Limits...
On Reminder Effects, Drop-Outs and Dominance: Evidence from an Online Experiment on Charitable Giving.

Sonntag A, Zizzo DJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Our interpretation is that participants who failed to collect their positive payments under these circumstances are likely not to satisfy dominance.If we restrict the sample to subjects who did not drop out, but not otherwise, reminders significantly increase the overall amount of charitable giving.We also find that weekly reminders are no more effective than monthly reminders in increasing charitable giving, and that, in our three months duration experiment, standing orders do not increase giving relative to one-off donations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre of Behavioural and Experimental Social Science and School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
We present the results of an experiment that (a) shows the usefulness of screening out drop-outs and (b) tests whether different methods of payment and reminder intervals affect charitable giving. Following a lab session, participants could make online donations to charity for a total duration of three months. Our procedure justifying the exclusion of drop-outs consists in requiring participants to collect payments in person flexibly and as known in advance and as highlighted to them later. Our interpretation is that participants who failed to collect their positive payments under these circumstances are likely not to satisfy dominance. If we restrict the sample to subjects who did not drop out, but not otherwise, reminders significantly increase the overall amount of charitable giving. We also find that weekly reminders are no more effective than monthly reminders in increasing charitable giving, and that, in our three months duration experiment, standing orders do not increase giving relative to one-off donations.

No MeSH data available.


Reasons stated for not donating.Every subject who collected his/her payment filled brief questionnaire in which they explained their main reasons why they did not donate (more). Subsequently these open answers were categorized by the experimenter into five categories (N = 195).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4529084&req=5

pone.0134705.g002: Reasons stated for not donating.Every subject who collected his/her payment filled brief questionnaire in which they explained their main reasons why they did not donate (more). Subsequently these open answers were categorized by the experimenter into five categories (N = 195).

Mentions: After three months, at the end of the experiment, donated amounts were given to Oxfam, and all participants received an email reminding them that they had to come to the lab one more time to collect their final payment. Before being paid participants were asked to answer a very brief final questionnaire. This questionnaire contained a manipulations check (i.e. how often participants received email reminders, if any), how often they checked their emails during the Easter break, how much they remember having donated and an open question about their motives for (not) donating (see Fig 2). The main payment day was May 15th 2013; however, participants could collect their payments up to four weeks after this date and knew that from the very beginning of the experiment, and arrangements were made flexibly with students to collect their earnings over this period. In total 47 participants (i.e. 20.2% of all participants) sent us emails asking for individual arrangements for collecting their payment on a different day than the main payment day. The S1 File contains further details and a typical example of a related email exchange. This feature is crucial to our design regarding the screening for drop-outs as it minimizes the chance that any participants did not collect their payment because they were not able to either come on the payment day or arrange some individual time and date for payment. In the following we shall refer to the dataset that excludes drop-outs as the restricted dataset.


On Reminder Effects, Drop-Outs and Dominance: Evidence from an Online Experiment on Charitable Giving.

Sonntag A, Zizzo DJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Reasons stated for not donating.Every subject who collected his/her payment filled brief questionnaire in which they explained their main reasons why they did not donate (more). Subsequently these open answers were categorized by the experimenter into five categories (N = 195).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4529084&req=5

pone.0134705.g002: Reasons stated for not donating.Every subject who collected his/her payment filled brief questionnaire in which they explained their main reasons why they did not donate (more). Subsequently these open answers were categorized by the experimenter into five categories (N = 195).
Mentions: After three months, at the end of the experiment, donated amounts were given to Oxfam, and all participants received an email reminding them that they had to come to the lab one more time to collect their final payment. Before being paid participants were asked to answer a very brief final questionnaire. This questionnaire contained a manipulations check (i.e. how often participants received email reminders, if any), how often they checked their emails during the Easter break, how much they remember having donated and an open question about their motives for (not) donating (see Fig 2). The main payment day was May 15th 2013; however, participants could collect their payments up to four weeks after this date and knew that from the very beginning of the experiment, and arrangements were made flexibly with students to collect their earnings over this period. In total 47 participants (i.e. 20.2% of all participants) sent us emails asking for individual arrangements for collecting their payment on a different day than the main payment day. The S1 File contains further details and a typical example of a related email exchange. This feature is crucial to our design regarding the screening for drop-outs as it minimizes the chance that any participants did not collect their payment because they were not able to either come on the payment day or arrange some individual time and date for payment. In the following we shall refer to the dataset that excludes drop-outs as the restricted dataset.

Bottom Line: Our interpretation is that participants who failed to collect their positive payments under these circumstances are likely not to satisfy dominance.If we restrict the sample to subjects who did not drop out, but not otherwise, reminders significantly increase the overall amount of charitable giving.We also find that weekly reminders are no more effective than monthly reminders in increasing charitable giving, and that, in our three months duration experiment, standing orders do not increase giving relative to one-off donations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre of Behavioural and Experimental Social Science and School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
We present the results of an experiment that (a) shows the usefulness of screening out drop-outs and (b) tests whether different methods of payment and reminder intervals affect charitable giving. Following a lab session, participants could make online donations to charity for a total duration of three months. Our procedure justifying the exclusion of drop-outs consists in requiring participants to collect payments in person flexibly and as known in advance and as highlighted to them later. Our interpretation is that participants who failed to collect their positive payments under these circumstances are likely not to satisfy dominance. If we restrict the sample to subjects who did not drop out, but not otherwise, reminders significantly increase the overall amount of charitable giving. We also find that weekly reminders are no more effective than monthly reminders in increasing charitable giving, and that, in our three months duration experiment, standing orders do not increase giving relative to one-off donations.

No MeSH data available.