Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: attrition in a charitable giving experiment

  • ALEXIA GAUDEUL (a1) and MAGDALENA C. KACZMAREK (a2)

Abstract

Defaults may not directly get people to behave as intended, such as saving more, eating healthy food or donating to charity. Rather, defaults often only put people on the ‘right’ path, such as joining a savings plan, buying healthy food or pledging money to charity. This an issue because getting more people to take those first steps does not necessarily motivate them to go on with further steps. Indeed, the default does little to help them understand the benefit of doing so. This can greatly reduce the impact of the default. We test this idea in a charitable giving experiment where people first can promise to give to charity (‘pledge’) and then can go on to donate. We find that participants pledge more often when that is the default, but those who pledge in that case are less likely to take further steps to donate than those who pledge when pledging is against the default. We interpret this in terms of motivation and transaction costs. Some people pledge only to avoid the psychological costs of going against the default. Those people are closest to indifference between donating or not and are therefore less motivated to go on to donate. We also show that the intrinsic motivation of pledgers is lower when pledging is the default and that making pledges the default does not change attitudes to charities.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: attrition in a charitable giving experiment
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: attrition in a charitable giving experiment
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Going along with the default does not mean going on with it: attrition in a charitable giving experiment
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Correspondence to: Alexia Gaudeul, Chair of Behavioural Development Economics, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Georg-August-Universität, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany. Email: alexia.gaudeul@wiwi.uni-goettingen.de

Footnotes

Hide All

Both authors contributed equally to this paper

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Adena, M., Alizade, J., Bohner, F., Harke, J. and Mesters, F. (2017), Quality certifications for nonprofits, charitable giving, and donor's trust: experimental evidence. Working Paper SP II 2017-302r, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
Adena, M. and Huck, S. (2016), Online fundraising, self-deception, and the long-term impact of ask avoidance. Working Paper SP II 2016-306, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
Adena, M. and Mesters, F. (2017), A short scale for measuring trust in a charity. Companion paper to Working Paper SP II 2017–302, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
Allcott, H. and Rogers, T. (2014), ‘The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation’, American Economic Review, 104(10): 3003–37.
Altmann, S., Armin, F., Heidhues, P. and Jayaraman, R. (2014), Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Working Paper 5118, CESifo.
Altmann, S. and Traxler, C. (2014), ‘Nudges at the dentist’, European Economic Review, 72, 1938.
Andreoni, J. and Payne, A. A. (2013), ‘Charitable giving’, Handbook of Public Economics, 5, 150.
Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M. and Trachtman, H. (2017), ‘Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving’, Journal of Political Economy, 125(3): 625653.
Andreoni, J. and Serra-Garcia, M. (2016), Time-inconsistent charitable giving. Working Paper 22824, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Andreoni, J. (1990), ‘Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving’, The Economic Journal, 100(401): 464477.
Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I. and Dunn, E. W. (2011), ‘Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior’, In Oppenheimer, D. and Olivola, C. (Eds.) The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity, New York, NY: Psychology Press, 128.
Bem, D. J. (1972), ‘Self-perception theory’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 162.
Breman, A. (2011), ‘Give more tomorrow: Two field experiments on altruism and intertemporal choice’, Journal of Public Economics, 95(11): 13491357.
Bucher, T., Collins, C., Rollo, M. E., McCaffrey, T. A., Vlieger, N. D., Bend, D. V. d., Truby, H. and Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2016), ‘Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: a systematic review of positional influences on food choice’, British Journal of Nutrition, 115(12): 22522263.
Cheung, C. K. and Chan, C. M. (2000), ‘Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(2): 241253.
Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C. and Metrick, A. (2006), ‘Saving for retirement on the path of least resistance’, In McCaffrey, E. and Slemrod, J. (Eds.) Behavioral Public Finance: Toward a New Agenda, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation: 304352.
Cooper, J. and Fazio, R. (1984), ‘A new look at dissonance theory’, In Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 17, Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 229266.
DellaVigna, S. and Malmendier, U. (2006), ‘Paying not to go to the gym’, American Economic Review, 96(3): 694719.
Dolinski, D. and Nawrat, R. (1998), ‘‘Fear-then-relief’ procedure for producing compliance: Beware when the danger is over’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(1): 2750.
Felsen, G., Castelo, N. and Reiner, P. B. (2013), ‘Decisional enhancement and autonomy: Public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges’, Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 202213.
Festinger, L. (1962), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fosgaard, T. and Soetevent, A. R. (2018), Promises Undone: How Committed Pledges Impact Donations to Charity. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3173585, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
Freedman, J. L. and Fraser, S. C. (1966), ‘Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2): 195202.
Johnson, E. J. and Goldstein, D. (2003), ‘Do Defaults Save Lives? Science, 302(5649): 13381339.
Kataria, M., Levati, M. V. and Uhl, M. (2014), ‘Paternalism with hindsight: Do protégés react consequentialistically to paternalism? Social Choice and Welfare, 43(3): 731746.
Kellner, C., Reinstein, D. and Riener, G. (2019), ‘Ex-ante commitments to “give if you win” exceed donations after a win’, Journal of Public Economics, 169, 109127.
Knowles, S. and Servátka, M. (2015), ‘Transaction costs, the opportunity cost of time and procrastination in charitable giving’, Journal of Public Economics, 125, 5463.
Lietz, P. (2008), Questionnaire design in attitude and opinion research: Current state of an art. FOR 655 Working Paper 13/2008, Jacobs-University Bremen.
Madrian, B. C. and Shea, D. F. (2001), ‘The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4): 11491187.
Martin, S. J., Bassi, S. and Dunbar-Rees, R. (2012), ‘Commitments, norms and custard creams – a social influence approach to reducing did not attends (DNAs)’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(3): 101104.
Mazis, M. B., Settle, R. B. and Leslie, D. C. (1973), ‘Elimination of phosphate detergents and psychological reactance’, Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4): 390395.
Olson, J. and Stone, J. (2005), ‘The influence of behavior on attitudes’, In Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P. (Eds.) The Handbook of Attitudes, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 223271.
Sargeant, A. and Woodliffe, L. (2007), ‘Building donor loyalty: The antecedents and role of commitment in the context of charity giving’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18, 4768.
Schmitz, C. (2015), LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. http://www.limesurvey.org.
Schulz, J., Thiemann, P. and Thoeni, C. (2015), Defaults in charitable giving. Working Paper 2015–06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
Shaw, D. (2017), ‘Presumed consent to organ donation and the family overrule’, Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 18(2): 9697.
Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G. and Johnson, E. J. (2013), ‘Choice Without Awareness: Ethical and Policy Implications of Defaults’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2): 159172.
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2009), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Webb, T. L. and Sheeran, P. (2006), ‘Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? a meta-analysis of the experimental evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 132(2): 249268.
Wood, W. (2000), ‘Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1): 539570.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioural Public Policy
  • ISSN: 2398-063X
  • EISSN: 2398-0648
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioural-public-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed