1. Altruism, Warm Glow and Charitable Giving 3 rd SPI Conference, September 12, 2015 René Bekkers, Dave Verkaik Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI

2. Thanks to Co-authors: Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm (IUPUI) and Dave Verkaik (VU) + undergrads Funders: Templeton Foundation through the Science of Philanthropy Initiative September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20152

3. Smart Philanthropy Before spending the $29,999 from SPI for a field experiment, we invested ~$3,500 of our own money on four pilot experiments. Today I will share insights from these pilot experiments. We have learned some lessons about the reliability of published research, as well as fundraising materials used in practice. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20153

4. Envisioned field experiment Past participants in the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey 2015 receive a letter explaining the experiment and a link to an online survey in which the experiment is implemented. Informed consent + ERB approval. Six decisions, one implemented. Match donations in experiment with Oxfam donation history from database. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20154

5. Key results thus far It is very difficult to get people to give more by priming morality. Crowding-out effects are highly context- dependent. Dispositional empathic concern and the principle of care are strong predictors of donations. We understand little of the heterogeneity in treatment effects. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20155

6. Three experiments 1.Van Vliet, R. (2014). Geefgedrag in Nederland: Altruïsme of Egoïsme? Onderzoek naar empathie, het principe van zorg, en het crowding-out effect. Master Thesis VU Amsterdam. 2.Bekkers, R. & D.J. Verkaik (2015). Six Primes That Do Not Affect the Principle of Care. Mimeo, VU Amsterdam. 3.Verkaik, D.J., Bekkers, R. & Ottoni-Wilhelm, M. (2015). “Do What’s Right” and the Principle of Care. Mimeo, VU Amsterdam. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20156

7. The Big Questions - nested 1. Why do people give? 2. When do altruism and warm glow motivate giving? 3. How much giving do altruism and warm glow motivate? September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20157

8. Giving = Altruism + Warm Glow Giving can be motivated by altruism (utility from well-being of recipients) as well as warm glow (utility from giving). Under altruism, giving should be crowded out by giving by others. Previous tests have examined crowding- out at relatively low levels of giving by others. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20158

9. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 20159

10. Hypotheses Empathic concern ++ Third party contributions -Private giving -+ Principle of care September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201510

11. Challenges Developing a test of the effects of third party contributions in a natural way; Developing a measure of the state of principle of care; Developing a manipulation of the principle of care that temporarily increases the state of care. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201511

12. Solutions Talking to scholars to hear about null findings and failed replications in unpublished research. To our detriment, we found that interventions based on published research did not work. Looking at materials used in the practice of fundraising. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201512

13. Budgets Budget€ funded by sponsor € for participant 1440 21040 32840 43440 5446 62846 September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201513 Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund & Xie, 2014

14. Budgets Budget€ funded by sponsor G -i € for participant 1440 21040 32840 43440 5446 62846 September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201514 Crowding-out Income

15. Procedure All 6 budgets are evaluated in random order by participants. Only 1 will be implemented. Yields measures of altruism (α) and warm glow (β) within participants. In Ottoni-Wilhelm, Vesterlund & Xie (2014) giving is influenced primarily by altruism and less so by warm glow. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201515

16. Inducing empathy / morality Can we use subtle manipulations to increase empathy and the principle of care? We looked at the priming literature and talked to several psychologists warning us against using scrambled sentences, subliminal and physical cues, in order to avoid disappointment. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201516

17. Perhaps asking participants about their self-image as an empathic / moral person primes empathy and the principle of care. Reminding people of the norm, either secular or religious, should also increase the principle of care. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201517

18. Priming empathy and morality Participants read an article about Oxfam helping a family in need by providing them with chickens. Participants either completed empathy and principle of care scales or not. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201518 Design: 2 (self-image questions: no, yes) x 4 (priming: none, image of hands, religion, moral appeal) Participants: MTurk (n = 457)

19. The principle of care - trait a.People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate. b.Everybody in this world has a responsibility to help others when they need assistance. c.These days people need to look after themselves and not overly worry about others. d.When people are less fortunate, it is important to help them even if they are very different from us. e.It is important to help one another so that the community in general is a better place. f.Personally assisting people in trouble is very important to me. g.When thinking about helping people in trouble, it is important to consider whether the people are like us or not. h.We should not care too much about the needs of people in other parts of the world. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201519

20. A better measure of state care We decided to use an adjective checklist, describing the principle of care, avoiding emotions. –Moral –Rational –Principled –Deliberate –Responsible September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201520 Following the model of the empathic state measure developed by Batson et al., 1997

21. State care measure Please indicate the degree to which you thought about these principles after reading the story. Responsibility, Helpfulness, Beauty(F) Benevolence, Loyalty(F), Humanity, Commonality, Authority(F), Assisting, Commitment, Purity(F), Justice, Self- centered(*), Liberty, Disregard(*), Remoteness(*) Three factors: care, isolation(*), fillers(F) Good reliability, α =.86;.70;.87 September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201521

22. Familiar correlations Trait empathy Trait care State care for recipients Trait care.69 State care for recipients.60.69 State empathy adjectives.57.58.75 State care adjectives.33.55.65 Filler adjectives.01.02.27 Isolation adjectives-.06-.22 September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201522

23. BUT NO EFFECTS OF… Having participants complete questions on empathy and the principle of care Asking participants ‘How religious are you?’ before they make donation choices Adding the sentence ‘You can do the right thing by donating..’ Showing participants a pair of hands adding ‘with your donation you are able to help end injustices that cause poverty’ September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201523

24. Self-image on states… September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201524

25. Priming on states… September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201525

26. …or giving behavior September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201526

27. Very little crowding out September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201527 n = 457

28. Budgets ΔG -i ΔgiΔgi Crowding-out Effect 6: 4  10-.37-.06 6: 28  34-.04-.01 18: 10  28-.65-.03 24: 4  28-1.02-.04 30: 4  34-1.68-.06 24 (W46): 4  28-.69-.03 September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201528

29. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201529

30. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201530 Observed crowd-out Full crowd-out

31. Why so little crowding-out? Mturk participants? Hypothetical donations? A large pool of potential donors. Donations benefit families like the Abejide family, not one specific individual with a specific need. Not a lab study. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201531

32. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201532 Source: De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. (2015). Government Support and Charitable Donations: A Meta- Analysis of the Crowding-Out Hypothesis. Paper under review.

33. Crowding-in Oxfam donations September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201533 No induction (n=96) Van Vliet, 2014

34. Empathy lowers crowding-in September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201534 Empathy induction (n=96) Van Vliet, 2014

35. Care induces crowding-out September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201535 Care induction (n=107) Van Vliet, 2014

36. Does care affect crowding out? September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201536 n = 55 (no self-image questions)

37. Does care affect crowding out? September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201537 n = 57 (started with self- image questions)

38. Empathy / care and giving September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201538.40 < r <.51r =.11r = -.36

39. Empathy / care do not affect crowding-out September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201539

40. Summary of results thus far Very little crowd-out. No priming effects whatsoever on empathic or moral states or giving. Crowding-out does not vary with primes or self-image. Hypothetical giving increases strongly with dispositional empathy / care. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201540

41. Learning from practice How would practitioners prime the principle of care? Can we develop an effective manipulation that can easily be used in practice? To what extent do real world fundraising materials affect the principle of care? September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201541

42. Testing Participants are first exposed to Oxfam’s mission statement in different visual forms. Then participants completed state and dispositional measures. No giving. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201542 Design: 3 (visual: text only, text with still image, video) x 2 (moral appeal: no, yes) Participants: Crowdflower (n = 287); MTurk (n = 304)

43. Oxfam America mission statement September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201543

44. Excluding references to injustice, ‘right the wrong’ September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201544

45. Principle of care state September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201545

46. Principle of care disposition September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201546 *

47. Empathic concern state September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201547

48. Empathic concern disposition September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201548 *

49. Personal distress state September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201549 *

50. Personal distress disposition September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201550

51. Perspective taking disposition September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201551 *

52. Universalism values September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201552

53. Benevolence values September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201553

54. What we learned from practice Exposure to the Oxfam America mission statement marginally increased (+5-10%) the state of care, empathy, and distress. Also trait empathy and care are affected. These effects are most pronounced for the video, followed by the text only version. September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201554

55. Remember the model Empathic concern ++ Third party contributions -Private giving -+ Principle of care September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201555

56. Our findings thus far Empathic concern + Third party contributions - (very small) Private giving + Principle of care September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201556

57. Remaining questions MTurk: How can we more effectively manipulate the principle of care? Field experiment: Does it increase giving, its motivation, and affect crowding-out? In the long run? Among whom? September 12, 20153rd SPI Conference 201557

58. René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam r.bekkers@vu.nl www.giving.nl Twitter: @renebekkers@renebekkers