It's Not the Thought that Counts: A Field Experiment on Gift Exchange and Giving at a Public University

Catherine C. Eckel, David H. Herberich, J. Meer
{"title":"It's Not the Thought that Counts: A Field Experiment on Gift Exchange and Giving at a Public University","authors":"Catherine C. Eckel, David H. Herberich, J. Meer","doi":"10.3386/W22867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most important outstanding questions in fundraising is whether donor premiums, or gifts to prospective donors, are effective in increasing donations. Donors may be motivated by reciprocity, making premium recipients more likely to donate and give larger donations. Or donors may dislike premiums, preferring instead to maximize the value of their donations to the charity; in this case donor premiums would be ineffective. We conduct a field experiment in conjunction with the fundraising campaign of a major university to examine these questions. Treatments include a control, an unconditional premium with two gift quality levels, and a set of conditional premium treatments. The conditional treatments include opt-out and opt-in conditions to test whether donors prefer to forego premiums. Compared with the control, donors are twice as likely to give when they receive an unconditional, high-quality gift. The low-quality unconditional and all conditional premiums have little impact on the likelihood or level of giving. Donors do not respond negatively to premiums: rates of giving do not suffer when premiums are offered. In addition, few opt out given the opportunity to do so, indicating that they like gifts, and suggesting that reciprocity rather than altruism determines the impact of premiums on giving.","PeriodicalId":18934,"journal":{"name":"National Bureau of Economic Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Bureau of Economic Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W22867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

One of the most important outstanding questions in fundraising is whether donor premiums, or gifts to prospective donors, are effective in increasing donations. Donors may be motivated by reciprocity, making premium recipients more likely to donate and give larger donations. Or donors may dislike premiums, preferring instead to maximize the value of their donations to the charity; in this case donor premiums would be ineffective. We conduct a field experiment in conjunction with the fundraising campaign of a major university to examine these questions. Treatments include a control, an unconditional premium with two gift quality levels, and a set of conditional premium treatments. The conditional treatments include opt-out and opt-in conditions to test whether donors prefer to forego premiums. Compared with the control, donors are twice as likely to give when they receive an unconditional, high-quality gift. The low-quality unconditional and all conditional premiums have little impact on the likelihood or level of giving. Donors do not respond negatively to premiums: rates of giving do not suffer when premiums are offered. In addition, few opt out given the opportunity to do so, indicating that they like gifts, and suggesting that reciprocity rather than altruism determines the impact of premiums on giving.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
思想不重要:一所公立大学关于礼物交换和赠送的实地实验
筹款中最重要的突出问题之一是,捐赠者溢价或给潜在捐赠者的礼物是否能有效地增加捐款。捐赠者可能出于互惠的动机,使优质接受者更有可能捐赠,并提供更多的捐赠。或者捐赠者可能不喜欢溢价,而是更喜欢将他们对慈善机构的捐赠价值最大化;在这种情况下,捐赠方的保费将是无效的。我们结合一所重点大学的筹款活动,进行了一个实地实验来检验这些问题。治疗包括一个控制,一个无条件的奖励,有两个礼物质量水平,和一组有条件的奖励治疗。有条件治疗包括选择退出和选择加入条件,以测试捐赠者是否愿意放弃保费。与对照组相比,当捐赠者收到无条件的、高质量的礼物时,他们捐赠的可能性是对照组的两倍。低质量的无条件和所有有条件的保费对捐赠的可能性或水平影响不大。捐助者不会对溢价作出负面反应:提供溢价时,捐赠率不会受到影响。此外,如果有机会,很少有人会选择退出,这表明他们喜欢礼物,这表明是互惠而不是利他主义决定了溢价对捐赠的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maximum Employment and the Participation Cycle Gay Politics Goes Mainstream: Democrats, Republicans, and Same-Sex Relationships Welfare and Output with Income Effects and Taste Shocks Which Markets (Don't) Drive Pharmaceutical Innovation? Evidence From U.S. Medicaid Expansions School Reopenings, Mobility, and COVID-19 Spread: Evidence from Texas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1