Performance measurement is considered useful in guiding donations to charities. We investigated whether efficiency rates predominately guide donations relative to available alternatives, or influence donation amounts. Across four studies (N = 460), participants evaluating charity advertisements saw randomly assigned efficiency rates presented as background information. Participants could pledge a portion of a gift card, offered in return for participation, to their pick of presented charities. Participants were sensitive to relative, but not absolute, efficiency, giving more often to more relatively efficient charities but generally did not pledge them more money. Even providing an explicit standard of efficiency did not create an absolute sensitivity to efficiency, suggesting that efficiency information, steers, rather than encourages, or discourages, donations overall.
BatsonC. D. (2014). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
4.
BedsworthW.GregoryA. G.HowardD. (2008). Nonprofit overhead costs: Breaking the vicious cycle of misleading reporting, unrealistic expectations, and pressure to conform. Boston, MA: Bridgespan Group.
5.
BowmanW. (2006). Should donors care about overhead costs? Do they care?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 288-310.
6.
CallenJ. L. (1994). Money donations, volunteering and organizational efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 5, 215-228.
7.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A.SavulescuJ.KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 303-315.
8.
CialdiniR. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126.
9.
CnaanR. A.JonesK.DickinA.SalomonM. (2011). Nonprofit watchdogs: Do they serve the average donor?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21, 381-397. doi:10.1002/nml.20032
10.
CunninghamK.RicksM. (2004). Why measure: Nonprofits use metrics to show that they are efficient: But what if donors don’t care?Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2, 44-51.
GregoryA. G.HowardD. (2009, August). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7, 49-53.
13.
Grey Matter Research & Consulting. (2008). Where’d my money go? Americans’ perceptions of the financial efficiency of non-profit organizations. Phoenix, AZ: Grey Matter Research & Consulting.
14.
HagerM. A.WingK. (2004). The quality of financial reporting by nonprofits: Findings and implications. Washington, DC: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, Urban Institute.
Hope Consulting. (2012). Money for good: The US market for impact investments and charitable gifts from individual donors and investors. San Francisco, CA: Hope Consulting.
17.
HseeC. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67, 247-257.
18.
HseeC. K.LoewensteinG. F.BlountS.BazermanM. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576-590.
19.
HseeC. K.RottenstreichY. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23-30.
20.
HseeC. K.ZhangJ. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 343-355.
21.
JenniK.LoewensteinG. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235-257.
22.
KrishnanR.YetmanM. H.YetmanR. J. (2006). Expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 81, 399-420.
23.
LowellS.TrelstadB.MeehanB. (2005). The ratings game. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3, 38-45.
24.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG.SlovicP. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143-153.
25.
SteinbergR. (1986). Charitable giving as a mixed public/private good: Implications for tax policy. Public Finance Quarterly, 14, 415-431.
26.
StorkD.WoodillaJ. (2008). Nonprofit organizations: An introduction to charity rating sources and cautions in their use. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 6(4), 1-122.
27.
SzperR.PrakashA. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based regulation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 112-141.
28.
WilliamsR. (1869). The Nicomachean ethics of Aristotle (Page 56). London, England: Longmans, Green & Co.
29.
ZajoncR. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.
