Altruism & Social Pressure

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Reliability and Validity

Advertisements

By Laura Lamb (2011).  Approximately 1200 CED organizations in Canada (2006)  Federal & Provincial governments have come to recognize importance of.

Information Seekers and Avoiders Lauren Feiler California Institute of Technology.

1 “ Pumpkin pies and public goods: The raffle fundraising strategy ” BRIAN DUNCAN (2002) Sandra Orozco Contest and Tournaments November, 2007.

Fundraising idea For Cancer research UK Emily Shayna Sydney Susie.

1 When and Why Matches Are More Effective Subsidies Than Rebates Evidence From a Field Experiment with Health Charities in the Netherlands René Bekkers.

Catherine C. Eckel Texas A&M University MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS.

Surveying Volunteering: Giving in the Netherlands René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam.

Volunteering & Charitable Giving. The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein.

Sonja Caffe Par’b, 07/29/15.  The science of giving  The art of giving  How can we maximize our giving? Understanding giving and ourselves will help.

Chapter 16 Income Taxation

The Nature of Science (How Scientists Think). Lockdown: Three bells Lockdown Procedures Get to a secure place (the classroom) All windows closed. Lights.

THE SOCIAL SIDE OF GIVING TO CHARITIES: THE EFFECT OF ALTRUISTIC AND EGOISTIC MOTIVATIONS ON ANONYMOUS GIVING (WORKING PAPER) Ömer TORLAK & Muhammet Ali.

The Relationship Between Altruism and Equal Division: Evidence From Inter Vivos Transfer Behavior Elin Halvorsen

Disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay in a biodiversity conservation context. Dr. Michael Christie Institute of Rural Sciences University.

AP Statistics Chapter 22 Notes “Comparing Two Proportions”

Andrey Bykov, Inna F. Deviatko Experimental study of assessment of altruistic actions: effects of the survey mode Web Survey Methodology Research Group.

Schedule Combinations: Behavior Synthesis Multiple and Mixed Schedules: Observing Responses Multiple Schedules: Inhibitory Interactions Inhibition and.

Hypothesis testing and effect sizes Sylvain Chartier Laboratory for Computational Neurodynamics and Cognition Centre for Neural Dynamics.

 Discovery process  Step 1 – Make Observation - Qualitative: non-numerical - Quantitative: numerical.

The Scientific Method. The Basic Steps l State the problem l Form a hypothesis l Test the hypothesis l Draw conclusions.

Do donors raise their donations when they are aware of decreasing government subsidies? A survey experiment Arjen de Wit & René Bekkers 7 th ERNOP Conference.

What are we raising money for? ( Your School Name ) is sponsoring an Uncle Jerry’s T’s Fundraiser to help raise important funds. Uncle Jerry’s T’s was.

Strategic Altruism Enrique Fatas LINEEX University of Valencia Antonio Morales LINEEX University of Malaga.

Altruistic Advice Giving Shoham Choshen-Hillel and Ilan Yaniv The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Introduction General General Method References Schotter,

Do donors raise their donations when they are aware of decreasing government subsidies? A survey experiment Arjen de Wit & René Bekkers Philanthropic Studies,

Be extraordinarily You. Nonprofit organizations are pretty Amazin g

THEATRICAL INSTRUCTION DURING LITERACY WILL DECREASE BEHAVIORS AND INCREASE ENGAGEMENT FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS WITH EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE "ALL STUDENTS.

PSYCH 570 Week 3 DQ 1 Check this A+ tutorial guideline at 570-Week-3-DQ-1 Which theory do you feel best.

COMM 102 Week 4 DQ 2 What roles have you seen played in your group? What role do you tend to take on? Why do these roles enhance communication in our groups?

ACC 220 Week 1 DQ 1 And DQ 2 ACC 220 Week 1 DQ1 Based on what you know about accounting, what role do you see it playing in business operations? How dependent.

Chapter 18 Social Economics.

Being a volunteer - key lessons from research in Ilkeston

Empowering Your Board with Meaningful Development Metrics

Behavioral Summer Camp Behavioral Labor Economics

Research Methods in Psychology

Behavioral economics Chapter 30

Donnovan’s Dream Foundation

SPI Conference 2017, September 7, 2017

Lakeshore Corvette Club

Lessons Learned The response rate could have been better (116 out of approx. 1,500). Using the automated survey module from our Branch website.

Improve PAP Patient Compliance While Improving Staff Productivity

Designing: A Game of Chance

MAKING SENSE OF THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF TRANSPORT POLICIES

Chapter 12 Tests with Qualitative Data

Delwin Derksen Carlene Gilbert Kim Luchsinger Beth Mammenga Jon White

Tips for Writing Free Response Questions on the AP Statistics Exam

Scientific Method.

BA 275 Quantitative Business Methods

Prior authorization and patient cost-sharing are least likely to be seen as effective in reducing unnecessary care. “How effective do you think each of.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD VOCABULARY.

Conducting Research Chapter 2.

Exponential Functions

Smart Home in Maui, Hawaii

Giving in Europe How much, by whom, and for which causes?

Name of Charity Fundraiser

Angry eyes decrease charitable giving Conclusions and Implications

René Bekkers – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Culture change takes time

More on Testing 500 randomly selected U.S. adults were asked the question: “Would you be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment?”

Behavioral economics Chapter 30

1.1 – Social Science Research Methods

Chapter 2: Research Methods

Discussion of Baugh (2015) “What happens when payday borrowers are cut off from payday lending? A natural experiment” Brian T. Melzer Kellogg School of.

René Bekkers – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Do now activity #1 What is the difference between a control and a variable? How come water (H2O) is not an element? List 10 examples of the word “organism”.

Social anchoring and hypothetical bias in stated WTP

Presentation transcript:

Altruism & Social Pressure Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving DellaVigna, List, Malmendier 2009 Janina Pehws

Overview Introduction Model Experimental design Hypothesis Results Conclusion Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 2

Introduction Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 3

Introduction Two motivations for giving: altruism/ warm glow social pressure Altruism: donate, because they care about a specific worthy case Warm glow: donate, because they enjoy the feeling of giving Social pressure: donate, because they dislike to be seen as not giving (would prefer not to give) Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 4

Introduction Model + Field Experiment Test for 2 types of motivations  which of the models fits observations better (with or without social pressure) Test for the welfare effect of donating Is donating welfare enhancing? Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 5

Model Utility maximization: s: Social pressure cost (of not giving/giving small amounts) No social pressure  S=0 Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 6

Experimental design Field experiment: Door-to-door fund-raising Treatments: charity treatment (ask for donation): 7,669 households Survey treatment (ask questions about charitable giving): 1,866 households Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 7

Experimental design Treatments: Baseline: just knock/ring bell Flyer: visit is announced a day before Opt-out: flyer includes box, if box is checked  solicitors do not knock on the door Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 8

Hypothesis Hypothesis:  Giving would be welfare enhancing If people give due to altruism, flyer should increase presence at home and giving (or give through other means)  Giving would be welfare enhancing Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 9

Results Results from OLS Regression: Flyer: Reduces Probability of opening the door by 10% BUT: Giving is higher (sorting in of altruists) Opt-out : Reduces Probability of opening the door by 25% BUT: - Number of large donations increases - social pressure cost is reduced Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 10

Results Results from OLS Regression: Some give due to altruism (> $10) some give due to social pressure (< $10) Median amount given: $10 Donation due to altruism: large donations (> $10) Donation due to social pressure: small donations (< $10) stronger evidence for role of social pressure: ½ of donators would prefer not to give (not to be contacted)  they opt out, when they can (and don´t give through other means) Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 11

Results Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 12

Results Results from minimum-distance estimator: Social pressure cost: $3.5 (local charity) Unsolicited Fundraising is welfare decreasing (for giver) local charity: welfare (giver) − $1.04 / welfare (net) + $0.35 Hypothesis rejected With S=0 the model cannot explain opting out Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 13

Conclusion Both Altruism and social pressure play a role in charitable giving Negative welfare effect (because of social pressure costs) Solution: Flyer Opt-out  Win-win for charity & households Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 14

Thank you for your attention! Do you have any questions?? Janina Pehws Experimental and Behavioral Economics 06.06.2016 15