the effect of social influences on gggiving evidence from ... · n 243,974 10,044 243,974...
TRANSCRIPT
Centre for Market and Public OrganisationPublic Organisation
The effect of social influences on giving –g g
evidence from the (running) field
Sarah Smith and Edmund Wright
University of Bristol
Overview
• How much do people donate when they can see how much other l b f th h d t d?people before them have donated?
• Unique dataset of donations to charity made on behalf of peopleUnique dataset of donations to charity made on behalf of people running in the 2010 London marathon
• Donations are made online to individual fundraising pages on two b it Wh th t th d ll i d tiwebsites. When they go to the page, donors see all previous donations
• Two main questions:o a quest o s:
• What is the effect of previous donations on how much people give?
• Do the identities of the fundraiser and other donors matter?
– Do men give more to male fundraisers?
– Do men give more if other male donors have given more?
Our contribution
• A number of lab and field experiments have looked at the effect of i l i fl / i l i f ti F lk t l (2003) F dsocial influences/ social information – Falk et al (2003), Frey and
Meier (2004), Shang and Croson (2009)
• Why analyse naturally‐occurring field data?
• Obvious drawback that social information cannot be manipulated
• But potential advantages
– Scale of fundraising activity: >300,000 donations to >12,000 fundraisers running on behalf of 1,000+ charities u d a se s u g o be a o ,000 c a t es
– Richness of data: Donors see full history of previous donations. In earlier field experiments, donors have been given a single reference level (“a previous donor” “the typical donor”)reference level (“a previous donor”, “the typical donor”)
Main findings
• Mean of all past donations has a small, negative effect on how much l i i t t ith “ d t”people give, consistent with “crowd out”
• Threshold effects are important – reaching the target has a negativeThreshold effects are important reaching the target has a negative effect on how much people give
• Recent donations – and even more so the minimum of past donations – seem to have some “anchoring” effect
• No evidence that shared identity (gender) has any effect
OutlineOutline
• Effects of social influences• Effects of social influences
• Online fundraising
• Our sample
• Identification
• Results
OutlineOutline
• Effects of social influences• Effects of social influences
• Online fundraising
• Our sample
• Identification
• Results
Possible effects of social influences on donations
• Crowd‐out
• Other donations reduce individuals’ contributions• Other donations reduce individuals contributions
– Perfect crowd out – Warr (1982), Roberts (1984)
– Imperfect crowd out – Andreoni (1989, 1990)
– Threshold effects (Andreoni, 1998)
d i• Crowd‐in
• Other donations increase individuals’ contributions
– Social norms – reciprocity (Sugden 1984) conformity (Bernheim 1994)Social norms reciprocity (Sugden, 1984), conformity (Bernheim, 1994)
– Status (+ assumption that relative generosity matters) – Glazer and Konrad (1996), Harbaugh (1998)
– Signalling charity quality – Vesterlund (2003)
– Cognitive effects – della Vigna (2009), Scharf and Smith (2010)
Evidence on the effects of social influences
• Crowd‐out
• Most papers focus on the effect of government grants (not individual donations). Evidence on extent of crowd out is mixed
• Andreoni and Payne (2009) – 73% crowd out, but most is indirect, i.e.Andreoni and Payne (2009) 73% crowd out, but most is indirect, i.e. through charity’s reduction in fundraising expenditures
• Crowd in
• Survey data – Andreoni and Scholz (1998)
• Lab experiments – Falk et al (2003) Bardsley and Sausgruber (2005)• Lab experiments – Falk et al (2003), Bardsley and Sausgruber (2005)
• Field experiments – Frey and Meier (2004), Alpizar et al (2008), Shang and Croson (2009)
Evidence on the effects of social influences
• Boeg et al (2008)
• Analyse small sample of 365 fundraisers on justgiving website and associated donationsassociated donations
• Focus on effect on early donations (first two days)
• Early mode acts as an upper bound on later donations
Evidence on the effects of social influences
• Identity
• Meer (2008) – people give more if they are asked by someone they know and by someone with shared characteristics (race)
• Shang and Croson (2008) – people give more if they are told thatShang and Croson (2008) people give more if they are told that someone like them (gender) has given a large donation
• Observability
• People give more if their donations are observed – Rege and Telle (2004), Andreoni and Petrie (2004), Soetevent (2005), Alpizar et al,(2004), Andreoni and Petrie (2004), Soetevent (2005), Alpizar et al, (2008)
OutlineOutline
• Effects of social influences• Effects of social influences
• Online fundraising
• Our sample
• Identification
• Results
hCharities
O li f d iOnline fundraisers15,000 “charity” runners, others who fundraise after winning a
place in the ballot
Donors – typically friends, family and colleagues
Online fundraising
• Justgiving (JG)
• Set up in 2001• Set up in 2001
• Profit‐making company, charging charities £15 monthly fee, and also taking 5% gross donations (i.e. including the value of tax relief)
• 15,000 fundraising pages for the 2010 London marathon
Vi i M Gi i (VMG)• Virgin Money Giving (VMG)
• Set up in 2009
• Not‐for‐profit, charging charities a one‐off, set‐up fee of £100 andNot for profit, charging charities a one off, set up fee of £100 and taking 2% nominal donations.
• Estimated 9,000 fundraising pages for the 2010 London marathon
• Other, much smaller websites – bmycharity, mycharitypage, mygift
30 donations per page 50 donations per page
OutlineOutline
• Effects of social influences• Effects of social influences
• Online fundraising
• Our sample
• Identification
• Results
Our sample Web pages13 369 from
18,126 pages622,968 donationsM d ti £32 16
13,369 from JG; 4,757 from VMG
Mean donation = £32.16
Our sample Web pages13 369 from
18,126 pages622,968 donationsM d ti £32 16
13,369 from JG; 4,757 from VMG
Mean donation = £32.16
Race results:Gender, age, nationalitynationality, race time for fundraisers 12,750 pages
440 130 donations440,130 donationsMean donation = £31.66
Characteristics of fundraisers compared to other runners
Matched
fundraisers
JG VMG Other
runners
Mean hours 4.68 4.67 4.72** 4.46
Male .623 .620 .631 .693
British .987 .988 .985 .888
Age 18 – 39 .687 .693 .675* .508
Age 40 – 49 .239 .233 .251* .321
Age 50 + .074 .074 .075 .171
N 12,750 8,716 4,034 23,774
Differences between the online fundraisers and the other runners are all statistically significant at the 1% level;
*, ** differences between JG and VMG fundraisers are statistically significant at the 5%, 1% levels.
Fundraisers are slower, less male, more likely to be British and youngerFundraisers are slower, less male, more likely to be British and youngerthan other runners
Our sample Web pages13 369 from
18,126 pages622,968 donationsM d ti £32 16
13,369 from JG; 4,757 from VMG
Mean donation = £32.16
Race results:Gender, age, nationalitynationality, race time for fundraisers 12,750 pages
440 130 donations440,130 donationsMean donation = £31.66
Database of baby names:yGender for donors
12,634 pages336,298 donationsMean donation = £30.31
Sample summary statisticsSample summary statistics
Mean St. dev. Median
All fundraisers
Number of donations per page 34.5 25.4 29
Total raised online £1,093 £1,401 £778
Total raised offline £335 £1,115 £0
Average online donation – all £30.31 £66.02 £20
Average online donation – made by men £35.38 £78.36 £20
Average online donation – made by women £24.96 £49.22 £20
Proportion of donors who are male 513Proportion of donors who are male .513
Number of fundraisers 12,750Note: All amounts exclude value of Gift Aid
Distribution of donationsDistribution of donations
Justgiving Virgin Money Giving
Distribution of donations, JG and VMG
Amount Fraction of donations in JG Fraction of donations in VMG
£100 .065 .076
£50 .105 .123
£20 .234 .282
£10 .263 .270
TOTAL .667 .751
Sample summary statistics, by fundraiser gender
Mean St. dev. Median
Male fundraisers
Number of donations per page 34.5 25.9 29
Total raised online £1,121 £1,523 £775
Total raised offline £338 £1,290 £0
Average online donation – all £31.19 £68.08 £20
Average online donation – made by men £35.88 £80.20 £20
Average online donation – made by women £24.73 £45.68 £20
Proportion of donors who are male .580
Number of fundraisers 7,957
Female fundraisers
Number of donations per page 34.6 24.6 30
Total raised online £1,047 £1,170 £782
Total raised offline £330 £739 £20
Average online donation – all £28.87 £62.50 £20
Average online donation – made by men £34.21 £73.91 £20
Average online donation – made by women £25.23 £53.01 £20
Proportion of donors who are male .406
Number of fundraisers 4,803
OutlineOutline
• Effects of social influences• Effects of social influences
• Online fundraising
• Our sample
• Identification
• Results
Estimating the effect of previous donations
1 2 1 , 2ˆ
ifct i f C t fc t ifct ifctD X Z D W uα β β γ δ λ λ−= + + + + + + +
• donation of donor i giving to fundraiser f for charity c at time t
• Xi – genderXi gender
• Zf – gender, age, nationality, race time, target amount
• Indicators for charities (400 with 5+ pages), date relative to when page set up and date of marathon
• – measure of previous donations. Mean of all previous donations; mean of last ten donations. All regressions exclude first 10 donations.
,ˆ
fc tD −
ea o ast te do at o s eg ess o s e c ude st 0 do at o s
• Wifct – proximity to target, order on page
• “Reflection problem”: relationship between amount given and past donations will be affected by correlated characteristics
Estimating the effect of previous donationsg p
• Include donor fixed effects
8 000 d i JG l i t th f d i• 8,000+ donors in JG sample give to more than one fundraiser
• Similar to Falk et al (2003) – can potentially identify effect of previous donations through variation in peer groups
• But may also pick up unobserved fundraiser characteristics
• Include fundraiser fixed effects
• Exploit sequential nature of donations
• Identification from within‐page variation in history of past donations• Identification from within‐page variation in history of past donations
• Controls for date of donation, place order in page (and day)
• Argue that exogenous variation comes from exactly when donors come to the site which will be subject to random factors – when they turn on computer, check e‐mails, get round to donating etc
OutlineOutline
• Effects of social influences• Effects of social influences
• Online fundraising
• Our sample
• Identification
• Results
Female donor ‐6.696** (0.102) ‐6.352** (0.103)
Female fundraiser 0 327** (0 113) 1 098 (0 563)
OLS regressions: Dependent variable = individual donations (£)
Female fundraiser 0.327 (0.113) 1.098 (0.563)
Donor same sex as fundraiser ‐0.296** (0.102) 0.589 (0.500) ‐0.570** (0.103)
Non‐British fundraiser 5.593** (0.538) 1.795 (3.394)
Fundraiser 18‐39Fundraiser 18 39
Fundraiser 40‐44 1.362** (0.152) ‐0.091 (0.806)
Fundraiser 44‐49 2.399** (0.189) ‐1.733 (1.013)
Fundraiser 50‐54 2.090** (0.274) ‐1.076 (1.555)
Fundraiser 55‐59 2.368** (0.446) ‐4.969 (2.667)
Fundraiser 60‐64 1.121 (0.651) ‐5.113 (3.972)
Fundraiser 65‐69 3.769* (1.520) 9.816 (14.360)
Fundraiser 70+ ‐1.876 (2.089) ‐16.740 (11.070)
Target (0/1) 1.453** (0.204) ‐0.080 (1.055)
Target amount ‐0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000)
Fraction of target achieved ‐3.079** (0.263) ‐2.629* (1.305) ‐9.529** (0.549)
Within day, donation number ‐0.177** (0.021) ‐0.101 (0.108) ‐0.161** (0.022)
Mean of all past donations (£) 0.294** (0.002) 0.125** (0.012) ‐0.036** (0.007)
Mean of last 10 donations (£) 0.185** (0.002) 0.094** (0.009) 0.012** (0.002)
Donor fixed effects No Yes No
Fundraiser fixed effects No No Yes
N 243,974 10,044 243,974
Additional controls for marathon time, place on page, days until marathon, days since page creation and charities with 5+ pagesStandard errors in parentheses, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01All regressions exclude first ten donations to a page and top 1% donations
What about other moments?
In relation to all previous donations
the donation is....
In relation to the last ten donations
the donation is....
Less than Equal to More than Less than Equal to More than
Minimum 017 130 853 041 195 764Minimum .017 .130 .853 .041 .195 .764
Mode .259 .308 .433 .244 .296 .460
M i
Note: Sample excludes the first ten donations on each fundraising page
Maximum .945 .030 .025 .871 .066 .063
Estimated effects associated with different reference levels
What about other moments?
Minimum of Mode of Maximum of Maximum
Dependent variable = Amount given (£)
previous
donations (£)
previous
donations (£)
previous
donations (£)
MaximumMaximum
x VMG
All dAll donors
All donations 0.082**
(0.024)
‐0.016**
(0.005)
0.001*
(0.000)
‐0.001
(0.001)
0.003**
(0.001)(0.024) (0.005) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001)
Last 10
donations
0.030*
(0.013)
0.007*
(0.003)
0.002**
(0.000)
0.002**
(0.000)
0.001
(0.001)
Additional controls for gender of donor, place on page, days until marathon, days since page creation, proximity to target
Estimated effects associated with different reference levelsEstimated effects associated with different reference levelsDependent variable = Amount given (£)
Minimum of previous Mode of previous Maximum of previous donations (£) donations (£) donations (£)
All donors
All donations 0.082** ‐0.016** 0.001*
Last 10 0.030* 0.007* 0.002**
All donors
All – same sex 0.012 0.005 0.002***
Last 10 0.010** 0.017*** 0.004***
Female donors
All 0.001 ‐0.009 0.002**
Last 10 0.005 0.006 0.002**
Male donors
All 0 144** ‐0 012 0 001All 0.144 ‐0.012 0.001
Last 10 0.042* 0.010 0.002**
Additional controls for gender of donor, place on page, days until marathon, days since page creation, proximity to target
Discussion
• Consistent with experimental evidence, we find that recent donations have a positive effect on how much people give Strongest effecthave a positive effect on how much people give. Strongest effect comes through the minimum. Suggests social/ cognitive anchoring.
• But the overall mean has a negative effect (as does hitting target level of donations), consistent with crowd out
• Points to importance of looking at all previous donations, not just a single reference level of donations as earlier studies have donesingle reference level of donations as earlier studies have done
• No effects of observable shared characteristics – but donors are likely to know each other, and fundraiser
• External validity? If anything would expect crowd out effects to be smaller than in general charity fundraising campaigns because of personal relationships
Future work…
• This is the first look at a sub‐sample of a potentially much larger d t tdataset
• > 4 million donations have been made through Justgiving
– Larger donor panel and networks of donorsLarger donor panel and networks of donors
– Bilateral relationships – You sponsor me, I sponsor you
– Rolling out an online survey of all previous donations to collect demographic and socio‐economic information
Charity
Coefficient
estimate t‐statistic
No. of
pages
MACMILLAN CANCER SUPPORT [medical] ‐0.2503 ‐0.4903 356
WHIZZ‐KIDZ [children/disability] 1.7265 3.1865 266
CANCER RESEARCH UK [medical] ‐1.2321 ‐2.2903 241[ ]
CHILDREN WITH LEUKAEMIA [children/medical] ‐0.5160 ‐0.7756 232
CLIC SARGENT [children/medical] ‐1.4433 ‐2.4907 232
NSPCC [ hild ] 1 2271 2 2284 232NSPCC [children] ‐1.2271 ‐2.2284 232
GET KIDS GOING! [children/disability] 0.5407 0.9370 204
HELP FOR HEROES [veterans] ‐2.9563 ‐4.6137 179
ALZHEIMERS SOCIETY [medical/elderly] ‐2.0164 ‐3.4035 163
SENSE [disability] ‐1.5002 ‐2.1452 152
NATIONAL DEAFBLIND AND RUBELLA ASSOC’N [disability] ‐1.6543 ‐2.7074 146[ y]
BRITISH HEART FOUNDATION [medical] ‐0.1670 ‐0.2762 139
THE CHILDREN'S TRUST [children/disability] 0.3402 0.5660 138
ASTHMA UK [ di l] 2 5325 4 0139 129ASTHMA UK [medical] ‐2.5325 ‐4.0139 129
MS SOCIETY [disability] ‐0.9050 ‐1.4123 115
SHELTER [homeless] ‐0.2845 ‐0.4346 109
PHAB [community] ‐1.5972 ‐2.4102 105
ST JOHN AMBULANCE [medical/ambulance] ‐2.0714 ‐3.1594 104
HELP THE HOSPICES [elderly/medical] 0.1251 0.1969 102