Few research has attempted to synthesize the effects of nudge tools in promoting prosocial behaviors through the lens of behavioral economics. This systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence of various types of nudges and their effectiveness in promoting charitable donations and volunteering. We identified 67 eligible studies with 117 experiments reporting eight nudge tools. We found that the studies focused mainly on three types of nudges (including reframing, referring to descriptive norms, and changing social consequences). We revealed that decreasing physical/cognitive effort, providing reminders, anchoring, and referring to descriptive norms effectively promote charitable donations; only reframing effectively promotes volunteering. Changing social consequences, connecting decisions to benefit or cost, and referring to descriptive norms are not effective in promoting volunteering. This review offers implications for practitioners implementing nudge tools in promoting charitable donations and volunteering. The data supporting the findings of this study are available in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kg836).
AbrahamseW.StegL.VlekC.RothengatterT. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002
2.
*AgerströmJ.CarlssonR.NicklassonL.GuntellL. (2016). Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.12.007
3.
*AltmannS.FalkA.HeidhuesP.JayaramanR.TeirlinckM. (2019). Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(5), 808–826. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00774
*AnderssonP. A.ErlandssonA.VästfjällD. (2022). Norm avoiders: The effect of optional descriptive norms on charitable donations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2244
6.
*AnghelcevG.EighmeyJ. (2013). The impact of extrinsic incentives on students’ willingness to volunteer as peer mentors: Implications for advertising education. Journal of Advertising Education, 17(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804821301700203
7.
ArielyD.BrachaA.MeierS. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.544
8.
AyresI.RasemanS.ShihA. (2013). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(5), 992–1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ews020
9.
*BaggioM.MotterliniM. (2022). Testing donation menus: On charitable giving for cancer research—Evidence from a natural field experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(3), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.13
10.
BahatE. (2021). Person–organization fit and commitment to volunteer organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(6), 1255–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00212-x
11.
*BartkeS.FriedlA.GelhaarF.RehL. (2017). Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving. Economics Letters, 152, 73–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.12.023
*BergerP. D.SmithG. E. (1997). The effect of direct mail framing strategies and segmentation variables on university fundraising performance. Journal of Direct Marketing, 11(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-7138(199724)11:1<30::AID-DIR4>3.0.CO;2-%23
14.
BhatiA.McDonnellD. (2019). Success in an online giving day: The role of social media in fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019868849
15.
BicchieriC. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.
16.
*BoyerP. C.DwengerN.RinckeJ. (2016). Do norms on contribution behavior affect intrinsic motivation? Field-experimental evidence from Germany. Journal of Public Economics, 144, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.10.003
17.
*BrisceseG. (2019). Generous by default: A field experiment on designing defaults that align with past behaviour on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 74, 102187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.06.010
18.
BrodeurA.CookN.HeyesA. (2022). We need to talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 hypothesis tests tell us about publication bias and p-hacking in online experiments. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4188289
19.
BudaR.ZhangY. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420010344022
20.
*CaoX. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: The effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1536
21.
*CasaricoA.ToninM. (2021). A field experiment on fundraising to support independent information. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 186, 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.021
22.
*CastiglioniC.LozzaE.van DijkE.van DijkW. W. (2019). Two sides of the same coin? An investigation of the effects of frames on tax compliance and charitable giving. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0247-4
23.
*ChangC.-C.ChenP.-Y. (2019). Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?Journal of Business Research, 97, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.046
24.
*ChangC.-T.LeeY.-K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00555.x
25.
*ChangC.-T.LeeY.-K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising: The Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications, 29(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048710201129
26.
*ChaoM. (2017). Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7301–7306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616921114
27.
ChoH.SandsL. (2011). Gain- and loss-frame sun safety messages and psychological reactance of adolescents. Communication Research Reports, 28(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.616242
28.
ChuiC. H.-K. (2022). Opportunities for organizational learning and innovation: A nonprofit case study during COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21528
29.
ChuiC. H.-K.ChanC. H. (2019). The role of technology in reconfiguring volunteer management in nonprofits in Hong Kong: Benefits and discontents. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 30(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21369
Costa-FontJ.MachadoS. (2021). How can policy interventions encourage pro-social behaviours in the health system?LSE Public Policy Review, 1(3), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.17
32.
*CotterillS.JohnP.RichardsonL. (2013). The impact of a pledge request and the promise of publicity: A randomized controlled trial of charitable donations. Social Science Quarterly, 94(1), 200–216.
33.
CrosonR. T. A. (2007). Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: Evidence from linear public goods games. Economic Inquiry, 45(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00006.x
34.
*CrowK.MathmannF.GreerD. (2019). Got a dollar? Locomotion orientation decreases the effect of defaults on charitable giving. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.015
35.
*DamgaardM. T.GravertC. (2018). The hidden costs of nudging: Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.11.005
36.
*DasE.KerkhofP.KuiperJ. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880801922854
37.
*Detweiler-BedellJ. B.Detweiler-BedellB.BaugherA.CohenM.RobertsonJ. (2013). Using message framing to promote social support in depression: When misery makes better company. Psychological Studies, 58(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-012-0173-7
38.
*DrouvelisM.MarxB. M. (2021). Dimensions of donation preferences: The structure of peer and income effects. Experimental Economics, 24(1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-020-09661-z
39.
*EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2008). Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9198-0
40.
ErlandssonA.BjörklundF.BäckströmM. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003
41.
*EverettJ. A. C.CaviolaL.KahaneG.SavulescuJ.FaberN. S. (2015). Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2080
42.
*ExleyC. (2017). Incentives for prosocial behavior: The role of reputations. Management Science, 64(5), 2460–2471. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2685
43.
FarrowK.GrolleauG.IbanezL. (2017). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: A review of the evidence. Ecological Economics, 140, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
44.
FeiginS.OwensG.Goodyear-SmithF. (2014). Theories of human altruism: A systematic review. Journal of Psychiatry and Brain Functions, 1, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.7243/2055-3447-1-5
45.
*FialaL.NoussairC. N. (2017). Charitable giving, emotions, and the default effect. Economic Inquiry, 55(4), 1792–1812. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12459
46.
*FisherR. J.AckermanD. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need on volunteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1086/209538
47.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484
*GaudeulA.KaczmarekM. C. (2019). Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: Attrition in a charitable giving experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(3), 385–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.3
50.
*GoswamiI.UrminskyO. (2016). When should the ask be a nudge? The effect of default amounts on charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0001
51.
HigginsJ. P. T.AltmanD. G.GøtzscheP. C.JüniP.MoherD.OxmanA. D.SavovićJ.SchulzK. F.WeeksL.SterneJ. A. C. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
52.
*HuangH.LiuS. Q. (2020). “Donate to help combat COVID-19!” How typeface affects the effectiveness of CSR marketing?International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10), 3315–3333. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-05-2020-0462
53.
*HuckS.RasulI. (2010). Transactions costs in charitable giving: Evidence from two field experiments. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2494
54.
*Hutchinson-QuillianJ.ReileyD.SamekA. (2021). Hassle costs and workplace charitable giving: Field experiments with Google employees. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 191, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.09.019
55.
*HysenbelliD.RubaltelliE.RumiatiR. (2013). Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: Anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(6), 678–690. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000471X
56.
JohnsonA. F.RauhausB. M.Webb-FarleyK. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic: A challenge for US nonprofits’ financial stability. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 33(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-06-2020-0076
57.
KahnemanD. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
58.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
59.
*KarlanD.McConnellM. A. (2014). Hey look at me: The effect of giving circles on giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 106, 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.06.013
60.
*KrupkaE. L.CrosonR. T. A. (2016). The differential impact of social norms cues on charitable contributions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 128, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.05.005
61.
LeeH.CameronG. T. (2017). Utilizing audiovisual and gain-framed messages to attenuate psychological reactance toward weight management health messages. Health Communication, 32(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1099506
62.
*LiJ.RiyantoY. E. (2017). Category reporting in charitable giving: An experimental analysis. Economic Inquiry, 55(1), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12355
63.
*LindenmeierJ. (2008). Promoting volunteerism: Effects of self-efficacy, advertisement-induced emotional arousal, perceived costs of volunteering, and message framing. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9054-z
64.
*ListJ. A.MurphyJ. J.PriceM. K.JamesA. G. (2021). An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1339–1348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01095-8
65.
MakiA.BurnsR. J.HaL.RothmanA. J. (2016). Paying people to protect the environment: A meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.006
66.
*MasonD. P. (2016). Recognition and cross-cultural communications as motivators for charitable giving: A field experiment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015576408
67.
*MetzgerL.GuntherI. (2019). Is it what you say or how you say it? The impact of aid effectiveness information and its framing on donation behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 83, Article 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101461
68.
*MinguezA.SeseF. J. (2021). Understanding the effectiveness of social influence appeals in charitable giving: The roles of affinity with the cause, and past giving behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 29(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1859335
69.
*MocheH.VästfjällD. (2022). To give or to take money? The effects of choice on prosocial spending and happiness. The Journal of Positive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1940248
70.
*MoseleyA.OliverJ.PeterJ.RichardsonL.RyanM.StokerG. (2018). The effects of social information on volunteering: A field experiment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017753317
71.
MünscherR.VetterM.ScheuerleT. (2016). A review and taxonomy of choice architecture techniques. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1897
72.
NelsonK. M.BauerM. K.PartelowS. (2021). Informational nudges to encourage pro-environmental behavior: Examining differences in message framing and human interaction. Frontiers in Communication, 5, Article 610186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.610186
73.
*NeumannR. (2019). The framing of charitable giving: A field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany. Rationality and Society, 31(1), 98–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463118820894
74.
*NewmanG. E.ShenY. J. (2012). The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 973–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.002
75.
NiebuurJ.van LenteL.LiefbroerA. C.SteverinkN.SmidtN. (2018). Determinants of participation in voluntary work: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. BMC Public Health, 18(1), Article 1213. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6077-2
76.
NwaforO.SinghR.CollierC.DeLeonD.OsborneJ.DeYoungJ. (2021). Effectiveness of nudges as a tool to promote adherence to guidelines in healthcare and their organizational implications: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 286, 114321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114321
ReedA.AquinoK.LevyE. (2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.178
80.
RichterI.ThøgersenJ.KlöcknerC. A. (2018). A social norms intervention going wrong: Boomerang effects from descriptive norms information. Sustainability, 10(8), 2848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082848
81.
RuehleR. C.EngelenB.ArcherA. (2021). Nudging charitable giving: What (if anything) is wrong with it?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020954266
82.
SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
83.
*SavaryJ.GoldsmithK. (2020). Unobserved altruism: How self-signaling motivations and social benefits shape willingness to donate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(3), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000261
84.
*SavaryJ.LiC. X.NewmanG. E. (2020). Exalted purchases or tainted donations? Self-signaling and the evaluation of charitable incentives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1157
85.
SchulzJ. F.FischbacherU.ThöniC.UtikalV. (2014). Affect and fairness: Dictator games under cognitive load. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.007
86.
*SchulzJ. F.ThiemannP.ThöniC. (2018). Nudging generosity: Choice architecture and cognitive factors in charitable giving. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.04.001
87.
*SeptiantoF.TjiptonoF.ParamitaW.ChiewT. M. (2021). The interactive effects of religiosity and recognition in increasing donation. European Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-04-2019-0326
88.
ShangJ.CrosonR. T. A. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x
89.
*SiemensJ. C.RaymondM. A.ChoiY.ChoiJ. (2020). The influence of message appeal, social norms and donation social context on charitable giving: Investigating the role of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 28(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1717968
90.
*SonntagA.ZizzoD. J. (2015). On reminder effects, drop-outs and dominance: Evidence from an online experiment on charitable giving. PLOS ONE, 10(8), Article e0134705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134705
91.
*SudhirK.RoyS.CherianM. (2016). Do sympathy biases induce charitable giving? The effects of advertising content. Marketing Science, 35(6), 849–869. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.0989
92.
SussmanA. B.AlterA. L. (2012). The exception is the rule: Underestimating and overspending on exceptional expenses. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1086/665833
93.
*SussmanA. B.SharmaE.AlterA. L. (2015). Framing charitable donations as exceptional expenses increases giving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000047
94.
SzasziB.PalinkasA.PalfiB.SzollosiA.AczelB. (2018). A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: Toward understanding when and why nudges work. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2035
*Tomris KüçünN.GüngörS. (2020). Victim identification, framing heuristic and stress effects on the donation decision. Prizren Social Science Journal, 4(2), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.32936/pssj.v4i2.154
97.
*van EschP.CuiY.JainS. P. (2021). COVID-19 charity advertising: Identifiable victim message framing, self-construal, and donation intent. Journal of Advertising, 50(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1927911
98.
*van SteenburgE.SpearsN. (2022). How preexisting beliefs and message involvement drive charitable donations: An integrated model. European Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 209–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-01-2020-0031
99.
van TeunenbroekC.BekkersR.BeersmaB. (2019). Look to others before you leap: A systematic literature review of social information effects on donation amounts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019869537
100.
*van TeunenbroekC.BekkersR.BeersmaB. (2021). They ought to do it too: Understanding effects of social information on donation behavior and mood. International Review on Public and Non—Profit Marketing, 18(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00270-3
101.
*WangY.KimJ.ChathamA.MaL. (2022). “I lose” “I gain” vs. “They lose” “They gain”: The influence of message framing on donation intentions in disaster fundraising. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 5(1), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.30658/jicrcr.5.1.1
102.
WeberE. U. (2012). Doing the right thing willingly: Using the insights of behavioral decision research for better environmental decisions. In ShafirE. (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 380–397). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400845347-026
103.
*WhiteK.PelozaJ. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.4.109
104.
*WuY.ZhangX.XiaoQ. (2022). Appeal to the head and heart: The persuasive effects of medical crowdfunding charitable appeals on willingness to donate. Information Processing and Management, 59(1), Article 102792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102792
105.
*XiaoA. L.HuangY.BortreeD. S.WatersR. D. (2022). Designing social media fundraising messages: An experimental approach to understanding how message concreteness and framing influence donation intentions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(4), 832–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211022838
106.
*XuJ. (2019). The impact of self-construal and message frame valence on reactance: A cross-cultural study in charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 405–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1536506
107.
XuJ.HuangG. (2020). The relative effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages in charity advertising: Meta-analytic evidence and implications. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 25(4), Article e1675. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1675
*YeN.TengL.YuY.WangY. (2015). “What’s in it for me?” The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.015
110.
*YilmazG.BlackburnK. G. (2022). How to ask for donations: A language perspective on online fundraising success. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 30(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2020.1808660
111.
*YinB. Q.LiY. J.SinghS. (2020). Coins are cold and cards are caring: The effect of pregiving incentives on charity perceptions, relationship norms, and donation behavior. Journal of Marketing, 84(6), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920931451
112.
*ZarghameeH. S.MesserK. D.FooksJ. R.SchulzeW. D.WuS.YanJ. B. (2017). Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.008
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.
