IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/210672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nudging und soziales Engagement: wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?

Author

Listed:
  • Adena, Maja

Abstract

Nudging hat das Potential, soziales Engagement zu erhöhen. In diesem Beitrag wird ausgehend von einigen Feldexperimenten diskutiert, wie vorgegebene Standards, Anker, Erinnerungen und weitere Methoden des Nudgings die Entscheidung, Geld für wohltätige Zwecke zu spenden, verändern können. So beeinflussen zum Beispiel nicht bindende Empfehlungen bezüglich der Spendenhöhe die Höhe der tatsächlich gespendeten Beträge. Einige Individuen entscheiden sich dann eher dafür, genau den empfohlenen und nicht einen anderen Betrag zu spenden. Dabei erhöhen einige ihre Spende, während andere sie verringern. Außerdem spenden mehr Personen, wenn die Empfehlung relativ niedrig ist, und weniger, wenn sie relativ hoch angesetzt wird. Insgesamt kann es deshalb durch eine empfohlene Spendenhöhe genauso gut zu einer Erhöhung wie zu einer Verringerung des insgesamt erzielten Spendenaufkommens kommen. Im Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass die Entscheidungen für ein bestimmtes Spendendesign nicht einfach sind und den jeweiligen Kontext berücksichtigen sollten. Zuletzt wird darauf hingewiesen, dass es keine „nudgingfreie“ Situation gibt, denn der Status quo, „nicht zu spenden“, ist auch ein Default.

Suggested Citation

  • Adena, Maja, 2018. "Nudging und soziales Engagement: wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 87(2), pages 139-152.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:210672
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.87.2.139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/210672/1/10-3790-vjh-87-2-139.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.87.2.139?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steffen Altmann & Armin Falk & Paul Heidhues & Rajshri Jayaraman & Marrit Teirlinck, 2019. "Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 808-826, December.
    2. Judd B. Kessler & Alvin E. Roth, 2014. "Getting More Organs for Transplantation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 425-430, 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. Briscese, Guglielmo, 2019. "Generous by default: A field experiment on designing defaults that align with past behaviour on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    4. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "How much priority bonus should be given to registered organ donors? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 367-378.
    5. 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.
    6. Simona Cicognani & Sebastian Stein & Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos, 2023. "Symbolic incentives and the recruitment of volunteers for citizen science projects," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 923-940.
    7. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2023. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    8. 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.
    9. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Nikhil N. Dhakate & Rohit Joshi, 2020. "Analysing Process of Organ Donation and Transplantation Services in India at Hospital Level: SAP-LAP Model," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 21(4), pages 323-339, December.
    11. Bittschi, Benjamin & Dwenger, Nadja & Rincke, Johannes, 2021. "Water the flowers you want to grow? Evidence on private recognition and donor loyalty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Goldin, Jacob & Homonoff, Tatiana & Patterson, Richard & Skimmyhorn, William, 2020. "How much to save? Decision costs and retirement plan participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2016. "A field experiment on crowdfunding for a club good," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2016-308, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Yew-Kwang NG, 2016. "Extending Economic Analysis to Analyze Policy Issues More Broadly," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    15. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2022. "Remedying adverse selection in donor-priority rule using freeze period: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 384-407.
    16. Meier, Johanna & Andor, Mark A. & Doebbe, Friederike C. & Haddaway, Neal R. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    17. Grodeck, Ben & Schoenegger, Philipp, 2023. "Demanding the morally demanding: Experimental evidence on the effects of moral arguments and moral demandingness on charitable giving," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    18. Schulz, Jonathan F. & Thiemann, Petra & Thöni, Christian, 2018. "Nudging generosity: Choice architecture and cognitive factors in charitable giving," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 139-145.
    19. Ben Grodeck & Philipp Schoenegger, 2022. "Demanding the Morally Demanding: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Moral Arguments and Moral Demandingness on Charitable Giving," Monash Economics Working Papers 2022-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    20. Buffat, Justin & Goette, Lorenz & Grassi, Simona, 2020. "Thinking about and deciding to be an organ donor: An experimental analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Charitable giving; field experiments; nudging;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • D04 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation; Evaluation
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • 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:zbw:espost:210672. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.