that is meaningful to a charity organization, we used the models to predict the donation at each message impact, given mean values of PC1 and PC2.

Data analysis was performed in R, using the packages multilevel for Cronbach’s alpha scores, factoextra for principal component analysis, and ggplot2 and sjPlot for visualization ( Bliese, 2016 ; Wickham, 2016 ; Lüdecke, 2018 ; Kassambara and Mundt, 2020 ; R Core Team, 2020 ).

The average donation was AUD $6.10 (SD: $3.56). Without controlling for covariates, the average donation for the high-impact message was $6.83 (SD: $3.91), compared to $5.83 (SD: $3.40) for the medium-impact message and $5.59 (SD: $3.36) for the low-impact message.

The outcome of this experimental study provides preliminary evidence as to how climate organizations can capture greater funding by drawing on findings from scientific research to craft an inspiring message. A boost of 25%, from the low- to the high-impact message, as calculated from model predictions, is substantial when considered across the fundraising efforts of a climate organization or the entire sector ( Bergquist et al., 2020 ). The funding that climate and environmental organizations currently receive is far short of what is necessary to achieve solutions ( Osuri, 2010 ; Waldron et al., 2013 ; Bergquist et al., 2020 ; Ryba and Connell, 2020 ). Achieving a boost in private donations for a minimal investment of effort can be part of the answer.

Evidence can be a powerful motivator for change. There is much progress remaining for society to reach the level of funding necessary to achieve meaningful climate solutions ( Yeo, 2019 ; Nature Climate Change, 2020 ). Fundraisers and the climate organizations that they support have the opportunity to adopt an evidence-based viewpoint on how to captivate donors, drawing upon the evolving literature on philanthropic studies ( Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010 ; Whillans, 2016 ) and climate psychology ( Weber, 2010 , 2016 ; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica, 2014 ). The evidence in our experimental study shows that the financial returns for doing so could be substantial. This provides optimism that the non-profit sector can inspire donors to contribute much-needed resources toward climate solutions.

There are a number of avenues by which our experimental study can be improved. Firstly, our sample size was quite low, at 70 observations across three treatment groups. While this number satisfied our initial power analysis, we were expecting far more participants. However, the university at which participants were recruited was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in between experimental sessions. Indeed, many members of the research community have had to reconsider study design and adjust expectations for this reason ( Barroga and Matanguihan, 2020 ; Coleman et al., 2020 ). The small sample size increases the risk of overinterpreting the data, particularly given the interaction effects and inclusion of three PCs. We included the interaction effects based on previous theoretical and empirical studies on this topic. Likewise, we retained three PCs based on the criterion of Lott (1973). However, this criterion (as with every decision rule for retaining PCs) is imperfect. When the interaction terms or PC3 are dropped, for example, the effect sizes remain similar, but the statistical significance does not. For this reason, we strongly encourage the interpretation of this study as a preliminary foundation for future work with larger sample sizes.

Secondly, and relatedly, a small number of our participants were given an online version of the experiment with rewards that were hypothetical, rather than real. Adapting studies to online platforms is another change that many researchers have had to make ( Garcia and Barclay, 2020 ; Hussain, 2020 ; Vicente et al., 2020 ). The statistical results are very similar when this subgroup is excluded (see Supplementary Information ). Thirdly, manipulation checks may ensure that participants understood the information presented to them. This would help ensure that the treatments are meaningful and effective in bringing about the intended changes ( Hauser et al., 2018 ). Fourthly, the summary statistics of participant demographics reveal that the sample was typical for a university campus, but not necessarily representative of potential audiences of climate organizations (see Supplementary Information ). Given these limitations, we encourage the interpretation of our experimental study as a preliminary step, and we anticipate future studies that take further steps down these avenues toward improving the methodology.

Here, we showed how adopting a broad toolkit from published literature may boost donations to a climate organization. To help organizations make the most of this opportunity, researchers can unpack the science of effective climate appeals at a finer scale. Published studies in that context, using real money, are few ( Milinski et al., 2006 ; Blasch, 2014 ; Ellis et al., 2016 ; Löschel et al., 2017 , 2013 ; Diederich and Goeschl, 2018 ; Goeschl et al., 2018 ; Svenningsen, 2019 ). Openings remain for providing insight into precisely what inspires donors to contribute to climate solutions. We believe that this is an important avenue for future research—providing detailed insight for climate organizations to engage with donors can help capture greater donations, which in turn can help address the resource gap in the societal challenge that is addressing climate change.

In our experimental study, we provided donors with the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback. This revealed one further avenue by which climate charities can be aided: building trust. Several participants expressed skepticism of charities, with comments such as “Charities are rife with misuse of funds,’ and ‘I often find myself skeptical of a charity’s merits.” This skepticism mirrors issues with trust and accountability in the not-for-profit sector as a whole ( Bourassa and Stang, 2016 ; Kantar Public, 2017 ). The emergence of effective altruism , a movement that promotes donating to causes and organizations supported by rigorous, scientific evidence, provides one way for charities to demonstrate their effectiveness ( MacAskill, 2015 ; Singer, 2015 ). Indeed, scientific evidence of a charity’s effectiveness has been shown to increase donations ( Vollan et al., 2017 ), and we selected the charity in this study for its performance in a systematic assessment of climate charities ( Halstead, 2018 ). Educating donors about the scientific evidence for a charitable organization may be a critical step toward restoring donors’ trust and generosity.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by School of Psychology Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Adelaide. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

RR and SC performed investigation. RR performed data curation, formal analysis, and wrote original draft. All authors contributed to review, editing, conceptualization, and methodology.

RR was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. SC was supported by an ARC grant (LP20020100).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the experimental participants for contributing their time and effort, as well as the facilitators for contributing to the smoothly run experimental sessions.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.768823/full#supplementary-material

^ We selected this organization as it ranked as a highly effective, evidence-based climate charity at the time of the study. More recent evidence has revised the conclusion as to this charity’s cost-effectiveness. We encourage interested readers to seek the latest recommendations for cost-effective charities, available from many organizations including Founders Pledge ( www.founderspledge.com ).

Aldrich, E. E. (2016). “Fundraising as a profession,” in Achieving Excellence in Fundraising , eds E. R. Tempel, T. I. Sailer, and D. F. Burlingame (Hoboken: Wiley Publishing), 503–516.

Google Scholar

Ballew, M. T., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S. A., Kotcher, J. E., Marlon, J. R., et al. (2019). Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 61, 4–18. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2019.1589300

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barroga, E., and Matanguihan, G. J. (2020). Fundamental shifts in research, ethics and peer review in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Korean Med. Sci. 35:e395. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e395

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Batavia, C., Bruskotter, J. T., Jones, J. A., Vucetich, J. A., Gosnell, H., and Nelson, M. P. (2018). Nature for whom? How type of beneficiary influences the effectiveness of conservation outreach messages. Biol. Conserv. 228, 158–166. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.029

Bekkers, R., and Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 40, 924–973. doi: 10.1177/0899764010380927

Bekkers, R., and Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving I: religion, education, age and socialisation. Volunt. Sect. Rev. 2, 337–365. doi: 10.1332/204080511x6087712

Berger, N., Lindemann, A.-K., and Boel, G.-F. (2019). Public perception of climate change and implications for risk communication. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesund. 62, 612–619. doi: 10.1007/s00103-019-02930-0

Bergquist, M., Nystrom, L., and Nilsson, A. (2020). Feeling or following? A field-experiment comparing social norms-based and emotions-based motives encouraging pro-environmental donations. J. Consum. Behav. 19, 351–358. doi: 10.1002/cb.1813

Blasch, J. (2014). Consumer Demand for Voluntary Carbon Offsets: The Role of Motivations, Contexts, and Framing for Public Good Provision to Mitigate Climate Change. Zürich: ETH Zurich, doi: 10.3929/ETHZ-A-010345632

Bliese, P. (2016). multilevel: Multilevel Functions. Available Online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=multilevel (accessed September 1, 2021).

Bourassa, M. A., and Stang, A. C. (2016). Knowledge is power: why public knowledge matters to charities. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 21, 13–30. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.1537

Brügger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T. A., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2015a). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1031–1037. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2760

Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., and Dessai, S. (2015b). Hand in hand: public endorsement of climate change mitigation and adaptation. PLoS One 10:e0124843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124843

Brugger, A., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2018). Spatial framing, existing associations and climate change beliefs. Environ. Values 27, 559–584. doi: 10.3197/096327118X15321668325966

Bulte, E., Gerking, S., List, J. A., and de Zeeuw, A. (2005). The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 49, 330–342. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.06.001

Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica (2014). Connecting on Climate: A Guide to Effective Climate Communication. New York: Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.

Chen, M.-F. (2019). Social representations of climate change and pro-environmental behavior intentions in Taiwan. Int. Sociol. 34, 327–346. doi: 10.1177/0268580919832737

Christie, M. (2007). An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method: the case of red kite conservation in the United Kingdom. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 55, 159–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00085.x

Chu, H., and Yang, J. Z. (2019). Emotion and the psychological distance of climate change. Sci. Commun. 41, 761–789. doi: 10.1177/1075547019889637

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–9. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155

Coleman, B. C., Kean, J., Brandt, C. A., Peduzzi, P., and Kerns, R. D. (2020). Adapting to disruption of research during the COVID-19 pandemic while testing nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. Transl. Behav. Med. 10, 827–834. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa074

Cremades, A., and Corcoran, B. (2016). The Art of Startup Fundraising: Pitching Investors, Negotiating the Deal, and Everything Else Entrepreneurs Need to Know , 1st Edition. Hoboken: Wiley.

de Vries, H. B., and Lubart, T. I. (2019). Scientific creativity: divergent and convergent thinking and the impact of culture. J. Creat. Behav. 53, 145–155. doi: 10.1002/jocb.184

Diederich, J., and Goeschl, T. (2018). Voluntary action for climate change mitigation does not exhibit locational preferences. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 90, 175–180. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.03.006

Ellis, S. F., Fooks, J. R., Messer, K. D., and Miller, M. J. (2016). The effects of climate change information on charitable giving for water quality protection: a field experiment. Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev. 45, 319–337. doi: 10.1017/age.2016.17

Evans, L., Milfont, T. L., and Lawrence, J. (2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Glob. Environ. Change 25, 69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.013

Everuss, L., Carvalho, M., Casanova, J. L., Chaffee, D., and Lever-Tracy, C. (2017). Assessing the public willingness to contribute income to mitigate the effects of climate change: a comparison of Adelaide and Lisbon. J. Sociol. 53, 144078331668466. doi: 10.1177/1440783316684661

Garcia, S. G., and Barclay, K. (2020). Adapting Research Methodologies in the Covid-19 Pandemic: Resources for Researchers. Ultimo: University of Technology Sydney.

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66, 290–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566

Goeschl, T., Kettner, S. E., Lohse, J., and Schwieren, C. (2018). From social information to social norms: evidence from two experiments on donation behaviour. Games 9:91. doi: 10.3390/g9040091

Halstead, J. (2018). Climate Change Cause Area Report. London: Founders Pledge.

Hauser, D. J., Ellsworth, P. C., and Gonzalez, R. (2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Front. Psychol. 9:998. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998

Hornsey, M. J., Fielding, K. S., McStay, R., Reser, J. P., and Bradley, G. L. (2016). Are people high in skepticism about anthropogenic climate change necessarily resistant to influence? some cause for optimism. Environ. Behav. 48, 905–928. doi: 10.1177/0013916515574085

Hussain, Z. (2020). Field Research in Lockdown: Revisiting Slow Science in the Time of COVID-19. [Updated 2020]. LSE Blogs. Available Online at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2020/04/29/field-research-in-lockdown-revisiting-slow-science-in-the-time-of-covid-19 (accessed September 1, 2021).

Israel, D. K. (2007). Charitable donations: evidence of demand for environmental protection? Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 13, 171–182. doi: 10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4

Johannsen, I. M., Lassonde, K. A., Wilkerson, F., and Schaab, G. (2018). Communicating climate change: reinforcing comprehension and personal ties to climate change through maps. Cartogr. J. 55, 85–100. doi: 10.1080/00087041.2017.1386834

Jones, C., Hine, D. W., and Marks, A. D. G. (2017). The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Anal. 37, 331–341. doi: 10.1111/risa.12601

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 732–735. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1547

Kantar Public (2017). ACNC Public Trust and Confidence in Australian Charities 2017 . Sydney, NSW: Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

Kassambara, A., and Mundt, F. (2020). factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. Available Online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (accessed September 1, 2021).

Kim, K., and Ahn, S. J. (2019). The moderating role of cultural background in temporal framing: focusing on climate change awareness advertising. Asian J. Commun. 29, 363–385. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2019.1624793

Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Lowe, L., and Visser, P. S. (2006). The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim. Change 77, 7–43. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8

Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., and Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89, 1162–1175. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3

Lee, P.-S., Sung, Y.-H., Wu, C.-C., Ho, L.-C., and Chiou, W.-B. (2018). Using episodic future thinking to pre-experience climate change increases pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 52, 60–81. doi: 10.1177/0013916518790590

Lenda, M., Skórka, P., Mazur, B., Sutherland, W., Tryjanowski, P., Moroń, D., et al. (2020). Effects of amusing memes on concern for unappealing species. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1200–1209. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13523

Lindahl, W. E., and Conley, A. T. (2002). Literature review: philanthropic fundraising. Nonprofit Manage. Leadersh. 13, 91–91.

Locey, M. L., Jones, B. A., and Rachlin, H. (2011). Real and hypothetical rewards. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6, 552–564.

Löschel, A., Sturm, B., and Uehleke, R. (2017). Revealed preferences for voluntary climate change mitigation when the purely individual perspective is relaxed – evidence from a framed field experiment. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 67, 149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.12.007

Löschel, A., Sturm, B., and Vogt, C. (2013). The demand for climate protection—Empirical evidence from Germany. Econ. Lett. 118, 415–418. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.12.007

Lundberg, P., Vainio, A., MacMillan, D. C., Smith, R. J., Verissimo, D., and Arponen, A. (2019). The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate. Anim. Conserv. 22, 432–443. doi: 10.1111/acv.12477

Lundberg, P., Veríssimo, D., Vainio, A., and Arponen, A. (2020). Preferences for different flagship types in fundraising for nature conservation. Biol. Conserv. 250:108738. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108738

MacAskill, W. (2015). Doing Good Better. New York: Avery.

Maibach, E. W., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K., and Diao, G. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10:299. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-299

Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., and Leiserowitz, A. (2008). Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: a public health perspective. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 35, 488–500. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.016

Markowitz, E. M., and Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 243–247. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1378

Markowitz, E. M., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., and Hodges, S. D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8, 397–406.

McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., and Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 109–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003

Mildenberger, M., Lubell, M., and Hummel, M. (2019). Personalized risk messaging can reduce climate concerns. Glob. Environ. Change 55, 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.002

Milfont, T. L., Evans, L., Sibley, C. G., Ries, J., and Cunningham, A. (2014). Proximity to coast is linked to climate change belief. PLoS One 9:e103180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103180

Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Krambeck, H. J., and Marotzke, J. (2006). Stabilizing the Earth’s climate is not a losing game: supporting evidence from public goods experiments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 3994–3998. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0504902103

Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., and Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim. Change 113, 1105–1112. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6

Nature Climate Change (2020). Splashing the cash. Nat. Clim. Change 10:271. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0755-7

Nelson, K. M., Partelow, S., and Schlueter, A. (2019). Nudging tourists to donate for conservation: experimental evidence on soliciting voluntary contributions for coastal management. J. Environ. Manage. 237, 30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.003

Nisbet, M. C. (2018). Strategic philanthropy in the post-Cap-and-Trade years: reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9:e524. doi: 10.1002/wcc.524

Oppenheimer, D. M., and Olivola, C. Y. (2011). The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Osuri, L. T. (2010). Charities warm to climate. Nature 464, 821–821. doi: 10.1038/464821a

Phillips, G. (2016). The Art of Fundraising. Scotts Valley: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Ramutsindela, M., Spierenburg, M., and Wels, H. (2013). Sponsoring Nature: Environmental Philanthropy for Conservation. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9781315066011

Rickard, L. N., Yang, Z. J., and Schuldt, J. P. (2016). Here and now, there and then: how “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Glob. Environ. Change 38, 97–107. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.003

Roberts, J. T., Weikmans, R., Robinson, S., Ciplet, D., Khan, M., and Falzon, D. (2021). Rebooting a failed promise of climate finance. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 180–182. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-00990-2

Romero-Canyas, R., Larson-Konar, D., Redlawsk, D. P., Borie-Holtz, D., Gaby, K., Langer, S., et al. (2019). Bringing the heat home: television spots about local impacts reduce global warming denialism. Environ. Commun. 13, 740–760. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1455725

Roser-Renouf, C., and Maibach, E. W. (2018). “Strategic communication research to illuminate and promote public engagement with climate change,” in Change and Maintaining Change , eds D. A. Hope and R. A. Bevins (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 167–218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96920-6_6

Ryba, R., and Connell, S. D. (2020). Funding conservation through an emerging social movement. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.09.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryba, R., Doubleday, Z. A., Dry, M. J., Semmler, C., and Connell, S. D. (2021). Better writing in scientific publications builds reader confidence and understanding. Front. Psychol. 12:3484. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714321

Schuldt, J. P., Rickard, L. N., and Yang, Z. J. (2018). Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001

Shreedhar, G., and Mourato, S. (2019). Experimental evidence on the impact of biodiversity conservation videos on charitable donations. Ecol. Econ. 158, 180–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.001

Singer, P. (2015). The Most Good You Can Do. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Bruskotter, J. T., and Wilson, R. (2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 73, 93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011

Spence, A., Poortinga, W., and Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32, 957–972. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

Stoknes, P. E. (2014). Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox.” Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 161–170. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007

Svenningsen, L. S. (2019). Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy. Clim. Change 157, 319–336. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02546-y

Thomas-Walters, L., and Raihani, N. J. (2017). Supporting conservation: the roles of flagship species and identifiable victims. Conserv. Lett. 10, 581–587. doi: 10.1111/conl.12319

Uehleke, R., and Sturm, B. (2017). The influence of collective action on the demand for voluntary climate change mitigation in hypothetical and real situations. Environ. Resour. Econ. 67, 429–454. doi: 10.1007/s10640-016-0028-0

van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 112–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012

van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., and Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 758–763. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598516

Veríssimo, D., Vaughan, G., Ridout, M., Waterman, C., MacMillan, D., and Smith, R. J. (2017). Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biol. Conserv. 211, 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.018

Verssimo, D., Campbell, H. A., Tollington, S., MacMillan, D. C., and Smith, R. J. (2018). Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a “real world” campaign. PLoS One 13:e0191888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191888

Vicente, H., Delicado, A., Rowland, J., Estevens, J., Weiß, A., Falanga, R., et al. (2020). “Going virtual: finding new ways to engage higher education students in a participatory project about science,” in Research in the Age of COVID: Vol. 1, Response and Reassessment , eds H. Kara and S. M. Khoo (Bristol: Bristol University Press), 20–29. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv18gfz2s.7

Vlaev, I. (2012). How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 33, 963–972. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.005

Vollan, B., Henning, K., and Staewa, D. (2017). Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment. J. Dev. Effect. 9, 500–518. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2017.1377752

Waldron, A., Mooers, A. O., Miller, D. C., Nibbelink, N., Redding, D., Kuhn, T. S., et al. (2013). Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 12144–12148. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221370110

Walker, B. J. A., Kurz, T., and Russel, D. (2018). Towards an understanding of when non-climate frames can generate public support for climate change policy. Environ. Behav. 50, 781–806. doi: 10.1177/0013916517713299

Wang, S., Hurlstone, M. J., Leviston, Z., Walker, I., and Lawrence, C. (2019). Climate change from a distance: an analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. Front. Psychol. 10:230. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00230

Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1, 332–342. doi: 10.1002/wcc.41

Weber, E. U. (2016). What shapes perceptions of climate change? New research since 2010. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 7, 125–134. doi: 10.1002/wcc.377

Whillans, A. V. (2016). A Brief Introduction to the Science of Fundraising. Washington: Council for Advancement and Support of Education.

Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., and Lorenzoni, I. (2013). Public engagement with climate change: what do we know and where do we go from here? Int. J. Media Cult. Polit. 9, 7–25. doi: 10.1386/macp.9.1.7_1

Wiest, S. L., Raymond, L., and Clawson, R. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 31, 187–198. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006

Yen, S. T., Boxall, P. C., and Adamowicz, W. L. (1997). An econometric analysis of donations for environmental conservation in Canada. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 22, 246–263.

Yeo, S. (2019). Where climate cash is flowing and why it’s not enough. Nature 573, 328–331. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02712-3

Zaval, L., Markowitz, E. M., and Weber, E. U. (2015). How will I be remembered? conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychol. Sci. 26, 231–236. doi: 10.1177/0956797614561266

Keywords : communication, conservation, effective altruism, non-profit, philanthropy

Citation: Ryba R, Dry MJ and Connell SD (2022) Climate Donations Inspired by Evidence-Based Fundraising. Front. Psychol. 13:768823. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.768823

Received: 01 September 2021; Accepted: 31 January 2022; Published: 07 March 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Ryba, Dry and Connell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sean D. Connell, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Experimental Studies on Nonprofit Fundraising

Jon Scaccia

Have you ever wondered what makes people donate to charities? How can nonprofit organizations effectively raise funds? The article A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising “by Abhishek Bhati and Ruth K. Hansen delves deep into these questions. This blog aims to unpack their findings and explore the practical applications for nonprofits, especially in diversifying their funding sources.

The Heart of Giving: Understanding Donor Motivations

Bhati and Hansen’s review sheds light on what drives people to give. They found that a variety of factors, including emotions, social pressures, and personal values can influence donor motivation. Understanding these motivations is crucial for nonprofits seeking to engage with potential donors effectively.

Emotions and Giving

The study highlights that emotions play a significant role in charitable giving. Images and narratives that evoke feelings like sympathy, guilt, or a sense of connection can significantly impact donation behaviors. Nonprofits can use this insight to craft compelling stories and visuals that resonate with their audience’s emotions.

Social Influences and Giving

Social factors, such as being observed by others or learning about the donations of peers, can also influence giving. This suggests that creating opportunities for public recognition or building communities around causes can be effective strategies for nonprofits.

Fundraising Practices and Techniques

The article also examines various fundraising techniques and their effectiveness. From using specific images in campaigns to setting suggested donation amounts, the study offers valuable insights for nonprofits looking to optimize their fundraising strategies.

The Power of Images

One interesting finding is the impact of using images in fundraising appeals. Images of sad children, for example, were found to be more effective in eliciting donations than those of happy children. This underlines the importance of visual storytelling in fundraising efforts.

Suggested Donation Amounts

Another key finding is the impact of suggesting specific donation amounts. It turns out that people are more likely to donate when given a suggested amount, as it provides a reference point and simplifies the decision-making process.

Diversifying Funding Sources

An essential takeaway from Bhati and Hansen’s review is the importance of diversifying funding sources. Relying on a single type of donor or fundraising method can be risky. Nonprofits should explore various channels and strategies, from traditional fundraising events to digital campaigns, to ensure a steady and varied income stream.

Final Thoughts

For nonprofit organizations and individuals passionate about charitable work, Bhati and Hansen’s article is a treasure trove of information. It not only offers insights into donor psychology but also provides practical tips for effective fundraising. I encourage readers to delve into the original article to gain a deeper understanding of these dynamics.As we continue to support the causes we care about, let’s use these insights to make our efforts more impactful and meaningful.

Ready to transform your nonprofit’s funding approach? Participate in our quick, interactive Nonprofit Revenue Readiness Meter It’s not just a survey; it’s the first step towards a more resilient and impactful future for your organization. Your insights will help us tailor strategies that align with your unique mission and goals. Don’t miss this chance to be part of the change. Take the survey now!

IMAGES

PDF online donation requests for silent auctions PDF Télécharger Download
(PDF) Experimental research in expatriation and its challenges: A literature review and
Research method of this paper conference 2.1 Literature Review
Literature Review: Highly Effective Undergraduate Intervention Strategies
Literature Review
Literature Review

VIDEO

How to Ask for an Estate Gift Without Fear or Anxiety: The Science and the Sentences
Harvard i-lab
Approaches to Literature Review
Film Experiment 04.20.24
WRITING THE LITERATURE REVIEW #research#trending
What is the biblical model of fundraising?

COMMENTS

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between 2007-2019. Interest in studying fundraising spans many disciplines, each of which tends to focus on different aspects, supporting earlier claims ...
A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
Abstract. This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on ...
A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between 2007-2019. Interest in studying fundraising spans many disciplines, each of which tends to focus ...
A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
Abstract: This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between 2007-2019. Interest in studying fundraising spans many disciplines, each of which tends ...
A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on fundraising, published in journals across diverse disciplines between ... A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising.
A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
Abstract. This paper extends previous literature reviews focusing on fundraising and the mechanisms motivating charitable giving. We analyze 187 experimental research articles focusing on ...
Reframing fundraising research: The challenges and opportunities of
A review of scholarly fundraising studies across various disciplinary perspectives reveals a focus on donor motivations, and the most effective drivers of charitable giving. Many of these studies investigate fundraising as a technical, organization-level undertaking and measuring donor responses to "everyman" solicitation techniques (Hansen ...
A Literature Review of Experimental Studies in Fundraising
In Press at Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Accepted for Publication on August 18, 2021; A Literature Review of Experimental Studies in Fundraising; Prosocial Behavior: a Dual Process Account of How Others' Actions Influence Donation Decisions; Communicating Science Effectively: a Research Agenda; Downloaded From; Lu Cornellgrad 0058F ...
Does Windfall Money Encourage Charitable Giving? An Experimental Study
Studies of nonprofit management have begun to use more experiments recently (for a systematic literature review, see Li and Van Ryzin 2017).For example, Kim et al. showed the way in which different experiments, such as online survey experiments, laboratory experiments, and field experiments, can be used to examine nonprofits' fundraising strategies and individuals' charitable giving decisions.
An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and
Our study builds on this body of work and takes as inspiration studies that highlight the importance of warm glow 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 and a related literature in marketing exploring the ...
Approaching Certain Fundraising Methods and a Revised Theory ...
The results of a study conducted by Hou et al. indicated that, for individual donors, the perceived effectiveness of a particular nonprofit organization exerts a positive influence on both the donation intention and the donation behavior.Moreover, it was concluded that there is a positive relationship between the donation intention and the subsequent behavior.
PDF A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising
of fundraising. We systematically review studies using experimental methods during the period 2007 to 2019 across diverse disciplines. This review extends earlier reviews such as Lindahl & Conley (2002) and Bekkers & Wiepking (2011) (which collected data through 2007) but is also more narrowly focused on fundraising studies using experimental ...
A field experiment on fundraising to support ...
There is a vast literature on the efficacy of alternative fundraising techniques by charities. Many papers use field experiments to explore the efficacy of matching schemes (e.g. Huck, Rasul, Shephard, 2015, Karlan, List, Shafir, 2011 ), while others look at the effect of providing information on charity effectiveness ( Karlan and Wood, 2017 ...
A thematic analysis of fundraiser ...
Of the approximately 1169 studies in the review, less than 7% (83) focused on either the fundraiser or the fundraiser-donor relationship. This study responds to the need to study fundraising more holistically, including by researching the neglected fundraiser, while reflecting nonprofits' practical interest in fruitful major donor relationships.
How Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media for Fundraising: A
How Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media for Fundraising: A. Systematic Literature Review. Stefano Di Lauro, Aizhan Tursunbayeva2,3 & Gilda Antonelli. 1 Department of Economics, Management ...
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight
The authors present an overview of the academic literature on charitable giving based on a literature review of more than 500 articles. They structure their review around the central question of why people donate money to charitable organizations.
Does Windfall Money Encourage Charitable Giving? An Experimental Study
gest new experimental designs that can be used for future studies and discuss the implication of our findings. Literature Review Studies of nonprofit management have begun to use more experiments recently (for a systematic literature review, see Li and Van Ryzin 2017). For example, Kim et al. (2017) showed the way in which different experiments,
Climate Donations Inspired by Evidence-Based Fundraising
Here, we show the potential monetary gains that may arise from doing so, through an experimental study involving real donors giving real money to a climate charity. Crafting Captivating Messages: An Experimental Study. A climate organization that engages with the literature on effective messaging may receive significant financial returns.
Fundraising Literature Review: How To Incentive Donor Generosity
Key Takeaways. This literature review explores three main areas of donor generosity and summarizes seminal scientific experiments to reveal ways to help donors build habits of giving, including: Donor engagement and retention techniques. Messaging and framing. Donor behaviors around grouping and set completion.
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight
The authors present an overview of the academic literature on charitable giving based on a literature review of more than 500 articles. ... Bennett R., Gabriel H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 276-289 ... Three experiments on nonprofit ...
Reflections and Refinements (Part II)
A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (5), 924 ... A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3 (1), 1 ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Experimental Studies on Nonprofit Fundraising
The article A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising"by Abhishek Bhati and Ruth K. Hansen delves deep into these questions. This blog aims to unpack their findings and explore the practical applications for nonprofits, especially in diversifying their funding sources.

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Article Sidebar

Similar Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Modal Header

Browse Econ Literature

More features

RePEc Biblio

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Corrections

Suggested Citation

RePEc Genealogy

New papers by email

EconAcademics

About RePEc

Participating archives

Privacy statement

Get papers listed

Open a RePEc archive

Get RePEc data

A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits

Access options

Similar content being viewed by others

Loneliness trajectories over three decades are associated with conspiracist worldviews in midlife

People are surprisingly hesitant to reach out to old friends

Participatory action research

Code availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary information

Reporting summary

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Warming up cool cooperators

Quick links

Approaching Certain Fundraising Methods and a Revised Theory of Planned Behavior in an Experimental Framework

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Download citation

Share this paper

PERSPECTIVE article

Introduction

The Science of Climate Charity

Crafting Captivating Messages: An Experimental Study

Data Collection

Statistical Analysis

Data Availability Statement

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Acknowledgments

Supplementary Material

Experimental Studies on Nonprofit Fundraising

The Heart of Giving: Understanding Donor Motivations

Emotions and Giving

Social Influences and Giving

Fundraising Practices and Techniques

The Power of Images

Suggested Donation Amounts

Diversifying Funding Sources

Final Thoughts

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS