Loading…
Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment
To further our understanding of the economics of charity, we conducted a natural field experiment. Making use of two direct mail solicitations sent to nearly 20,000 prior donors to a charity, we tested the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. We find only weak evide...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of public economics 2011-06, Vol.95 (5), p.344-350 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3 |
container_end_page | 350 |
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 344 |
container_title | Journal of public economics |
container_volume | 95 |
creator | Karlan, Dean List, John A. Shafir, Eldar |
description | To further our understanding of the economics of charity, we conducted a natural field experiment. Making use of two direct mail solicitations sent to nearly 20,000 prior donors to a charity, we tested the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. We find only weak evidence that either of the matches work; in fact, for the full sample, the match only increased giving
after the match deadline expired. Yet, the aggregation masks important heterogeneities: those donors who are actively supporting the organization tend to be positively influenced whereas lapsed givers are either not affected or adversely affected. Furthermore, some presentations of the match can do harm, e.g., when an example amount given is high ($75) and the match ratio is below $1:$1. Overall, the results help clarify what might cause people to give and provide further evidence that larger match ratios are not necessarily superior to smaller match ratios.
► We ran a natural field experiment sending solicitations to prior donors to a charity. ► We test the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. ► We find only weak evidence that either match works. ► Active donors to the organization, but not lapsed givers, are positively influenced. ► Context and donor heterogeneity can be important for fundraising outcomes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.024 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_865524381</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0047272710001842</els_id><sourcerecordid>865524381</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1rGzEQxUVpoK6TP6GgW0_r6GO12u2lFJOkAZce0pzFSJq1Zfar0trE_31lbHrN4c3A8N5j-BHyhbMVZ7y636_208GiG1eCnW98xUT5gSx4rZtCSF59JAvGSl0ILfQn8jmlPWOMy6ZekF8vPXQd7WF2O0wUBk_dDmKYwXZIt-EYhu03-nAMHgeHtI1jT4EOMB8idLQN2HmKbxPG0OMw35KbFrqEd9e9JK-PD3_WP4vN76fn9Y9N4ZRgc9Ggt2UNzgv0FRNao9VWM-EbIZmX1omSOQveC26FU1YAb6FptPWqEZUGuSRfL71THP8eMM2mD8lh18GA4yGZulJKlLLm2akuThfHlCK2ZsqvQjwZzsyZntmbKz1zpmc4N5lezm0uuYgTuv8hRLyaj0ZCo_I4ZeUkzytkKVPlOWXJsjRSMbOb-1z3_VKHmcoxYDTJhTNRHyK62fgxvPPQP95jla8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>865524381</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Karlan, Dean ; List, John A. ; Shafir, Eldar</creator><creatorcontrib>Karlan, Dean ; List, John A. ; Shafir, Eldar</creatorcontrib><description>To further our understanding of the economics of charity, we conducted a natural field experiment. Making use of two direct mail solicitations sent to nearly 20,000 prior donors to a charity, we tested the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. We find only weak evidence that either of the matches work; in fact, for the full sample, the match only increased giving
after the match deadline expired. Yet, the aggregation masks important heterogeneities: those donors who are actively supporting the organization tend to be positively influenced whereas lapsed givers are either not affected or adversely affected. Furthermore, some presentations of the match can do harm, e.g., when an example amount given is high ($75) and the match ratio is below $1:$1. Overall, the results help clarify what might cause people to give and provide further evidence that larger match ratios are not necessarily superior to smaller match ratios.
► We ran a natural field experiment sending solicitations to prior donors to a charity. ► We test the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. ► We find only weak evidence that either match works. ► Active donors to the organization, but not lapsed givers, are positively influenced. ► Context and donor heterogeneity can be important for fundraising outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0047-2727</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2316</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.024</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Charitable giving ; Charitable giving Matching Warm and cold list donors ; Charity ; Comparative analysis ; Donation ; Economic behaviour ; Experiments ; Fund-raising ; Matching ; Measurement ; Warm and cold list donors</subject><ispartof>Journal of public economics, 2011-06, Vol.95 (5), p.344-350</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33224</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeepubeco/v_3a95_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a5-6_3ap_3a344-350.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Karlan, Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>List, John A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shafir, Eldar</creatorcontrib><title>Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment</title><title>Journal of public economics</title><description>To further our understanding of the economics of charity, we conducted a natural field experiment. Making use of two direct mail solicitations sent to nearly 20,000 prior donors to a charity, we tested the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. We find only weak evidence that either of the matches work; in fact, for the full sample, the match only increased giving
after the match deadline expired. Yet, the aggregation masks important heterogeneities: those donors who are actively supporting the organization tend to be positively influenced whereas lapsed givers are either not affected or adversely affected. Furthermore, some presentations of the match can do harm, e.g., when an example amount given is high ($75) and the match ratio is below $1:$1. Overall, the results help clarify what might cause people to give and provide further evidence that larger match ratios are not necessarily superior to smaller match ratios.
► We ran a natural field experiment sending solicitations to prior donors to a charity. ► We test the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. ► We find only weak evidence that either match works. ► Active donors to the organization, but not lapsed givers, are positively influenced. ► Context and donor heterogeneity can be important for fundraising outcomes.</description><subject>Charitable giving</subject><subject>Charitable giving Matching Warm and cold list donors</subject><subject>Charity</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Donation</subject><subject>Economic behaviour</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Fund-raising</subject><subject>Matching</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Warm and cold list donors</subject><issn>0047-2727</issn><issn>1879-2316</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1rGzEQxUVpoK6TP6GgW0_r6GO12u2lFJOkAZce0pzFSJq1Zfar0trE_31lbHrN4c3A8N5j-BHyhbMVZ7y636_208GiG1eCnW98xUT5gSx4rZtCSF59JAvGSl0ILfQn8jmlPWOMy6ZekF8vPXQd7WF2O0wUBk_dDmKYwXZIt-EYhu03-nAMHgeHtI1jT4EOMB8idLQN2HmKbxPG0OMw35KbFrqEd9e9JK-PD3_WP4vN76fn9Y9N4ZRgc9Ggt2UNzgv0FRNao9VWM-EbIZmX1omSOQveC26FU1YAb6FptPWqEZUGuSRfL71THP8eMM2mD8lh18GA4yGZulJKlLLm2akuThfHlCK2ZsqvQjwZzsyZntmbKz1zpmc4N5lezm0uuYgTuv8hRLyaj0ZCo_I4ZeUkzytkKVPlOWXJsjRSMbOb-1z3_VKHmcoxYDTJhTNRHyK62fgxvPPQP95jla8</recordid><startdate>20110601</startdate><enddate>20110601</enddate><creator>Karlan, Dean</creator><creator>List, John A.</creator><creator>Shafir, Eldar</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110601</creationdate><title>Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment</title><author>Karlan, Dean ; List, John A. ; Shafir, Eldar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Charitable giving</topic><topic>Charitable giving Matching Warm and cold list donors</topic><topic>Charity</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Donation</topic><topic>Economic behaviour</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Fund-raising</topic><topic>Matching</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Warm and cold list donors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Karlan, Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>List, John A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shafir, Eldar</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of public economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Karlan, Dean</au><au>List, John A.</au><au>Shafir, Eldar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment</atitle><jtitle>Journal of public economics</jtitle><date>2011-06-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>344</spage><epage>350</epage><pages>344-350</pages><issn>0047-2727</issn><eissn>1879-2316</eissn><abstract>To further our understanding of the economics of charity, we conducted a natural field experiment. Making use of two direct mail solicitations sent to nearly 20,000 prior donors to a charity, we tested the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. We find only weak evidence that either of the matches work; in fact, for the full sample, the match only increased giving
after the match deadline expired. Yet, the aggregation masks important heterogeneities: those donors who are actively supporting the organization tend to be positively influenced whereas lapsed givers are either not affected or adversely affected. Furthermore, some presentations of the match can do harm, e.g., when an example amount given is high ($75) and the match ratio is below $1:$1. Overall, the results help clarify what might cause people to give and provide further evidence that larger match ratios are not necessarily superior to smaller match ratios.
► We ran a natural field experiment sending solicitations to prior donors to a charity. ► We test the effectiveness of $1:$1 and $1:$3 matching grants on charitable giving. ► We find only weak evidence that either match works. ► Active donors to the organization, but not lapsed givers, are positively influenced. ► Context and donor heterogeneity can be important for fundraising outcomes.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.024</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0047-2727 |
ispartof | Journal of public economics, 2011-06, Vol.95 (5), p.344-350 |
issn | 0047-2727 1879-2316 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_865524381 |
source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ScienceDirect Freedom Collection |
subjects | Charitable giving Charitable giving Matching Warm and cold list donors Charity Comparative analysis Donation Economic behaviour Experiments Fund-raising Matching Measurement Warm and cold list donors |
title | Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T12%3A01%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Small%20matches%20and%20charitable%20giving:%20Evidence%20from%20a%20natural%20field%20experiment&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20public%20economics&rft.au=Karlan,%20Dean&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=344&rft.epage=350&rft.pages=344-350&rft.issn=0047-2727&rft.eissn=1879-2316&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.024&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E865524381%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-9edb48acd2ed60277eb7b702d9230d3bc240cbadd21b2c5b2a1fa997bd59267a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=865524381&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |