1. Anonymity in Giving in a Natural Context An Economic Field Experiment in Thirty Churches
Adriaan R. Soetevent

2. “Charity does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.”
1 Corinthians 13:4
The Holy Bible
How does anonymity affect giving?

3. 30 parishes in Netherlands
In laboratories they found that: contributions increase when subjects are unmasked
But the ties formed in the laboratory are fundamentally different real-life interactions
30 parishes in Netherlands

4. 29 weeks 791 services 1582 offerings

5. Closed Bag
Open Basket
Bag: anonymity

6. Increase in offering +9,6%

7. First Offering Second Offering
The purpose of the first offering in each church is the parish itself
the purpose of the second offering changes weekly (specific purpose within the own parish, to fund the tasks of the national Baptist federation, communities in Eastern Europe or missionaries, offers to ONG)
Effect of open baskets just on second offering – why?
First offer can be done also with regular bank payments to the parish. -> Having an excuse might prevent people from feeling ashamed.
the second offering often serves an external purpose, it gives more possibilities to exhibit unselfish behaviour.
the purpose of the second offering changes weekly -> attendants are very used to giving a certain amount to the first offering but open to circumstantial variables in their second offering.

8. Not just one way effects A note of 100€ is contributed once a month, but just when a open basket is used
When one’s contribution is much higher than those of others, one might opt for anonymity. Concern for possible negative reactions (‘What a show-off.’) outweighs the concern for prestige.

9. Size does matters

10. Social incentives to make the contribution look more Contradiction to economic theory: particular distribution of coins should be irrelevant
collecting offerings by means of baskets leads to a decrease in the frequency of small coins (1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 eurocents) and an increase in the frequency of large coins (1 and 2 euro)
Feeling ashamed about giving substandard coins
contradiction to economic theory: particular distribution of coins should be irrelevant
shift comparing the experimental period with the pre-experimental period indicates that attendants are to some extent aware that their decisions are observed by the university
The difference in size is evident even for the first offering: social incentives, not incentives to give more, but to make the contribution look more

11. “Ite, missa est” Thank You
Andrea Cammi