Emotions vs Efficiency in Fundraising Appeals

Last registered on December 19, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Emotions vs Efficiency in Fundraising Appeals
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016287
Initial registration date
July 18, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
July 25, 2025, 11:31 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
December 19, 2025, 1:28 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Georgia State University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Texas at Dallas

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-07-28
End date
2026-06-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Our research seeks to understand how a blend of efficiency information and emotionally evocative imagery impact donor behavior. While the impact of singular pieces of information on donation decisions is well-documented, there is a gap in the literature regarding the simultaneous effect of multiple information types. We consider these two types of information especially interesting since there is evidence suggesting that both are useful in moderation but can lead to harmful consequences. Given that real-world charity fundraising often combines appeals to both efficiency and emotion, our study aims to test their interaction. We employ a 2x2 experimental design varying overhead information and emotional appeals to donors, closely mimicking actual donation solicitations. We test this research question through two sets of experiments – a laboratory experiment run at a university, along with an experiment using a nationally representative sample survey through CloudResearch’s Connect platform. Our experiment at the university allows us to analyze how Generation Z (Gen Z) reacts to common philanthropic marketing techniques of including financial efficiency information and emotionally charged imagery. Additionally, the Connect experiment allows us to compare how our results in the lab apply to the broader U.S. population.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Oxley, Jonathan and Elizabeth Searing. 2025. "Emotions vs Efficiency in Fundraising Appeals." AEA RCT Registry. December 19. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16287-1.1
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We change charity solicitation information relative to a control charity solicitation across four treatments, using a 2x2 design over a laboratory experiment and a field experiment.
Intervention Start Date
2025-07-28
Intervention End Date
2025-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Probability of appeal selection, probability of donation, and donation amount, differences across treatments
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Heterogeneity across demographic variables
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
We will test to determine if there are any differences in donation preferences by key demographic variables, including religiosity measures from the Duke University Religion Index

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We employ a three stage experiment. The first stage is a selection stage where subjects will chose one charity solicitation out of two options. From there, subjects enter stage two containing a real effort task to earn income. After completing the effort task, subjects will have the opportunity to donate some of their earnings to the charitable cause selected in phase one. Finally, subjects enter phase three consisting of a demographic survey.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomized by program design determined when subject interacts with the program.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2 -- respondents to field survey and laboratory participants
Sample size: planned number of observations
350 field component, 350 laboratory component, 700 total.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
87 observations per treatment arm in each experiment cluster.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Georgia State University Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2025-03-27
IRB Approval Number
H25535
IRB Name
University of Texas at Dallas Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2025-04-14
IRB Approval Number
IRB-25-423
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information