Whether imposing an option to donate "all or nothing" of one's earning/windfall/budget (vs. donations of "any amount"), or else setting up a fundraising campaign as a 'challenge' where pledges donations are realized only if a fundraising goal is met -- do we have comparative evidence of how these "all or nothing" donation designs compare to designs without such constraints?
I have found a Bekkers (2007) paper where survey respondents who had earned money are given an "all or nothing" option of donating to a chosen charity. Bekkers makes comparison with other similar research (though conducted with different samples), but what is lacking is a direct experimental comparison.
Bekkers, R. (2007, December). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. In Survey Research Methods (Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 139-144). University of Groningen.
The most relevant direct experimental comparison I have found is from this work using public goods games (PPG). Cadsby and Maynes (1999) show that allowing continuous rather than binary contribution strategies generally produces higher levels of threshold public-good provision.
Cadsby, C. B., & Maynes, E. (1999). Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 71(1), 53-73.
I still am hoping that there is work getting more directly at the question posted.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology