Do fans’ emotions influence charitable donations? Evidence from monetary and returnable cup donations in German soccer stadiums.

Author(s):  
Aljoscha Minnich
Keyword(s):  
IEEE Access ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 52728-52740
Author(s):  
Chiung-Wen Hsu ◽  
Yu-Lin Chang ◽  
Tzer-Shyong Chen ◽  
Te-Yi Chang ◽  
Yu-Da Lin

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-334
Author(s):  
Eric Kades

Abstract There are powerful fairness and efficiency arguments for making charitable donations to soup kitchens 100% deductible. These arguments have no purchase for donations to fund opulent church organs, yet these too are 100% deductible under the current tax code. This stark dichotomy is only the tip of the iceberg. Looking at a wider sampling of charitable gifts reveals a charitable continuum. Based on sliding scales for efficiency, multiple theories of fairness, pluralism, institutional competence and social welfare dictate that charitable deductions should in most cases be fractions between zero and one. Moreover, the Central Limit Theorem strongly suggests that combining this welter of largely independent criteria with the wide variety of charitable gifts results in a classic bell-shaped normal curve of optimal deductions, with a peak at some central value and quickly decaying to zero at the extremes of 0% and 100%. Given that those are the only two options under the current tax code, the current charitable deduction regime inevitably makes large errors in most cases. Actually calculating a precise optimal percentage for each type of charitable donation is of course impractical. This Article suggests, however, that we can do much better than the systematically erroneous current charitable deduction. Granting a 100% deduction only for donations to the desperately poor, along with 50%, 25%, and 0% for gifts yielding progressively fewer efficiency, fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence benefits, promises to deliver a socially more desirable charitable deduction.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Chao ◽  
Geoffrey Fisher

Nonprofits regularly use conditional “thank you” gifts to entice prospective donors to give, yet experimental evidence suggests that their effects are mixed in practice. This paper uses multiple laboratory experiments to test when and why thank you gifts vary in effectiveness. First, we demonstrate that although gifts often increase donations to charities that donors did not rate highly, many of the same gifts had no effects or negative effects for charities that prospective donors already liked. We replicate these findings in a second experiment that uses a different range of charity and gift options as well as different measures of participant perceptions of a charity. We also find that making gifts optional, as is common in fundraising campaigns, does not eliminate these negative gift effects. In additional experiments, we directly test for donor motives using self-report and priming experiments. We find that thank you gifts increase (decrease) the weight that donors place on self-interested (prosocial) motives, leading to changes in donation patterns. Altogether, our results suggest that practitioners may find gifts more useful when appealing to donors not already familiar with or favorably inclined to their charity, such as during donor acquisition campaigns. They may be less useful when appealing to recent donors or others who already favor the charity, in part because the gift may activate mindsets or norms that emphasize self-interested motives instead of more prosocial, other-regarding motives. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikola Erceg ◽  
Matthias Burghart ◽  
Alessia Cottone ◽  
Jessica Lorimer ◽  
Kiran Manku ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janne van Doorn ◽  
Marcel Zeelenberg ◽  
Seger M Breugelmans

This article investigates if and when anger appeals (communications that elicit anger in people), can be used to increase donations to charity. In an experimental study the idea was tested that anger leads to higher charitable donations, under the condition that people can restore equity with that donation (i.e., restore the harm done to the victim). Results indeed show that when one’s donation serves a specific restorative function (i.e., compensates the suffering of women so that they can start a new life) as compared to a non-restorative function (i.e., offers help in special crisis centers for women, to alleviate their suffering and not worsen their situation), angry participants donated more to charity. This difference was absent when people did not experience anger. Furthermore, angry people donated more to the restorative charity than people not experiencing this emotion. The effect of anger on charitable donations occurred independently from people’s empathic concern. These results thus suggest that anger can act as an emotional appeal in soliciting charitable donations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document