IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v6y2022i3p417-438_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing donation menus: on charitable giving for cancer research – evidence from a natural field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • BAGGIO, MARIANNA
  • MOTTERLINI, MATTEO

Abstract

Behavioral economics research has helped with understanding charitable behavior and has shown that charities can encourage donations by carefully designing their pledges. However, there is still scope to extend current research on who gives, what drives the decision to donate and at what levels, especially when behavioral insights are applied in context. In cooperation with a major Italian charity for cancer research, this study implements a natural direct mail field experiment, with over 150,000 letters sent to donors. By exploring the behavioral responses to different donation anchors, evidence was found that, within the given framework, including donation menus significantly increased the average amount donated without affecting the likelihood of donation. Furthermore, introducing additional explanations of how to make a payment significantly increased overall returns. Lastly, individual heterogeneity (high- and low-frequency donors, as well as senior and junior donors) had a direct effect on donations.

Suggested Citation

  • Baggio, Marianna & Motterlini, Matteo, 2022. "Testing donation menus: on charitable giving for cancer research – evidence from a natural field experiment," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 417-438, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:6:y:2022:i:3:p:417-438_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X19000137/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:6:y:2022:i:3:p:417-438_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.