Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:44:05.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: attrition in a charitable giving experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2019

ALEXIA GAUDEUL  and
MAGDALENA C. KACZMAREK
ALEXIA GAUDEUL*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economic Sciences, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
MAGDALENA C. KACZMAREK
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital of the Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
*
*Correspondence to: Alexia Gaudeul, Chair of Behavioural Development Economics, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Georg-August-Universität, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Defaults may not directly get people to behave as intended, such as saving more, eating healthy food or donating to charity. Rather, defaults often only put people on the ‘right’ path, such as joining a savings plan, buying healthy food or pledging money to charity. This an issue because getting more people to take those first steps does not necessarily motivate them to go on with further steps. Indeed, the default does little to help them understand the benefit of doing so. This can greatly reduce the impact of the default. We test this idea in a charitable giving experiment where people first can promise to give to charity (‘pledge’) and then can go on to donate. We find that participants pledge more often when that is the default, but those who pledge in that case are less likely to take further steps to donate than those who pledge when pledging is against the default. We interpret this in terms of motivation and transaction costs. Some people pledge only to avoid the psychological costs of going against the default. Those people are closest to indifference between donating or not and are therefore less motivated to go on to donate. We also show that the intrinsic motivation of pledgers is lower when pledging is the default and that making pledges the default does not change attitudes to charities.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 385 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Both authors contributed equally to this paper

References

Adena, M., Alizade, J., Bohner, F., Harke, J. and Mesters, F. (2017), Quality certifications for nonprofits, charitable giving, and donor's trust: experimental evidence. Working Paper SP II 2017-302r, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.Google Scholar
Adena, M. and Huck, S. (2016), Online fundraising, self-deception, and the long-term impact of ask avoidance. Working Paper SP II 2016-306, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adena, M. and Mesters, F. (2017), A short scale for measuring trust in a charity. Companion paper to Working Paper SP II 2017–302, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Allcott, H. and Rogers, T. (2014), ‘The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation’, American Economic Review, 104(10): 3003–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, S., Armin, F., Heidhues, P. and Jayaraman, R. (2014), Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Working Paper 5118, CESifo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, S. and Traxler, C. (2014), ‘Nudges at the dentist’, European Economic Review, 72, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Payne, A. A. (2013), ‘Charitable giving’, Handbook of Public Economics, 5, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M. and Trachtman, H. (2017), ‘Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving’, Journal of Political Economy, 125(3): 625–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Serra-Garcia, M. (2016), Time-inconsistent charitable giving. Working Paper 22824, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1990), ‘Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving’, The Economic Journal, 100(401): 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I. and Dunn, E. W. (2011), ‘Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior’, In Oppenheimer, D. and Olivola, C. (Eds.) The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity, New York, NY: Psychology Press, 1–28.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1972), ‘Self-perception theory’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breman, A. (2011), ‘Give more tomorrow: Two field experiments on altruism and intertemporal choice’, Journal of Public Economics, 95(11): 1349–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, T., Collins, C., Rollo, M. E., McCaffrey, T. A., Vlieger, N. D., Bend, D. V. d., Truby, H. and Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2016), ‘Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: a systematic review of positional influences on food choice’, British Journal of Nutrition, 115(12): 2252–2263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, C. K. and Chan, C. M. (2000), ‘Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(2): 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C. and Metrick, A. (2006), ‘Saving for retirement on the path of least resistance’, In McCaffrey, E. and Slemrod, J. (Eds.) Behavioral Public Finance: Toward a New Agenda, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation: 304–352.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. and Fazio, R. (1984), ‘A new look at dissonance theory’, In Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 17, Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 229–266.Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S. and Malmendier, U. (2006), ‘Paying not to go to the gym’, American Economic Review, 96(3): 694–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolinski, D. and Nawrat, R. (1998), ‘‘Fear-then-relief’ procedure for producing compliance: Beware when the danger is over’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(1): 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsen, G., Castelo, N. and Reiner, P. B. (2013), ‘Decisional enhancement and autonomy: Public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges’, Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 202–213.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1962), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fosgaard, T. and Soetevent, A. R. (2018), Promises Undone: How Committed Pledges Impact Donations to Charity. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3173585, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, J. L. and Fraser, S. C. (1966), ‘Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2): 195–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. J. and Goldstein, D. (2003), ‘Do Defaults Save Lives? Science, 302(5649): 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kataria, M., Levati, M. V. and Uhl, M. (2014), ‘Paternalism with hindsight: Do protégés react consequentialistically to paternalism? Social Choice and Welfare, 43(3): 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellner, C., Reinstein, D. and Riener, G. (2019), ‘Ex-ante commitments to “give if you win” exceed donations after a win’, Journal of Public Economics, 169, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, S. and Servátka, M. (2015), ‘Transaction costs, the opportunity cost of time and procrastination in charitable giving’, Journal of Public Economics, 125, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lietz, P. (2008), Questionnaire design in attitude and opinion research: Current state of an art. FOR 655 Working Paper 13/2008, Jacobs-University Bremen.Google Scholar
Madrian, B. C. and Shea, D. F. (2001), ‘The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4): 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. J., Bassi, S. and Dunbar-Rees, R. (2012), ‘Commitments, norms and custard creams – a social influence approach to reducing did not attends (DNAs)’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(3): 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazis, M. B., Settle, R. B. and Leslie, D. C. (1973), ‘Elimination of phosphate detergents and psychological reactance’, Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4): 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, J. and Stone, J. (2005), ‘The influence of behavior on attitudes’, In Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P. (Eds.) The Handbook of Attitudes, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 223–271.Google Scholar
Sargeant, A. and Woodliffe, L. (2007), ‘Building donor loyalty: The antecedents and role of commitment in the context of charity giving’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, C. (2015), LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. http://www.limesurvey.org.Google Scholar
Schulz, J., Thiemann, P. and Thoeni, C. (2015), Defaults in charitable giving. Working Paper 2015–06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. (2017), ‘Presumed consent to organ donation and the family overrule’, Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 18(2): 96–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G. and Johnson, E. J. (2013), ‘Choice Without Awareness: Ethical and Policy Implications of Defaults’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2009), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Webb, T. L. and Sheeran, P. (2006), ‘Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? a meta-analysis of the experimental evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 132(2): 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, W. (2000), ‘Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1): 539–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed