In the United States, most charitable donations go to religiously affiliated organizations, yet the impact of a charity’s affiliation on donor behavior is currently unclear. To better understand this impact, this article uses a laboratory experiment to explore how a charity’s religious affiliation drives donor behavior. In the experiment, participants select one charity from a list of eight, with each charity varying in religious affiliation. Masked and unmasked sessions differ in the inclusion of religious affiliation from half the charities, with masked sessions omitting religious affiliation of the charities. This article finds that adding religious language decreases donation frequency and average donation amounts for Christian charities competing against other religious charities. This drop is primarily driven by participants that are politically liberal. Participants prefer charity religious affiliation to match their own religious identity; however, participant strength of religiosity is more predictive in charity choice than religious affiliation.
AbelerJ.FalkA.GoetteL.HuffmanD. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 470–492.
2.
AiC.NortonE. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123–129.
3.
AndersonL. R.MellorJ. M. (2009). Religion and cooperation in a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 105(1), 58–60.
4.
AndersonL. R.MellorJ. M.MilyoJ. (2010). Did the devil make them do it? The effects of religion in public goods and trust games. Kyklos, 63(2), 163–175.
5.
BakerJ. O.PerryS. L.WhiteheadA. L. (2020). Keep America Christian (and White): Christian nationalism, fear of ethnoracial outsiders, and intention to vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Sociology of Religion, 81(3), 272–293.
6.
BanksA. M. (2009, May15). Christian children’s fund drops “Christian” from name. Christianity Today.
7.
BekkersR.SchuytT. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.
8.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.
9.
BenjaminD. J.ChoiJ. J.FisherG. (2016). Religious identity and economic behavior. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(4), 617–637.
10.
BottanN. L.Perez-TrugliaR. (2015). Losing my religion: The effects of religious scandals on religious participation and charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 129, 106–119.
11.
BrennerP. S. (2011a). Exceptional behavior or exceptional identity? Overreporting of church attendance in the US. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1), 19–41.
12.
BrennerP. S. (2011b). Identity importance and the overreporting of religious service attendance: Multiple imputation of religious attendance using the American time use study and the General Social Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 103–115.
13.
BrennerP. S. (2011c). Investigating the biasing effect of identity in self-reports of socially desirable behavior. Sociological Focus, 44(1), 55–75.
14.
BrownA. L.MeerJ.WilliamsJ. F. (2017). Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 9–15.
15.
ChapmanC. M.LouisW. R.MasserB. M. (2018). Identifying (our) donors: Toward a social psychological understanding of charity selection in Australia. Psychology & Marketing, 35(12), 980–989.
16.
ChenR.ChenY.LiuY.MeiQ. (2017). Does team competition increase pro-social lending? Evidence from online microfinance. Games and Economic Behavior, 101, 311–333.
17.
DurhamM. (2000). The Christian right, the far right and the boundaries of American conservatism. Manchester University Press.
18.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2004). Giving to secular causes by the religious and nonreligious: An experimental test of the responsiveness of giving to subsidies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 271–289.
19.
EckelC. C.PridayB. A.WilsonR. K. (2018). Charity begins at home: A lab-in-the-field experiment on charitable giving. Games, 9(4), 95.
Giving USA. (2021). Giving USA 2021: The annual report on philanthropy for the tear 2020. The Giving Institute, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.
22.
GreinerB. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In KremerK.MachoV. (Eds.), GWDG Bericht: Vol. 63. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003 (pp. 79–93). Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.
23.
GruberJ. (2004). Pay or pray? The impact of charitable subsidies on religious attendance. Journal of Public Economics, 88(12), 2635–2655.
24.
HogeD. R. (Ed.). (1996). Money matters: Personal giving in American churches. Westminster John Knox Press.
25.
HrungW. B. (2004). After-life consumption and charitable giving. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 63(3), 731–745.
26.
IannacconeL. R. (1992). Sacrifice and stigma: Reducing free-riding in cults, communes, and other collectives. Journal of Political Economy, 100(2), 271–291.
27.
JohnsonS. D.TamneyJ. B.HalebskyS. (1986). Christianity, social traditionalism and economic conservatism. Sociological Focus, 19(3), 299–314.
28.
KoczanskiP.RosenH. S. (2019). Are millennials really particularly selfish? Preliminary evidence from a cross-sectional sample in the philanthropy panel study. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(14), 1965–1982.
29.
KoenigH. G.BussingA. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78–85.
30.
McClearyR. M. (2007). Salvation, damnation, and economic incentives. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 22(1), 49–74.
31.
MichelG.RieunierS. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701–707.
32.
National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2017). Charitable giving in America: Some facts and figures. National Center for Charitable Statistics.
33.
PerryS. L.WhiteheadA. L.GrubbsJ. B. (2020). Culture wars and COVID-19 conduct: Christian nationalism, religiosity, and Americans’ behavior during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 59(3), 405–416.
34.
Pew Research Center. (2016). The gender gap in religion around the world. Pew Research Center.
35.
Phillips-FeinK. (2011). Conservatism: A state of the field. The Journal of American History, 98(3), 723–743.
36.
ReinsteinD.RienerG. (2012). Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 229–240.
37.
ReitsmaJ.ScheepersP.GrotenhuisM. T. (2006). Dimensions of individual religiosity and charity: Cross-national effect differences in European countries?Review of Religious Research, 47(4), 347–362.
38.
ScheitleC. P. (2010). Beyond the congregation: The world of Christian nonprofits. Oxford University Press.
39.
SchnabelL.BockS. (2017). The persistent and exceptional intensity of American religion: A response to recent research. Sociological Science, 4, 686–700.
40.
SmithC.EmersonM. O.SnellP. (2008). Passing the plate: Why American Christians don’t give away more money. Oxford University Press.
41.
WangL.GraddyE. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23–42.
42.
WarnerC. M.KılıncR.HaleC. W.CohenA. B.JohnsonK. A. (2015). Religion and public goods provision: Experimental and interview evidence from Catholicism and Islam in Europe. Comparative Politics, 47(2), 189–209.
43.
WhiteheadA. L.PerryS. L. (2016). Religion and support for adoption by same-sex couples: The relative effects of religious tradition, practices, and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues, 37(6), 789–813.
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.
