IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v243y2024ics0165176524004075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative versus quantitative impact communications in humanitarian appeals: Findings from a field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Chuah, Swee-Hoon
  • Feeny, Simon
  • Hannan, Timothy
  • Hoffmann, Robert
  • Neelim, Ananta

Abstract

We report a field experiment comparing the efficacy of two impact-based appeals conducted by Oxfam Australia. Both appeal types demonstrated Oxfam Australia’s previous humanitarian impact, one in a qualitative (narrative) and the other in a quantitative (statistical) manner. We find that the quantitative appeal caused both a greater number and size of donations. We also find heterogeneity in the treatment effects across donor characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Feeny, Simon & Hannan, Timothy & Hoffmann, Robert & Neelim, Ananta, 2024. "Qualitative versus quantitative impact communications in humanitarian appeals: Findings from a field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:243:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524004075
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176524004075
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111923?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. Karlan, Dean & Wood, Daniel H., 2017. "The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Butera, Luigi & Horn, Jeffrey, 2020. "“Give less but give smart”: Experimental evidence on the effects of public information about quality on giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 59-76.
    3. Christine L. Exley, 2020. "Using Charity Performance Metrics as an Excuse Not to Give," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 553-563, February.
    4. Lindauer, Matthew & Mayorga, Marcus & Greene, Joshua & Slovic, Paul & Västfjäll, Daniel & Singer, Peter, 2020. "Comparing the effect of rational and emotional appeals on donation behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 413-420, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    2. Iman Parsa & Mahyar Eftekhar & Charles J Corbett, 2022. "Does governance ease the overhead squeeze experienced by nonprofits?," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3288-3303, August.
    3. Zachary Halberstam & James R. Hines Jr., 2023. "Quality-Aware Tax Incentives for Charitable Contributions," CESifo Working Paper Series 10250, CESifo.
    4. Margaret Samahita & Leonhard K. Lades, 2021. "The Unintended Side Effects of Regulating Charities: Donors Penalise Administrative Burden Almost as Much as Overheads," Working Papers 202106, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    5. Minguez, Ana & Javier Sese, F., 2022. "Why do you want a relationship, anyway? Consent to receive marketing communications and donors’ willingness to engage with nonprofits," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 356-367.
    6. 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.
    7. Masahiro Kato & Masaaki Imaizumi & Takuya Ishihara & Toru Kitagawa, 2023. "Asymptotically Optimal Fixed-Budget Best Arm Identification with Variance-Dependent Bounds," Papers 2302.02988, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    8. Garcia, Thomas & Massoni, Sébastien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    9. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    10. Nadine Chlaß & Lata Gangadharan & Kristy Jones, 2023. "Charitable giving and intermediation: a principal agent problem with hidden prices," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 941-961.
    11. Marta Serra-Garcia & Nora Szech, 2022. "The (In)Elasticity of Moral Ignorance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 4815-4834, July.
    12. Adena, Maja & Hager, Anselm, 2020. "Does online fundraising increase charitable giving? A nation-wide field experiment on Facebook," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Gani Aldashev & Esteban Jaimovich & Thierry Verdier, 2023. "The Dark Side of Transparency: Mission Variety and Industry Equilibrium in Decentralised Public Good Provision," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(654), pages 2085-2109.
    14. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2022. "Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1-20.
    15. Jasjit Singh & Nina Teng & Serguei Netessine, 2019. "Philanthropic Campaigns and Customer Behavior: Field Experiments on an Online Taxi Booking Platform," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 913-932, February.
    16. Portillo, Javier E. & Stinn, Joseph, 2018. "Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 40-50.
    17. Metzger, Laura & Günther, Isabel, 2019. "Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 18-33.
    18. Gleue, Marvin & Harrs, Sören & Feldhaus, Christoph & Löschel, Andreas, 2024. "Identity and voluntary efforts for climate protection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 436-476.
    19. Max Tabord-Meehan, 2023. "Stratification Trees for Adaptive Randomisation in Randomised Controlled Trials," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(5), pages 2646-2673.
    20. Butera, Luigi & Houser, Daniel, 2018. "Delegating altruism: Toward an understanding of agency in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 99-109.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Charitable giving; Donations; Field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • L31 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Nonprofit Institutions; NGOs; Social Entrepreneurship

    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:eee:ecolet:v:243:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524004075. 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.