Do people donate more when they perceive a single beneficiary whom they know? A field experimental test of the identifiability effect

Al-Ubaydli, Omar and Yeomans, Mike (2014): Do people donate more when they perceive a single beneficiary whom they know? A field experimental test of the identifiability effect.

Abstract

According to the identifiability effect, people will donate more to a single beneficiary rather than to many beneficiaries, holding constant what the donations are actually used for. We test the identifiability effect for two novel subject pools (the suppliers and beneficiaries of volunteer labor). We also test a refinement of the identifiability effect where we vary whether or not the single beneficiary is personally known to the solicitees. While the behavior of volunteers is consistent with the identifiability effect, we find that the identifiability effect is reversed for beneficiaries of volunteer labor. Moreover, we find that making the single beneficiary personally known to the solicitees lowers donations by a statistically insignificant amount, suggesting that it does not enhance donations.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: solicitation; donation; field experiment
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D64 - Altruism ; Philanthropy; L - Industrial Organization > L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise > L31 - Nonprofit Institutions ; NGOs ; Social Entrepreneurship

References

Al-Ubaydli, O., & Lee, M. (2011). Can tailored communications motivate environmental volunteers? A natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 101(3), 323-328.

Baber, W. R., Roberts, A. A., & Visvanathan, G. (2001). Charitable Organizations' Strategies and Program‐Spending Ratios. Accounting Horizons, 15(4), 329-343.

Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-974.

Burnham, T. C. (2003). Engineering altruism: a theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(1), 133-144.

Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(1), 29-35.

Christy, C. A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 824-847.

Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion.

DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63-79.

Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268-298.

Duncan, B. (1999). Modeling charitable contributions of time and money. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 213-242.

Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293-315.

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The quarterly journal of economics, 114(3), 817-868.

Giving USA, (2013). Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy. Retrieved from givingusareports.com.

Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games. American Economic Review, 86(3), 653-660.

Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,18(3), 157-167.

Landry, C. E., Lange, A., List, J. A., & Price, M. K. (2010). Is a Donor in Hand Better than Two in the Bush? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment. American Economic Review, 100, 958-983.

Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 153-174.

List, J. A., & Price, M. K. (2012). Charitable giving around the world: Thoughts on how to expand the pie. CESifo Economic Studies, 58(1), 1-30.

Ma, H. K. (1992). The Relation of Altruistic Orientation to Human Relationships and Moral Judgment in Chinese People. International Journal of Psychology, 27(6), 377-400.

Nolan, B. E., & Spanos, N. P. (1989). Psychological variables associated with willingness to donate organs. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 141, 27-32.

O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing It Now or Late. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103-124.

Oppenheimer, D.M., & Olivola, C.Y. (Eds.). (2011). The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity. Psychology Press.

Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable Giving by Individuals: A Study of Attitudes and Practice. Human Relations, 48(6), 685-709.

Schelling, T. C. (1968). “The Life You Save May Be Your Own”. In Samuel Chase (Ed.), Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Brookings InstitiuteInstitute.

Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79-95.

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5-16.

Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532-542.

Small, D. A. (2010). Sympathy biases and sympathy appeals: Reducing social distance to boost charitable contributions. In The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity, 149-160.

Yeomans, M. & Al-Ubaydli, O. (working paper). The Collateral Costs of Fundraising.