IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v230y2025ics0921800924003707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charismatic species, matching, and demographics in conservation donations: An experimental investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Chambers, Catherine
  • Chambers, Paul
  • Johnson, David

Abstract

Conservation organizations employ charismatic species to appeal to potential donors and increase contributions. However, evidence that this strategy increases donations is mixed. In an experimental setting, we investigate the effects of species charisma and the characteristics of potential donors on donations to conservation organizations. We conducted a modified dictator game through MTurk with 330 subjects, exploring subjects’ responses to one of sixteen treatments that differ across three dimensions. The first dimension involves exposure to an image that varies among subjects in terms of charisma. In the second dimension, we use differing donation matching rates to examine the effectiveness of matching gifts. With the final dimension, we consider real versus hypothetical scenarios. Our key findings are that the effects of charismatic species on donations are limited after controlling for the characteristics of the subjects and that those faced with a hypothetical scenario donate significantly more than those with real stakes. These results suggest conservation organizations, particularly those with a national or international focus, should consider the characteristics of potential donors targeted by their fundraising campaigns rather than relying on images of charismatic species.

Suggested Citation

  • Chambers, Catherine & Chambers, Paul & Johnson, David, 2025. "Charismatic species, matching, and demographics in conservation donations: An experimental investigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:230:y:2025:i:c:s0921800924003707
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003707
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108473?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. Daniel Rondeau & John List, 2008. "Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 253-267, September.
    2. Joana Roque de Pinho & Clara Grilo & Randall B Boone & Kathleen A Galvin & Jeffrey G Snodgrass, 2014. "Influence of Aesthetic Appreciation of Wildlife Species on Attitudes towards Their Conservation in Kenyan Agropastoralist Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    4. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    5. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    6. Charles Bellemare & Luc Bissonnette & Sabine Kröger, 2014. "Statistical Power of Within and Between-Subjects Designs in Economic Experiments," Cahiers de recherche 1403, Centre de recherche sur les risques, les enjeux économiques, et les politiques publiques.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 661-669.
    8. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    9. John A. List & David Lucking-Reiley, 2002. "The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(1), pages 215-233, February.
    10. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:osf:metaar:a9vhr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. de Oliveira, Angela C.M. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Eckel, Catherine, 2011. "The giving type: Identifying donors," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 428-435.
    14. David Johnson & John Barry Ryan, 2020. "Amazon Mechanical Turk workers can provide consistent and economically meaningful data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 369-385, July.
    15. Sabrina Teyssier & Fabrice Etile & Pierre Combris, 2015. "Social- and self-image concerns in fair-trade consumption," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(4), pages 579-606.
    16. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    17. Johannes Diederich & Catherine C. Eckel & Raphael Epperson & Timo Goeschl & Philip J. Grossman, 2022. "Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 734-758, April.
    18. Natalia Candelo & Angela C. M. de Oliveira & Catherine Eckel, 2019. "Worthiness versus Self‐Interest in Charitable Giving: Evidence from a Low‐Income, Minority Neighborhood," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1196-1216, April.
    19. Meyer, Andrew, 2015. "Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 108-121.
    20. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01203174 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    22. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "A Practitioner's Primer on the Contingent Valuation Method," Chapters, in: Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    23. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    24. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    25. Stephan Meier, 2007. "Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(6), pages 1203-1222, December.
    26. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    27. Chankrajang, Thanyaporn & Muttarak, Raya, 2017. "Green Returns to Education: Does Schooling Contribute to Pro-Environmental Behaviours? Evidence from Thailand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 434-448.
    28. Deborah Dawson & Jason F. Shogren, 2001. "An Update on Priorities and Expenditures under the Endangered Species Act," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 527-532.
    29. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    30. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    31. Raphael Epperson & Christiane Reif, 2019. "Matching Subsidies And Voluntary Contributions: A Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 1578-1601, December.
    32. Tisdell, Clem & Nantha, Hemanath Swarna & Wilson, Clevo, 2007. "Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 627-633, January.
    33. John A. List, 2011. "The Market for Charitable Giving," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 157-180, Spring.
    34. Krasteva, Silvana & Saboury, Piruz, 2021. "Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    35. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    36. Raymond J. Kopp, 1992. "Why existence value should be used in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 123-130.
    37. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    38. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    39. repec:feb:natura:0053 is not listed on IDEAS
    40. John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12964, December.
    41. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 181-191, October.
    42. Richard G. Walsh & John B. Loomis & Richard A. Gillman, 1984. "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(1), pages 14-29.
    43. Natalia Candelo & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson, 2018. "Social Distance Matters in Dictator Games: Evidence from 11 Mexican Villages," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, October.
    44. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    45. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    46. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    47. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    48. Diogo Veríssimo & Hamish A Campbell & Simon Tollington & Douglas C MacMillan & Robert J Smith, 2018. "Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a ‘real world’ campaign," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    49. Jennifer McGowan & Linda J. Beaumont & Robert J. Smith & Alienor L. M. Chauvenet & Robert Harcourt & Scott C. Atkinson & John C. Mittermeier & Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez & John B. Baumgartner & Andrew B, 2020. "Conservation prioritization can resolve the flagship species conundrum," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-7, December.
    50. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    51. repec:plo:pone00:0199149 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    2. Maja Adena & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Steffen Huck, 2024. "Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(1), pages 633-646, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Adena, Maja, 2021. "How can we improve tax incentives for charitable giving? Lessons from field experiments in fundraising," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 344-353.
    5. 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.
    6. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    7. Raphael Epperson & Johannes Diederich & Timo Goeschl, 2025. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(4), pages 2830-2846, April.
    8. Adena, Maja & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Huck, Steffen, 2019. "Charitable giving by the poor: A field experiment on matching and distance to charitable output in Kyrgyzstan," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2019-305, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Nadine Chlaß & Lata Gangadharan & Kristy Jones, 2015. "Charitable giving and intermediation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2015-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    10. Saboury, Piruz & Krasteva, Silvana & Palma, Marco A., 2022. "The effect of seed money and matching gifts in fundraising: A lab experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 425-453.
    11. Krasteva, Silvana & Saboury, Piruz, 2021. "Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    12. He, Shutong & Blasch, Julia & Robinson, Peter John & van Beukering, Pieter, 2024. "Social comparison feedback in decision-making context: Environmental externality levels and psychological traits matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    13. Karlan, Dean & List, John A., 2020. "How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people's donations to fund public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2017. "Matching Donations Without Crowding Out?," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 16, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Ernan Haruvy & Peter Popkowski Leszczyc & Greg Allenby & Russell Belk & Catherine Eckel & Robert Fisher & Sherry Xin Li & John A. List & Yu Ma & Yu Wang, 2020. "Fundraising design: key issues, unifying framework, and open puzzles," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 371-380, December.
    16. Brendan Bo O’Connor & Karen Lee & Dylan Campbell & Liane Young, 2022. "Moral psychology from the lab to the wild: Relief registries as a paradigm for studying real-world altruism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Alpízar, Francisco & Nordén, Anna & Pfaff, Alexander & Robalino, Juan, 2017. "Spillovers from targeting of incentives: Exploring responses to being excluded," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 87-98.
    18. Indranil Goswami & Indranil Goswami, 2020. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments in Fundraising," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(6), pages 1052-1070, November.
    19. Daniel M. Hungerman & Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2021. "Impure Impact Giving: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1553-1614.
    20. Epperson, Raphael & Reif, Christiane, 2018. "Matching schemes and public goods: A review," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-070, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, revised 2018.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Charismatic species; Experimental economics; Donations; Conservation; Dictator game;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:ecolec:v:230:y:2025:i:c:s0921800924003707. 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/ecolecon .

    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.