IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0134705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Reminder Effects, Drop-Outs and Dominance: Evidence from an Online Experiment on Charitable Giving

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Sonntag
  • Daniel John Zizzo

Abstract

We present the results of an experiment that (a) shows the usefulness of screening out drop-outs and (b) tests whether different methods of payment and reminder intervals affect charitable giving. Following a lab session, participants could make online donations to charity for a total duration of three months. Our procedure justifying the exclusion of drop-outs consists in requiring participants to collect payments in person flexibly and as known in advance and as highlighted to them later. Our interpretation is that participants who failed to collect their positive payments under these circumstances are likely not to satisfy dominance. If we restrict the sample to subjects who did not drop out, but not otherwise, reminders significantly increase the overall amount of charitable giving. We also find that weekly reminders are no more effective than monthly reminders in increasing charitable giving, and that, in our three months duration experiment, standing orders do not increase giving relative to one-off donations.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "On Reminder Effects, Drop-Outs and Dominance: Evidence from an Online Experiment on Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0134705
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134705
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134705&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0134705?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. Huck Steffen & Rasul Imran, 2010. "Transactions Costs in Charitable Giving: Evidence from Two Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, April.
    2. Manoj Thomas & Kalpesh Kaushik Desai & Satheeshkumar Seenivasan, 2011. "How Credit Card Payments Increase Unhealthy Food Purchases: Visceral Regulation of Vices," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 126-139.
    3. Steffen Huck & Imran Rasul & Andrew Shephard, 2015. "Comparing Charitable Fundraising Schemes: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment and a Structural Model," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 326-369, May.
    4. Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Margaret McConnell & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "Getting to theTop of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving," Working Papers id:2587, eSocialSciences.
    5. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    6. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    7. Gabriel D. Carroll & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2009. "Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1639-1674.
    8. Catherine Eckel & Philip J. Grossman & Angela Milano, 2007. "Is More Information Always Better? An Experimental Study of Charitable Giving and Hurrican Katrina," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(2), pages 388-411, October.
    9. Frank, Bjorn, 1998. "Good news for experimenters: subjects do not care about your welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 171-174, November.
    10. Tepper, Kelly, 1994. "The Role of Labeling Processes in Elderly Consumers' Responses to Age Segmentation Cues," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 503-519, March.
    11. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Visser, Martine, 2008. "Does stake size matter for cooperation and punishment?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 508-511, June.
    12. Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Working Paper Series in Economics 10, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Hirschman, Elizabeth C, 1979. "Differences in Consumer Purchase Behavior by Credit Card Payment System," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 6(1), pages 58-66, June.
    15. Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2011. "Payment Choice, Image Motivation and Contributions to Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 180-205, February.
    16. Andrew Jones & Richard Marriott, 1994. "Determinants of the level and methods of charitable giving in the 1990 Family Expenditure Survey," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(11), pages 200-203.
    17. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng & Daniel John Zizzo, 2012. "Complexity and Smart Nudges with Inattentive Consumers," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2012-13, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Murphy, Kristina, 2008. "Enforcing Tax Compliance: To Punish or Persuade?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 113-135, March.
    19. Julie Novakova & Jaroslav Flegr, 2013. "How Much Is Our Fairness Worth? The Effect of Raising Stakes on Offers by Proposers and Minimum Acceptable Offers in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.
    20. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    21. Promothesh Chatterjee & Randall L. Rose, 2012. "Do Payment Mechanisms Change the Way Consumers Perceive Products?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(6), pages 1129-1139.
    22. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    23. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    24. Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
    25. Moxnes, Erling, 2004. "Estimating customer utility of energy efficiency standards for refrigerators," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 707-724, December.
    26. Calzolari, Giacomo & Nardotto, Mattia, 2011. "Nudging with information: a randomized field experiment on reminders and feedback," CEPR Discussion Papers 8571, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    27. Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-10, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    28. Mette Trier Damgaard & Christina Gravert, 2014. "Now or never! The effect of deadlines on charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Economics Working Papers 2014-03, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    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. Wolfgang Habla & Paul Muller, 2021. "Experimental evidence of limited attention at the gym," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1156-1184, December.
    2. Stephan Müller & Holger A Rau, 2019. "Too cold for warm glow? Christmas-season effects in charitable giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Andrew Dustan & Juan Manuel Hernandez-Agramonte & Stanislao Maldonado, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale," Natural Field Experiments 00664, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Knowles, Stephen & Servátka, Maroš & Sullivan, Trudy & Genç, Murat, 2021. "The Non-Monotonic Effect of Deadlines on Task Completion," MPRA Paper 109484, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Malodia, Suresh & Kaur, Puneet & Ractham, Peter & Sakashita, Mototaka & Dhir, Amandeep, 2022. "Why do people avoid and postpone the use of voice assistants for transactional purposes? A perspective from decision avoidance theory," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 605-618.
    6. Dustan, Andrew & Hernandez-Agramonte, Juan Manuel & Maldonado, Stanislao, 2023. "Motivating bureaucrats with behavioral insights when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    7. Falco, Paolo & Zaccagni, Sarah, 2020. "Promoting social distancing in a pandemic: Beyond the good intentions," OSF Preprints a2nys, Center for Open Science.
    8. Essl, Andrea & Steffen, Angela & Staehle, Martin, 2021. "Choose to reuse! The effect of action-close reminders on pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Gravert, Christina, 2018. "The hidden costs of nudging: Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 15-26.
    10. Gessner, Johannes & Habla, Wolfgang & Wagner, Ulrich J., 2023. "Can social comparisons and moral appeals increase public transport ridership and decrease car use?," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-003, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Dustan, Andrew & Maldonado, Stanislao & Hernandez-Agramonte, Juan Manuel, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," MPRA Paper 90952, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Muller, Paul & Habla, Wolfgang, 2018. "Experimental and non-experimental evidence on limited attention and present bias at the gym," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-041, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Stephen Knowles & Maroš Servátka & Trudy Sullivan & Murat Genç, 2022. "Procrastination and the non‐monotonic effect of deadlines on task completion," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 706-720, April.
    14. Knowles, Stephen & Servátka, Maroš & Sullivan, Trudy, 2016. "Deadlines, Procrastination, and Inattention in Charitable Tasks: A Field Experiment," MPRA Paper 69621, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Johannes Gessner & Wolfgang Habla & Ulrich J. Wagner, 2023. "Can Social Comparisons and Moral Appeals Induce a Modal Shift Towards Low-Emission Transport Modes?," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_451, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    16. Goette, Lorenz & Tripodi, Egon, 2020. "Does positive feedback of social impact motivate prosocial behavior? A field experiment with blood donors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 1-8.

    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. Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2014. "Reminders, payment method and charitable giving: evidence from an online experiment," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 14-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Nadine Chlaß & Lata Gangadharan & Kristy Jones, 2015. "Charitable giving and intermediation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2015-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Yizhao Jiang, 2022. "The Influence of Payment Method: Do Consumers Pay More with Mobile Payment?," Papers 2210.14631, arXiv.org.
    4. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Gravert, Christina, 2017. "Now or never! The effect of deadlines on charitable giving: Evidence from two natural field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 78-87.
    5. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    6. Eckel, Catherine & Gintis, Herbert, 2010. "Blaming the messenger: Notes on the current state of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 109-119, January.
    7. Linardi, Sera & McConnell, Margaret A., 2011. "No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 445-454.
    8. 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.
    9. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    10. Gilbert, Ben & Graff Zivin, Joshua S., 2020. "Dynamic corrective taxes with time-varying salience," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    11. Riedel, Nadine & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2013. "Asymmetric obligations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 67-80.
    12. Mitesh Kataria & Tobias Regner, 2015. "Honestly, why are you donating money to charity? An experimental study about self-awareness in status-seeking behavior," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 493-515, November.
    13. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
    14. Huck, Steffen & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 351-362, June.
    15. Levin, Tova & Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2023. "A Glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 644-658.
    16. Ronald Bosman & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frans Van Winden, 2017. "Emotion at Stake—The Role of Stake Size and Emotions in a Power-to-Take Game Experiment in China with a Comparison to Europe," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, March.
    17. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2014. "Resources for Conflict: Constraint or Wealth?," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 061, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Bruttel, Lisa & Fischbacher, Urs, 2013. "Taking the initiative. What characterizes leaders?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 147-168.
    19. Fehr, Ernst & Tougareva, Elena & Fischbacher, Urs, 2014. "Do high stakes and competition undermine fair behaviour? Evidence from Russia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 354-363.
    20. Kesternich, Martin & Löschel, Andreas & Römer, Daniel, 2016. "The long-term impact of matching and rebate subsidies when public goods are impure: Field experimental evidence from the carbon offsetting market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 70-78.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • 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:plo:pone00:0134705. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.