René Bekkers Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Ashley Whillans Harvard Business School Michael Norton Harvard Business School Paul Smeets Maastricht University Preregistration ID: 1045707
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Joy of Giving Evidence from a Match..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. The Joy of GivingEvidence from a Matching Experiment with Millionaires and the General PopulationRené Bekkers – Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAshley Whillans – Harvard Business SchoolMichael Norton – Harvard Business SchoolPaul Smeets – Maastricht UniversityPreregistration, materials, data, code, paper, this presentation: posted at https://osf.io/bvs6t/5th SPI Conference 2018, Indianapolis
2. ThanksCo-authors: Ashley Whillans, Michael Norton, and Paul SmeetsMark Ottoni-Wilhelm for suggestions on the interpretation of resultsThe ministry of Security and Justice (V&J) and Education, Culture and Science (OCW) for funding the GINPSJos van Hezewijk (Elite Research) for letting us use the HNW databaseSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis2
3. Does giving make people happy?DonorsRecipientsIntermediary organizations€grantsprogramsPrivate benefitPublic benefitSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis3Match: x 2
4. Does giving make donors happy?DonorsRecipientsIntermediary organizations€grantsprogramsPrivate benefitPublic benefitSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis4Match: x 2
5. The Joy of GivingWhich areas of the brain are active when money given to participants is taken from them to benefit a charity or when they give it themselves?1. In all conditions giving was associated with activity in areas that are related to pleasure (caudate, right nucleus accumbens) 2. The activity is larger when the gift is voluntaryn = 19 female students @U OregonSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis5
6. No Joy of Givingn = 261 students of unknown originSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis6
7. What price do donors care about?Their checkbook amount = what donors have to pay to make a giftThe amount that the charity receives as a result of their gift = the impact of the giftWith the match, we are increasing the amount the charity receives without additional cost to the donor. September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis7
8. Matching: Who cares?Matches usually increase the amounts charities receive, and more so than mathematically equivalent rebates.Our hypothesis was that matches would not increase the satisfaction of donors.September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis8
9. Design and analysis planWe preregistered this study at https://osf.io/x69ds/Experiment conducted among a large population sample (n = 1,232) of participants in the 2015 Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS)And among a sample of 771 millionaires in the 2015 High Net Worth GINPS oversampleSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis9
10. Procedure: control groupAfter the survey, participants read:Among all participants in this survey we raffle five amounts of €100. If you are the winner, you can receive the amount in the form of a gift card, but you can also donate it to a charity of your choice. If you are one of the winners, would you like to:1. receive €100 in the form of a voucher;2. receive €50 in the form of a voucher, and give €50 to a charity;3. donate €100 to a charity.Recipients were 12 popular charities in the Netherlands: Amnesty International - Doctors Without Borders (MSF) - Society for the protection of animals - Greenpeace - Netherlands Heart Association - Church in Action - National Cancer Foundation - Oxfam Netherlands - Stop Aids Now! – Unicef – Warchild - World Wild Life Fund - another charity, namely:………………………September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis10
11. The matchAfter the survey, participants read:Among all participants in this survey we raffle five amounts of €100. If you are the winner, you can receive the amount in the form of a gift card, but you can also donate it to a charity of your choice. Attention: the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam doubles the value of your gift to charity. If you are one of the winners, would you like to:1. receive €100 in the form of a voucher;2. receive €50 in the form of a voucher, and give €50 to a charity; the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam increases this amount by €50, so that he charity receives €1003. donate €100 to a charity; the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam increases this amount by €100, so that he charity receives €200.Recipients were 12 popular charities in the Netherlands: Amnesty International - Doctors Without Borders (MSF) - Society for the protection of animals - Greenpeace - Netherlands Heart Association - Church in Action - National Cancer Foundation - Oxfam Netherlands - Stop Aids Now! – Unicef – Warchild - World Wild Life Fund - another charity, namely:………………………September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis11
12. Measuring the joy of givingPost-test mood: After participants made their decisions, we asked: “Finally we have this question for you: how are you feeling at the moment?” Response options ranged from 1 (labeled ‘Very bad’) to 10 (labeled ‘Excellent’).September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis12
13. Measuring the joy of givingPre-test satisfaction with life: During the survey, participants had responded to the question: “how would you evaluate your life in general on a scale from 1 to 10?”, with 1 labeled ‘very unhappy’ and 10 ‘very happy’.Mood benefits of giving: post-test mood minus pre-test satisfaction with life (r = .59)September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis13
14. Yes, we have regressionsSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis14
15. Population sample: control groupSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis15
16. Population sample: match groupSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis16
17. Millionaires: control groupSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis17
18. Millionaires: match groupSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis18
19. Giving in population sampleSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis19
20. Giving by millionairesSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis20
21. Amounts donated+41%+4%September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis21
22. ConclusionsHappiness made people give (more).Giving did not make donors happier than they already were.Matches did not make donors happier than they already were. These findings are in line with the martyrdom hypothesis and the pure warm glow model.September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis22
23. Two puzzlesWhy do people give a chance of winning a €100 to charity when their mood does not improve?Why did the millionaires not respond to the match?September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis23
24. ImplicationUse matches to attract donations, but not to make donors happy.September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis24
25. SpeculationsGiving is more satisfying when it is more costly and provides a certain benefit to a close other.This makes giving to charity less hedonically rewarding than keeping or giving to a specific other person.Mood benefits vary between donors: Effective altruists should care (more) about the impact of their gifts.September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis25
26. MechanismsSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis26
27. MechanismsSeptember 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis27Joy: - Impact = efficacy,- Duty / guilt = psychological benefitMatch: - Quality signal- Social pressure
28. September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis28Next stepsAdd controls for participant characteristics such as the joy of giving, and donations in the past yearExplore moderation by mechanismsWrite the paper – please check back https://osf.io/bvs6t/ later
29. September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis29
30. September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis30
31. September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis31
32. September 20, 20185th Science of Philanthropy Conference, Indianapolis32
33. Contact: René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic StudiesVrije Universiteit Amsterdamr.bekkers@vu.nlBlog: http://renebekkers.wordpress.comTwitter: @renebekkers