|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
completed
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
In collaboration with a large charitable organization, we conduct a large-scale field experiment designed to investigate the role of group identity for donation decisions in a natural setting. In particular, we test the hypothesis that perceived group membership has the potential to increase charitable giving. The intervention takes place in June 2021. In addition to the main research question, the project aims at shedding light on (I) whether it needs explicit incentives for salient group membership to have a positive effect on individual donation decisions, (II) where to locate the appeal to be most effective, and (III) whether effects of group identity on charitable giving can be further exploited by a supplementary peer-to-peer fundraising method. After approximately twelve months, we measure long-term effects of our treatment manipulation.
|
After
In collaboration with a large charitable organization, we conduct a large-scale field experiment designed to investigate the role of group identity for donation decisions in a natural setting. In particular, we test the hypothesis that perceived group membership has the potential to increase charitable giving. The interventions takes place in June and July 2021. In addition to the main research question, the project aims at shedding light on (I) whether it needs explicit incentives for salient group membership to have a positive effect on individual donation decisions, (II) where to locate the appeal to be most effective, and (III) whether effects of group identity on charitable giving can be further exploited by a supplementary peer-to-peer fundraising method. After approximately twelve months, we measure long-term effects of our treatment manipulation.
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
June 14, 2021 11:34 AM
|
After
April 15, 2026 09:44 AM
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
In the first experiment, the intervention takes place in June 2021. Regular donors receive a donation request via postal mailing. All mailings are identical except from the precise wording of the appeal. In this experiment, we ask whether a salient group membership alone affects donations. In order to investigate this question, we prime a natural group identity of subjects in the treatment group without explicitly mentioning competition. Subjects in the control condition receive no group membership prime and no information on any competition. In addition, we test where the appeal needs to be located to be most effective. Using a 2x2 factorial design, we vary the appeal (Group vs.Individual) along one factor. Along the other factor, we vary where subjects are confronted with the appeal for the first time (Envelope vs. NoEnvelope).
|
After
In the first experiment, the intervention takes place in June 2021. Regular donors receive a donation request via postal mailing. All mailings are identical except from the precise wording of the appeal. In this experiment, we ask whether a salient group membership alone affects donations. In order to investigate this question, we prime a natural group identity of subjects in the treatment group without explicitly mentioning competition. Subjects in the control condition receive no group membership prime and no information on any competition. In addition, we test where the appeal needs to be located to be most effective. Using a 2x2 factorial design, we vary the appeal (Group vs. Individual) along one factor. Along the other factor, we vary where subjects are confronted with the appeal for the first time (Envelope vs. NoEnvelope). In the second experiment, we implement a third treatment variation in addition to the "Group" and the "Individual" treatment of the first experiment. In addition to receiving the group identity prime, participants in this third treatment group are informed that we will announce the "most cooperative" groups as part of the charity's next regular newsletter and online.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
approximately 42.000 donors
|
After
1) approximately 42.000 donors
2) approximately 71.000 donors
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
approximately 42.000 donors
|
After
1) approximately 42.000 donors
2) approximately 71.000 donors
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
10.500 donors in each of the four treatment arms
|
After
1) 10.500 donors in each of the four treatment arms
2) 23.700 donors in each of the four treatment arms
|
|
Field
Public analysis plan
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
To shed light on the behavioral mechanisms, we will additionally measure heterogenous treatment effects with respect to city characteristics (e.g. sizes), gender, and individual donation history, e-mail open rates conditional on treatment conditions as well as long-term effects of the intervention (measurement of primary outcomes one year later - before and after having published tournament results).
|
After
To shed light on the behavioral mechanisms, we will additionally measure heterogenous treatment effects with respect to city characteristics (e.g. sizes), gender, and individual donation history, e-mail open rates and clickthrough rates on info webpages, donation decisions resulting from a P2P fundraising strategy, as well as long-term effects of the intervention (measurement of primary outcomes one year later - before and after having published tournament results).
|
|
Field
Building on Existing Work
|
Before
|
After
No
|