Designing Donor Registries: Behavioral Drivers of Enrollment and Giving

Lorko, Matej and Servátka, Maroš and Slonim, Robert (2026): Designing Donor Registries: Behavioral Drivers of Enrollment and Giving.

Abstract

Many charitable organizations invite potential donors to first join a registry before soliciting donations from those who have joined. Behavioral theories suggest that the choice architecture of registry enrollment can influence not just participation but also future giving. Some approaches may be relatively more likely to increase the likelihood of joining but reduce the subsequent propensity to donate and the amount donated, while other methods might have the opposite effect. We experimentally test four behavioral theories – overhead aversion, status quo bias, reciprocity, and moral consistency – in a two-stage donor engagement model. We find that (1) disclosing registry-related overhead costs decreases donations, (2) changing the default enrollment method (op-in vs. opt-out) does not affect enrollment nor donations, (3) targeting reciprocity by offering a small gift conditional on joining the registry boosts enrollment but not donations, and (4) targeting moral consistency by requesting an upfront contribution does not decrease the likelihood of joining the registry and can improve charity returns. Our findings emphasize how subtle differences in the design of early-stage donor approaches can influence longer-term fundraising outcomes.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: charitable giving, donor registry, overhead aversion, status quo bias, reciprocity, moral consistency, experiment
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D47 - Market Design; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D64 - Altruism ; Philanthropy; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

References

Abraham, D., Corazzini, L., Fišar, M., & Reggiani, T. (2023) Coordinating donations via an intermediary: The destructive effect of a sunk overhead cost. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.05.006

Adena, M., & Huck, S. (2019). Giving once, giving twice: A two-period field experiment on intertemporal crowding in charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.01.002

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.11.004

Altmann, S., Falk, A., Heidhues, P., Jayaraman, R., & Teirlinck, M. (2019). Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00774

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.

Andreoni, J., & Serra-Garcia, M. (2021a). The Pledging Puzzle: How Can Revocable Promises Increase Charitable Giving? Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3811

Andreoni, J., & Serra-Garcia, M. (2021b). Time inconsistent charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104391

Asch, D. A., Baron, J., Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H., Meszaros, J., Ritov, I., & Spranca, M. (1994). Omission Bias and Pertussis Vaccination. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9401400204

Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., & Lohse, G. L. (2001). On site: to opt-in or opt-out? Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/359205.359241

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6

Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652-1678.

Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2011). Identity, morals, and taboos: Beliefs as assets. Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr002

Breman, A. (2011). Give more tomorrow: Two field experiments on altruism and intertemporal choice. Journal of Public Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.004

Cairns, J., & Slonim, R. (2011). Substitution effects across charitable donations. Economics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.01.028

Capra, C. M., Jiang, B., & Su, Y. (2022). Do pledges lead to more volunteering? An experimental study. Economic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13022

Caviola, L., Faulmüllert, N., Everett, J. A. C., Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? Judgment and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500006185

Charness, G. (2004). Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/383111

Cherry, T., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221.

Cox, J. C., Sadiraj, K., & Sadiraj, V. (2008). Implications of trust, fear, and reciprocity for modeling economic behavior. Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9156-7

Cox, J. C., Servátka, M., & Vadovič, R. (2017). Status quo effects in fairness games: reciprocal responses to acts of commission versus acts of omission. Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-016-9477-0

Craig, A. C., Garbarino, E., Heger, S. A., & Slonim, R. (2017). Waiting to give: Stated and revealed preferences. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2504

Danková, K., & Servátka, M. (2015). The house money effect and negative reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 48, 60-71.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.6.627

DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1-56.

Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2003.06.003

Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Xiao, E. (2022). Leadership selection: Can changing the default break the glass ceiling? Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101563

Falk, A. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00800.x

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Fiala, L., & Noussair, C. N. (2017). Charitable Giving, Emotions, and the Default Effect. Economic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12459

Fowlie, M., Wolfram, C., Baylis, P., Spurlock, C. A., Todd-Blick, A., & Cappers, P. (2021). Default Effects and Follow-On Behaviour: Evidence from An Electricity Pricing Program. Review of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab018

Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1717-1722.

Furnham, A. (1995). The just world, charitable giving and attitudes to disability. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00090-S

Garbarino, E., Slonim, R., & Wang, C. (2013). The multidimensional effects of a small gift: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Economics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.031

Gaudeul, A., & Kaczmarek, M. C. (2022). Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: attrition in a charitable giving experiment. Behavioural Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.3

Gneezy, U., Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253932

Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4

Haylock, M., Kampkötter, P., Macis, M., Sauter, J., Seitz, S., Slonim, R., … Schmidt, A. H. (2024). Reducing Registry Members’ Attrition When Invited to Donate: Evidence From a Large Stem Cell Registry. American Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/730331

Heger, S. A., & Slonim, R. (2022). Giving begets giving: Positive path dependence as moral consistency. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.10.044

Heger, S. A., Slonim, R., Garbarino, E., Wang, C., & Waller, D. (2020). Redesigning the market for volunteers: A donor registry. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3371

Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346-80.

Hung, C. K., Hager, M. A., & Tian, Y. (2023). Do Donors Penalize Nonprofits With Higher Non-Program Costs? A Meta-Analysis of Donor Overhead Aversion. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221138260

Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do Defaults Save Lives? Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721

Kube, S., Maréchal, M. A., & Puppe, C. (2012). The currency of reciprocity: Gift exchange in the workplace. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1644

Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K., & Rupp, N. G. (2010). Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.958

Lorko, M., Servátka, M., Slonim, R., & Ďuriník, M. (2026). Intertemporal Coordination in Volunteer Markets.

Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543

Meer, J. (2013). The habit of giving. Economic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12010

Meer, J. (2014). Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.010

Meyer, C. J., & Tripodi, E. (2021). Image concerns in pledges to give blood: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 87, 102434.

Newman, G. E., & Jeremy Shen, Y. (2012). The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.002

Nisan, M., & Horenczyk, G. (1990). Moral balance: The effect of prior behaviour on decision in moral conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00884.x

Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65(3-4), 703-713.

Portillo, J. E., & Stinn, J. (2018). Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.11.003

Saeri, A. K., Slattery, P., Lee, J., Houlden, T., Farr, N., Gelber, R. L., … Zorker, M. (2023). What Works to Increase Charitable Donations? A Meta-Review with Meta-Meta-Analysis. Voluntas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00499-y

Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564

Servátka, M. Tucker, S. & Vadovič, R. (2011) Building Trust – One Gift at a Time, Games, 2(4), 412-433. Special Issue on Fairness in Games.

Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x

Slonim, R., & Wang, C. (2021). Market Design for Altruistic Supply: Evidence from the Lab. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2716591

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1477-3880(15)30073-6

Vesterlund, L. (2016). 2. Using Experimental Methods to Understand Why and How We Give to Charity. In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Volume Two. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400883172-003

Woods, D., & Servátka, M. (2019). Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response? Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-018-9561-8

Yin, B., Li, Y. J., & Singh, S. (2020). Coins Are Cold and Cards Are Caring: The Effect of Pregiving Incentives on Charity Perceptions, Relationship Norms, and Donation Behavior. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920931451

Zarghamee, H. S., Messer, K. D., Fooks, J. R., Schulze, W. D., Wu, S., & Yan, J. (2017). Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.008