Eliciting Donor Preferences

Abstract

Most charity organizations depend on contributions from the general public, but little research is conducted on donor preferences. Do donors have geographical, recipient, or thematic preferences? We designed a conjoint analysis experiment in which people rated development aid projects by donating money in dictator games. We find that our sample show strong age, gender, regional, and thematic preferences. Furthermore, we find significant differences between segments. The differences in donations are consistent with differences in donors’ attitudes toward development aid and their beliefs about differences in poverty and vulnerability of the recipients. The method here used for development projects can easily be adapted to elicit preferences for other kinds of projects that rely on gifts from private donors.

Résumé

La plupart des organisations caritatives dépendent des dons du public, mais on ne possède que peu d’études sur les préférences des donateurs. Les donateurs ont-ils des préférences géographiques, de bénéficiaires ou de thèmes? Nous avons conçu une expérience d’analyse conjointe évaluant l’appréciation d’individus pour des projets d’aide au développement en fonction de leurs dons d’argent dans le cadre de jeux de dictateur. Nous constatons que notre échantillon démontre de fortes préférences d’âge, de sexe, de région et de thème. Nous constatons aussi des différences significatives entre groupes. Les différences en matière de dons sont en phase avec les différences dans les attitudes des donateurs vis-à-vis de l’aide au développement et leurs croyances quant au niveau de pauvreté et de vulnérabilité des bénéficiaires. La méthode utilisée ici pour des projets de développements peut être facilement adaptée pour étudier les préférences à l’égard d’autres types de projets dépendant des dons de donateurs privés.

Zusammenfassung

Die meisten gemeinnützigen Organisationen sind auf öffentliche Spenden angewiesen, aber es wurden bislang nur wenige Untersuchungen über die Prioritäten von Spendern durchgeführt. Haben Spender Präferenzen mit Hinblick auf die geographische Lage, den Empfänger oder den Zweck? Wir haben ein Experiment im Rahmen der Conjoint-Analyse entworfen, bei dem Personen in Diktatorspielen Entwicklungshilfsprojekte durch die Vergabe von Spenden bewerteten. Das Ergebnis unserer Stichprobe zeigt stark ausgeprägte Präferenzen abhängig von Alter, Geschlecht, Region und Zweck. Darüber hinaus sind große Unterschiede zwischen den Segmenten erkennbar. Die Unterschiede in den Spendenbeträgen entsprechen den unterschiedlichen Einstellungen der Spender gegenüber der Entwicklungshilfe sowie ihrer Bewertung der Unterschiede zwischen der Armut und Verletzlichkeit der Empfänger. Die hier angewandte Methode für Entwicklungsprojekte kann durchaus angepasst werden, um Präferenzen für andere Projekte, die auf die Gelder privater Spender angewiesen sind, zu ermitteln.

Resumen

La mayoría de las organizaciones benéficas dependen de las aportaciones del público en general, pero se ha realizado poca investigación sobre las preferencias de los donantes. ¿Tienen los donantes preferencias geográficas, temáticas o de receptores? Diseñamos un experimento de análisis conjunto en el que las personas calificaron los proyectos de ayuda al desarrollo mediante la donación de dinero en juegos del dictador. Encontramos que nuestra muestra señala fuertes preferencias de edad, género, regionales y temáticas. Asimismo, encontramos diferencias significativas entre segmentos. Las diferencias en donaciones son coherentes con las diferentes en las actitudes de los donantes hacia la ayuda al desarrollo y sus creencias sobre las diferencias en la pobreza y vulnerabilidad de los receptores. El método utilizado en este caso para proyectos de desarrollo puede ser adaptado fácilmente para obtener preferencias para otros tipos de proyectos que dependen de legados de donantes privados.

摘要

大多数慈善组织依赖于公众的捐款,但是人们对于捐献者偏好的研究却很少。捐献者是否存在地域、受众或主题偏好呢?我们设计了一个协同的分析实验,在实验中,人们通过在独裁者博弈中捐款,对发展援助项目评分。我们发现,我们的样本人群显示出了强烈的年龄、性别、区域和主题偏好。不仅如此,我们还发现各部分之间存在重大差异。捐款的差异与捐献者对发展援助的态度差异以及对贫穷差异以及受众脆弱性的观点差异一致。本实验中对于发展项目所使用的方法可轻易调整,以用于发现人们对其他依赖于私人捐献者捐赠的项目的偏好。

要約

ほとんどの慈善団体は一般市民からの寄付に依存するが、資金提供者の好みについてはほとんど研究されていない。資金提供者は地理的条件、受領者の種類もしくは内容によって左右されるのだろうか。本研究では、独裁者ゲームに献金することによって開発援助プロジェクトを評価する総合分析実験を考案した。このサンプルから、年代、性別、地域性、テーマの好みが明らかになった。さらにそれぞれの区分にも重要な違いがあることがわかった。寄付の相違は、開発援助に対する資金提供者の態度と受領者の貧困と脆弱性に対する信念の違いと一致している。ここで使用された開発計画方法から、個人的な資金提供者からの贈答品を当てにする他の種類のプロジェクトにおける好みが容易に明らかとなった。

ملخص

معظم المنظمات الخيرية تعتمد على التبرعات من عامة الناس، ولكن تم إجراء القليل من البحث على تفضيلات المانح. هل يكون لدى الجهات المانحة تفضيلات جغرافية ٬ المتلقي، أوموضوعية؟ قمنا بتصميم تجربة التحليل الموحد التي فيها الناس تقوم بتقييم مشاريع مساعدات التنمية عن طريق التبرع بالمال في ألعاب الديكتاتور في الإقتصاد التجريبي. نجد أن العينات الخاصة بنا تظهرعمر قوي، نوع الجنس، الإقليمية، والأفضليات الموضوعية. علاوة على ذلك، نجد اختلافات كبيرة بين شرائح. الإختلافات في التبرعات تتفق مع وجود إختلافات في مواقف المانحين تجاه مساعدات التنمية ومعتقداتهم حول الإختلافات في الفقر وضعف المتلقين. الطريقة المستخدمة هنا لمشاريع التنمية يمكن تكييفها بسهولة لإستنباط الأفضليات لأنواع أخرى من المشاريع التي تعتمد على هدايا من المانحين من القطاع الخاص.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to www.oanda.com, NOK 1 = US$ 0.17 and NOK 250 = US$ 43.02 on October 1, 2009.

  2. 2.

    These organizations were CARE (Norway), the Development Fund (Utviklingsfondet), Norwegian Church Aid (Kirkens Nødhjelp), Norwegian People’s Aid (Norsk Folkehjelp), and SOS Children’s Village (SOS-Barnebyer).

  3. 3.

    The only intended difference between children, boys and girls was gender, and these concepts were not defined further in the introductory talk. We see in retrospect that we should have defined the age range. We discuss this further in the result section.

  4. 4.

    The model was also estimated using an interval regression, however, these results were not significantly different from the results we present here, thus for presentational reasons we have only presented the Tobit results.

  5. 5.

    We did not specify the age of the boys and girls, and we did not ask for children as a group.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andreoni, J. (2006). Philanthropy. In S.-C. Kolm & J. Mercier Ythier (Eds.), Handbook of giving, reciprocity and altruism (pp. 1201–1269). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andreoni, J. (2007). Charitable giving. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W. T., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Altruism in experiments. In S. Durlaf & L. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 2737–2753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson, A. B., Backus, P. G., Micklewright, J., Pharoah, C., Schnepf, S. V. (2008). Charitable giving for overseas development: UK trends over a quarter century. IZQA DP. No. 3872.

  9. Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2010). Experimental economics: Rethinking the rules. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11, 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bolle, T. A. (2010). Norsk bistand er blitt milliardbutikk. Accessed June 25, 2010 from www.bistandsaktuelt.no.

  13. Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters, 48, 287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Breman, A., & Granström, O. (2008). The more we know, the more we care? Identification and deservingness in a cross-border experiment. Unpublished paper. Accessed June 25, 2010 from http://www.u.arizona.edu/~breman/.

  15. Burt, C. D. B., & Popple, J. S. (1998). Memorial distortions in donation data. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 724–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97, 818–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carpenter, J., Connolly, C., & Myers, C. (2008). Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics, 11, 282–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang, J. B., Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 518–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 68, 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 1–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dong, A., Ding, M., & Huber, J. (2010). A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Generosity, anonymity, gender. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behaviour, 16, 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108, 726–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in social sciences. Science, 326, 535–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fong, C. M., & Luttmer, E. F. P. (2009). What determines giving to Hurricane Katrina victims? Experimental evidence on racial group loyalty. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(2), 64–87.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31(3), s56–s73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Helms, S. E., Scott, B. L., & Thornton, J. P. (2012). Choosing to give more: Experimental evidence on restricted gifts and charitable behavior. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 745–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H. (2008). Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: The importance of cognitive consistency. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis Policy, 8(1), Article 41.

  37. Kuhfeld, W. F. (2009). Marketing research methods in SAS: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques, SAS 9.2 Edition, MR-2009.

  38. Landry, C., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K., & Rupp, N. G. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 747–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Laury, S. K., & Taylor, L. O. (2008). Altruism spillovers: Are behaviors in context-free experiments predictive of altruism toward a naturally occurring public good? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee, Z., & Woodliffe, L. (2010). Donor misreporting: Conceptualizing social desirability bias in giving surveys. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 569–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2011). Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1190–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 482–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Who gives for overseas development? IZA Discussion Paper No. 3057.

  46. Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2011). Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 528–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. OECD. (2012). OECD.Stat Extracts. Accessed April 24, 2012 from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ODA_DONOR.

  48. Otter, T., Tüchler, R., & Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2004). Capturing consumer heterogeneity in metric conjoint analysis using Bayesian mixture models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rao, V. R. (2008). Developments in conjoint analysis. In B. Wierenga (Ed.), Handbook of marketing decision models (pp. 23–53). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004). The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1625–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schelling, T. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. Chase (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis (pp. 127–162). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Supphellen, M., & Nelson, M. R. (2001). Developing, exploring, and validating a typology of private philanthropic decision making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 573–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., & Vandebroek, M. (2008). Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M., & Burhenne, W. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wollebæk, D, & Sivesind, K. H. (2010). Fra folkebevegelse til filantropi? Frivillig innsats i Norge 1997–2009. Senter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor. Rapport 2010:3.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Norwegian Research Council, and help from the five Norwegian charity organizations that cooperated with us on this project: CARE (Norway), the Development Fund (Utviklingsfondet), Norwegian Church Aid (Kirkens Nødhjelp), Norwegian People’s Aid (Norsk Folkehjelp), and SOS Children’s Village (SOS-Barnebyer).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frode Alfnes.

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 2, 3, and 4.

Fig. 2
figure2

Donation histogram themes

Fig. 3
figure3

Donation histograms recipients

Fig. 4
figure4

Donation histogram regions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bachke, M.E., Alfnes, F. & Wik, M. Eliciting Donor Preferences. Voluntas 25, 465–486 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9347-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Altruism
  • Charitable giving
  • Conjoint analysis
  • Dictator game
  • Segmentation