IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v25y2023i5p1677-1691.html

Improving the Quality of In-Kind Donations: A Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sindy De La Torre Pacheco

    (St. Vincent de Paul, Arizona, Director of Design & Data Analytics, Phoenix, Arizona 85003)

  • Mahyar Eftekhar

    (Department of Supply Chain Management, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

  • Chao Wu

    (Department of Supply Chain Management, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

Abstract

Problem definition: Although in-kind donations contribute to charity’s triple bottom line (i.e., generating additional revenue for the charity, contributing to social welfare, and reducing environmental waste through rechanneling used items), inappropriate material donations impose additional costs to sort, process, or discard them. Minimizing the amount of undesired in-kind donations, however, is a challenge given charities’ sensitive relationship with their donors. This paper examines the effectiveness of behavioral interventions on improving the quality of in-kind donations gifted by individuals. Methodology/results: We conducted a field experiment to implement interventions motivated by two well-established behavioral mechanisms: information disclosure and social norm . We studied the reaction of 763 donors who were scheduled to make an in-kind donation at a local charity between October 31 and November 11, 2020. Our results show that using the social norm intervention effectively improved the quality of in-kind donations, whereas information disclosure, which is commonly used in practice as the industry standard intervention, was ineffective. We also conducted two postexperiment analyses. First, we collected additional data on 1,301 in-kind donations whose donors had received the social norm intervention during February 2021. Results show that the impact of the social norm intervention is stable over different time periods. Second, we studied the spillover effect of these interventions for a period of 12 months and did not find a negative long-term impact on in-kind donations. Managerial implications: A conservative estimation shows that implementing the social norm intervention reduced the junk donations received by 50% without having a negative spillover effect on donors’ in-kind donations or imposing any direct operating cost. Consequently, this field evidence provides an effective, cost-efficient, and scalable solution for charities to address the quality problem of in-kind donations. In addition, our results challenge the industry conventional practice of incorporating information disclosure in their communications with donors.

Suggested Citation

  • Sindy De La Torre Pacheco & Mahyar Eftekhar & Chao Wu, 2023. "Improving the Quality of In-Kind Donations: A Field Experiment," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1677-1691, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:5:p:1677-1691
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2023.1214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1214
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2023.1214?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2016. "When should the ask be a nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations," Natural Field Experiments 00659, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    3. Martin, Richard & Randal, John, 2008. "How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 228-238, July.
    4. Duncan, Brian, 1999. "Modeling charitable contributions of time and money," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 213-242, May.
    5. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    6. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    7. James Andreoni & Justin M. Rao & Hannah Trachtman, 2017. "Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(3), pages 625-653.
    8. 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.
    9. Dolan, Paul & Galizzi, Matteo M., 2015. "Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-16.
    10. Julian Conrads & Bernd Irlenbusch & Tommaso Reggiani & Rainer Michael Rilke & Dirk Sliwka, 2016. "How to hire helpers? Evidence from a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 577-594, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Robert J. Fisher & Mark Vandenbosch & Kersi D. Antia, 2008. "An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers' Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 519-531, February.
    13. Vanessa Mertins & Christian Walter, 2021. "In absence of money: a field experiment on volunteer work motivation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 952-984, September.
    14. Sanjay L. Ahire & Pelin Pekgün, 2018. "Harvest Hope Food Bank Optimizes Its Promotional Strategy to Raise Donations Using Integer Programming," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(4), pages 291-306, August.
    15. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    16. Coby Morvinski & Silvia Saccardo & On Amir, 2023. "Mis-Nudging Morality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 464-474, January.
    17. Lauren E. Willis, 2011. "The Financial Education Fallacy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 429-434, May.
    18. Jones, Lauren E. & Loibl, Cäzilia & Tennyson, Sharon, 2015. "Effects of informational nudges on consumer debt repayment behaviors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 16-33.
    19. John P Costello & Selin A Malkoc, 2022. "Why Are Donors More Generous with Time Than Money? The Role of Perceived Control over Donations on Charitable Giving [Appraisals of Control and Predictability in Adapting to a Chronic Disease]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(4), pages 678-696.
    20. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    21. Wendy Liu & Jennifer Aaker, 2008. "The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 543-557, May.
    22. Downs, J.S. & Wisdom, J. & Wansink, B. & Loewenstein, G., 2013. "Supplementing menu labeling with calorie recommendations to test for facilitation effects," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(9), pages 1604-1609.
    23. Agerström, Jens & Carlsson, Rickard & Nicklasson, Linda & Guntell, Linda, 2016. "Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 147-153.
    24. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    25. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    26. Cristina Bicchieri & Eugen Dimant, 2022. "Nudging with care: the risks and benefits of social information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 443-464, June.
    27. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    28. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    29. repec:feb:framed:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    31. George Loewenstein & Cass R. Sunstein & Russell Golman, 2014. "Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 391-419, August.
    32. 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.
    33. Liu, Wendy & Aaker, Jennifer L., 2008. "The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect," Research Papers 1998, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    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. Alt, Marius & Gallier, Carlo, 2022. "Incentives and intertemporal behavioral spillovers: A two-period experiment on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 959-972.
    2. Abhishek Bhati & Ruth K. Hansen, 2020. "A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    3. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    4. Chao Wu & Mahyar Eftekhar, 2024. "Does Volunteering Crowd Out Donations? Evidence from Online Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1542-1566, July.
    5. Meyer, Christian Johannes & Tripodi, Egon, 2021. "Image concerns in pledges to give blood: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Christoph Feldhaus & Tassilo Sobotta & Peter Werner, 2019. "Norm Uncertainty and Voluntary Payments in the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1855-1866, April.
    7. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Valeria Fanghella & Lisette Ibanez & John Thøgersen, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Post-Print hal-04982503, HAL.
    9. Valeria Fanghella & Lisette Ibanez & John Thøgersen, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-04982503, HAL.
    10. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    11. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    12. 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.
    13. Bašić, Zvonimir & Verrina, Eugenio, 2024. "Personal norms — and not only social norms — shape economic behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    14. Arroyos-Calvera, Danae & Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2024. "Beyond social influence: Examining the efficacy of non-social recommendations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    15. Grieder, Manuel & Schmitz, Jan & Schubert, Renate, 2024. "Asking to give: coordinated fundraising and giving," VfS Annual Conference 2024 (Berlin): Upcoming Labor Market Challenges 302438, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Catherine C. Eckel & Hanna G. Hoover & Erin L. Krupka & Nishita Sinha & Rick K. Wilson, 2023. "Using social norms to explain giving behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 1115-1141, November.
    17. Casarico, Alessandra & Tonin, Mirco, 2021. "A field experiment on fundraising to support independent information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 227-250.
    18. Kessler, Judd B. & Low, Corinne & Singhal, Monica, 2021. "Social policy instruments and the compliance environment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 248-267.
    19. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:5:p:1677-1691. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.