How can charities solicit high-capacity donors to provide the funds for matching grants and leadership gifts? In conjunction with Texas A&M University’s fundraising organizations, we conducted a field experiment to study whether high-income donors respond to nonpersonal solicitations. We also designed the experiment to test the impact of allowing for directed giving on the giving behavior of high-income donors and their willingness to direct their donations toward overhead costs. High-income donors are not responsive to letters or emails, regardless of whether they have the option to direct giving; we cannot conclude, therefore, that giving behavior is different for those who could direct giving compared with those who could not. Our results highlight the difficulties of motivating some high-income donors, especially when only impersonal communication is used.
AndreoniJ. (2006). Philanthropy. In KolmS.-C.MercierJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity (pp. 1201–1269). Elsevier/North-Holland.
2.
AndreoniJ.NikiforakisN.StoopJ. (2017). Are the rich more selfish than the poor, or do they just have more money? A natural field experiment (Working Paper No. w23229). National Bureau of Economic Research.
3.
AndreoniJ.PayneA. A. (2013). Charitable giving. In AuerbachA. J.ChettyR.FeldsteinM.SaezE. (Eds.), Handbook of public economics (pp. 1–50). Elsevier/North Holland.
4.
BennettR. (2009). Regret and satisfaction as determinants of lapsed donor recommencement decisions. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21(4), 347–366.
5.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A.SavulescuJ.KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9(4), 303–315.
6.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2008). Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 234–252.
7.
EckelC. C.HerberichD. H.MeerJ. (2017). A field experiment on directed giving at a public university. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 66–71.
8.
EckelC. C.HerberichD. H.MeerJ. (2018). It’s not the thought that counts: A field experiment on gift exchange at a public university. In ScharfK.ToninM. (Eds.), The economics of philanthropy: Donations and fundrasing (pp. 145–159). MIT Press.
9.
ExleyC. L. (2020). Using charity performance metrics as an excuse not to give. Management Science, 66(2), 553–563.
10.
FalkA. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501–1511.
11.
GeeL.MeerJ. (2020). The altruism budget: Measuring and encouraging charitable giving. In PowellW. W.BromleyP. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (3rd ed.). (pp. 558–565). Stanford University Press.
HuckS.RasulI. (2011). Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 351–362.
14.
JamesR. N.IIISharpeD. L. (2007). The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 218–238.
15.
KarlanD.ListJ. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774–1793.
16.
KesslerJ. B.MilkmanK. L.ZhangC. Y. (2019). Getting the rich and powerful to give. Management Science, 65(9), 4049–4062.
17.
KorndörferM.EgloffB.SchmukleS. C. (2015). A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PLOS ONE, 10(7), Article e0133193.
18.
LandryC. E.LangeA.ListJ. A.PriceM. K.RuppN. G. (2010). Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 100(3), 958–983.
19.
LevinT.LevittS. D.ListJ. A. (2016). A glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign (Working Paper No. w22099). National Bureau of Economic Research.
20.
LiS. X.EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J.BrownT. L. (2015). Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government. Economics Letters, 133, 51–54.
21.
LindahlW. E.WinshipC. (1992). Predictive models for annual fundraising and major gift fundraising. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(1), 43–64.
22.
ListJ. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180.
23.
ListJ. A. (2020). Non est disputandum de generalizability? A glimpse into the external validity trial (No. w27535). National Bureau of Economic Research.
24.
ListJ. A.Lucking-ReileyD. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 215–233.
25.
MeerJ. (2013). The habit of giving. Economic Inquiry, 51(4), 2002–2017.
26.
MeerJ. (2014). Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103, 113–124.
27.
MeerJ. (2017a). Are overhead costs a good guide for charitable giving?IZA World of Labor, 329, January 2017.
28.
MeerJ. (2017b). Does fundraising create new giving?Journal of Public Economics, 145, 82–93.
29.
MeerJ.PridayB. (2020). Generosity across the income and wealth distributions (Working Paper No. 27076). National Bureau of Economic Research.
30.
MeerJ.RosenH. S. (2009). Altruism and the child cycle of alumni donations. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(1), 258–286.
31.
MeerJ.RosenH. S. (2011). The ABCs of charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 926–941.
32.
NathanA.HallamL. (2009). A qualitative investigation into the donor lapsing experience. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(4), 317–331.
33.
PortilloJ. E.StinnJ. (2018). Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others?Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 72, 40–50.
34.
RosenH. S.SimsS. T. (2011). Altruistic behavior and habit formation. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(3), 235–253.
35.
SargeantA. (2001). Using donor lifetime value to inform fundraising strategy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(1), 25–38.
36.
SargeantA.JayE. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser’s guide to increasing lifetime value. John Wiley.
37.
SmeetsP.BauerR.GneezyU. (2015). Giving behavior of millionaires. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(34), 10641–10644.
38.
TinkelmanD.MankaneyK. (2007). When is administrative efficiency associated with charitable donations?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 41–64.
39.
VesterlundL. (2016). Using experimental methods to understand why and how we give to charity. Handbook of Experimental Economics, 2, 91–151.
40.
WhillansA. V.DunnE. W. (2018). Agentic appeals increase charitable giving in an affluent sample of donors. PLOS ONE, 13(12), Article e0208392.
41.
WorthM. J. (2015). Fundraising principles and practice. SAGE.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
