Giving to charity not only helps fund programs that are beneficial to society but also reliably increases the well-being of donors. However, not all donations are equally effective at improving donor happiness. This article reviews the research from psychology and behavioral economics and identifies several key factors for optimizing donor experiences. These lessons can be used to design charitable appeals that are highly effective and that create conditions that make charitable giving more rewarding to donors, which increases the likelihood that they will donate again.
AndreoniJ. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm glow giving. Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.
2.
AnikL.AkninL. B.NortonM. I.DunnE. W. (2011). Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior. In OppenheimerD.OlivolaC. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
3.
AnikL.NortonM. I.ArielyD. (2014). Contingent match incentives decrease donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 790-801.
4.
BaronJ.SzymanskaE. (2011). Heuristics and biases in charity. In OppenheiemerD. M.OlivolaC. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 215-235). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
5.
BatsonC. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65-122). New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BohnetI.FreyB. (1999). Social distance and other regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 89, 335-339.
7.
BrooksE. C. (2003). Religious faith and charitable giving. Policy Review, 121, 39-51.
8.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A. C.SavulescuJ.KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 303-315.
9.
CrosonR.ShangJ. Y. (2011). Social influences in giving: Field experiments in public radio. In OppenheimerD.OlivolaC. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 65-81). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
10.
CryderC.LoewensteinG. (2011). The critical link between tangibility and generosity. In OppenheimerD.OlivolaC. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 237-251). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
11.
CryderC.LoewensteinG.ScheinesR. (2010). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 15-23.
12.
CryderC.LoewensteinG.SeltmanH. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1078-1083.
13.
DunnE. W.AkninL. B.NortonM. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687-1688.
14.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2003). Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?Journal of Public Economics, 87, 681-701.
15.
FalkA. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75, 1501-1511.
HarbaughW. T.MyerU.BurghartD. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622-1625.
18.
KahnemanD.DienerE.SchwarzN. (2003). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
19.
KarlanD.ListJ. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. The American Economic Review, 97, 1774-1793.
20.
KarlanD.ListJ. A.ShafirE. (2011). Small matches and charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 344-350.
21.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005a). The “identified victim” effect: An individual group or just a single individual. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157-167.
22.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106-116.
23.
KogutT.RitovI. (2011). The identifiable victim effect: Causes and boundary conditions. In OppenheiemerD. M.OlivolaC. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 133-148). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24.
LayousK.NelsonS. K.OberleE.Schonert-ReichlK. A.LyubomirskyS. (2012). Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PLoS ONE, 7, e51380.
25.
MarkowitzE. M.SlovicP.VästfjällD.HodgesS. D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 397-406.
26.
MartinR.RandalJ. (2011). How social norms, price, and scrutiny influence donation behavior: Evidence from four natural field experiments. In OppenheimerD.OlivolaC. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 81-113). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
27.
MeierS. (2007). Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5, 1203-1222.
28.
MeierS.StutzerA. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself. Economica, 75, 39-59.
29.
MillerD. T.GunasegaramS. (1990). Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1111-1118.
30.
OlivolaC. Y. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs for a preference of martyrdom in altruism. In OppenheiemerD. M.OlivolaC. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
31.
PiliavinJ. A. (2003). Doing well by doing good: Benefits for the benefactor. In KeyesM.HaidtJ. (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well lived (pp. 227-247). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32.
RondeauD.ListJ. A. (2008). Matching and challenge gifts to charity: Evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Experimental Economics, 11, 253-267.
33.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.
34.
SlovicP. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95.
35.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5-13.
36.
SmallD. A.SimonsohnU. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 532-542.
37.
StrahilavitzM. (July, 2007). A model of the value of giving to others compared to the value of having more for oneself: Implications for fundraisers seeking to maximize donor satisfaction. Paper presented at the Science of Giving Conference, Princeton, NJ.
38.
TinkelmanD.MankaneyK. (2007). When is administrative efficiency associated with charitable donations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 41-64.
39.
VästfjällD.SlovicP.MayorgaM.PetersE. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e100115. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100115
40.
WarnekenF.HareB.MelisA. P.HanusD.TomaselloM. (2007). Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biology, 5(7), 1414-1420.
41.
WarnekenF.TomaselloM. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301-1303.
42.
WeinsteinN.RyanR. R. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and it’s influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 222-244.
