IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v119y2013i1p48-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A restaurant field experiment in charitable contributions

Author

Listed:
  • Charness, Gary
  • Cheung, Tsz

Abstract

The issue of how to best elicit charitable contributions has long been an important one for charitable organizations. Some recent studies have examined different schemes for eliciting contributions for public radio and maximizing revenue for commercial purposes. Our study is a pure field experiment that was conducted in a restaurant. We varied the level of suggested contribution on the jar at the cashier to see if this had an effect on the revenue received; in one condition, did not make any suggestion. We do find differences in revenue depending on the suggested amount, showing that there is scope for strategy in choosing how to appeal to the potential donors. The amount requested does affect revenue, but it is not a monotonic relationship. We also find that not naming a suggested amount fares poorly in terms of generating revenue.

Suggested Citation

  • Charness, Gary & Cheung, Tsz, 2013. "A restaurant field experiment in charitable contributions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 48-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:119:y:2013:i:1:p:48-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176513000128
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.01.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2016. "When should the ask be a nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations," Natural Field Experiments 00659, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Deb, Rahul & Gazzale, Robert S. & Kotchen, Matthew J., 2014. "Testing motives for charitable giving: A revealed-preference methodology with experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 181-192.
    3. Schlüter, Achim & Vollan, Björn, 2015. "Flowers and an honour box: Evidence on framing effects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 186-199.
    4. Park, Sangkon & Nam, Sohyun & Lee, Jungmin, 2017. "Charitable giving, suggestion, and learning from others: Pay-What-You-Want experiments at a coffee shop," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 16-22.
    5. Borzino, Natalia & Fatas, Enrique & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2023. "In transparency we trust an experimental study of reputation, transparency, and signaling," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. Peter Katuščák & Tomáš Miklánek, 2023. "What drives conditional cooperation in public good games?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 435-467, April.
    7. Christoph Feldhaus & Tassilo Sobotta & Peter Werner, 2019. "Norm Uncertainty and Voluntary Payments in the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1855-1866, April.
    8. Rau, Holger & Samek, Anya & Zhurakhovska, Lilia, 2022. "Do I care if you are paid? Field experiments and expert forecasts in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 42-51.
    9. Giaccherini, Matilde & Gilli, Marianna & Mancinelli, Susanna & Zoli, Mariangela, 2021. "Nudging food waste decisions at restaurants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amadou Boly & Robert Gillanders & Topi Miettinen, 2016. "Deterrence, peer effect, and legitimacy in anti-corruption policy-making: An experimental analysis," WIDER Working Paper Series 137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.
    4. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2015. "Rich communication, social motivations, and coordinated resistance against divide-and-conquer: A laboratory investigation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 146-159.
    6. Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2017. "Religion, administration & public goods: Experimental evidence from Russia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 42-60.
    7. Billur Aksoy & Silvana Krasteva, 2020. "When does less information translate into more giving to public goods?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1148-1177, December.
    8. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. Ekström, Mathias, 2018. "The (un)compromise effect," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 10/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 16 May 2018.
    10. Claire Teunenbroek & René Bekkers & Bianca Beersma, 2021. "They ought to do it too: Understanding effects of social information on donation behavior and mood," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 229-253, June.
    11. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    12. Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "Selective Recognition: How to Recognize Donors to Increase Charitable Giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1489-1496, July.
    13. Goerg, Sebastian J. & Himmler, Oliver & König, Tobias, 2024. "Norm violations and behavioral spillovers—Evidence from the lab and the field," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    14. Aoki, Yu, 2014. "Donating Time to Charity: Not Working for Nothing," IZA Discussion Papers 7990, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Park, Sangkon & Nam, Sohyun & Lee, Jungmin, 2017. "Charitable giving, suggestion, and learning from others: Pay-What-You-Want experiments at a coffee shop," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 16-22.
    16. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    17. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    18. Bartke, Simon & Friedl, Andreas & Gelhaar, Felix & Reh, Laura, 2017. "Social comparison nudges—Guessing the norm increases charitable giving," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 73-75.
    19. Florian Diekert & Tillmann Eymess & Joseph Luomba & Israel Waichman, 2022. "The Creation of Social Norms under Weak Institutions," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(6), pages 1127-1160.
    20. Brülisauer, Marcel & Goette, Lorenz & Jiang, Zhengyi & Schmitz, Jan & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Appliance-specific feedback and social comparisons: Evidence from a field experiment on energy conservation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    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:eee:ecolet:v:119:y:2013:i:1:p:48-49. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.