IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/87-2-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Maja Adena

Abstract

Nudging shows a potential to increase social engagement. The article discusses a series of large field experiments in which nudging techniques such as defaults, anchors, or reminders were implemented. The results suggest that nudging may influence donation decisions. Thus, for example, nonbinding donation recommendations change the distribution of contribution levels. More individuals choose to donate exactly the recommended amount. Some raise whereas others lower their contribution. More people donate if the recommendation is relatively low and less do so if it is relatively high. The overall effect is not clear ex ante. This and other examples show that design decisions are not simplistic and furthermore context dependent. Finally, it is demonstrated that nudging-free situations do not exist because the status quo “non-donor” is also a default. 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

  • Maja Adena, 2018. "Nudging und soziales Engagement: wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 87(2), pages 139-152.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:87-2-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://elibrary.duncker-humblot.com/zeitschriften/id/25/vol/87/iss/1919/art/10037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    3. 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.
    4. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2016. "Organ donation in the lab: Preferences and votes on the priority rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 139-149.
    5. Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2022. "Giving begets giving: Positive path dependence as moral consistency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 699-718.
    6. 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.
    7. Diane Pelly & Orla Doyle, 2022. "Nudging in the workplace: increasing participation in employee EDI wellness events," Working Papers 202208, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    8. Adena, Maja & Hager, Anselm, 2024. "Does online fundraising increase charitable giving? A nationwide field experiment on Facebook," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-302r2, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, revised 2024.
    9. Maja Adena & Steffen Huck, 2020. "Online Fundraising, Self-Image, and the Long-Term Impact of Ask Avoidance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 722-743, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Robert Neumann, 2019. "The framing of charitable giving: A field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(1), pages 98-126, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Altmann, Steffen & Grunewald, Andreas & Radbruch, Jonas, 2019. "Passive Choices and Cognitive Spillovers," IZA Discussion Papers 12337, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. 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.
    15. Sun, Tianshu & Lu, Susan Feng & Jin, Ginger Zhe, 2016. "Solving shortage in a priceless market: Insights from blood donation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 149-165.
    16. 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.
    17. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2021. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242437, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Jonathan Kush & Sridhar Tayur, 2022. "Video intervention to increase decedent tissue donation by next‐of‐kin," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(5), pages 2256-2267, May.
    19. Behlen, Lars & Himmler, Oliver & Jaeckle, Robert, 2022. "Can defaults change behavior when post-intervention effort is required? Evidence from education," MPRA Paper 112962, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. 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.

    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:diw:diwvjh:87-2-10. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.