The price elasticity of warm-glow giving

Gandullia, Luca

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2019.05.046

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As there are rarely shortages of blood, warm‐glow giving is likely to be a good candidate motivation for continued donation. The basic warm glow model is supported by a large number of laboratory and field‐based studies [16–21]. The ‘impure altruist’ gives because they care about the pubic good being met and also gain warm‐glow from giving.…”

Section: Retention: Warm Glow and The Donor Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies and theories to attract and retain blood donors: fairness, reciprocity, equity and warm‐glow

Ferguson

2021

ISBT Science Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives This paper sets out the case that fairness and reciprocity are critical to donor recruitment and warm glow is central to donor retention. Materials and Methods Narrative review. Results I show that blood donors, compared to non‐donors, are more sensitive to violations of fairness. I argue that interventions that tap into reciprocity and fairness (e.g. voluntary reciprocal altruism) and the inequality in health between donors and recipients are likely to be effective in recruiting new donors. Once recruited, donors with greater experienced warm glow will remain as donors and those with weaker warm glow will relapse: a self‐selection mechanism. I argue that warm glow messages can, therefore, be used to enhance retention rates in new donors with lower levels of warm glow. I also show how research on emotions (prosocial emotions and emotional trajectories), sexual selection and trust offers new and exciting avenues for donor recruitment. Conclusion Warm glow is central to retaining blood donors and fairness and reciprocity to recruiting them.

show abstract

Section: Retention: Warm Glow and The Donor Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies and theories to attract and retain blood donors: fairness, reciprocity, equity and warm‐glow

Ferguson

2021

ISBT Science Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Andreoni [10,[19][20] proposed that people are impure altruists who cooperate, not only because they care about a cause, but also because they gain additional personal utility from the act of giving itself: warm-glow. This hypothesis is supported by a large number of lab and eld based studies [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], with warm-glow: (i) increasing proportionally with the amount donated [22,25], (ii) motivating increased effort [33], (iii) being experienced more strongly with property rights (when the person donates money they have earned rather than won) [36], (iv) observed cross-culturally [29], (v) identi ed as an individual rather than a group based experience [37], having a neural basis located in the reward centres of the brain [26] and (vi) sustainable over time with repeat acts of generosity [32].…”

Section: Warm-glow and The Problem Of Cooling Cooperatorsmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…These studies show the real power of warm-glow as a proximal mechanism to sustain cooperation beyond the lab. While extensively supported by evidence from lab based studies [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] experimental evidence that warm-glow is effective with respect to real world cooperation is lacking, and these studies ll these gaps. Further, these studies show not only that there is something special about the concept of warm-glow, compared to general positive affect, but also that this has long-term bene ts is terms of sustaining cooperation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Warming up Cooling Cooperators

Ferguson¹,

Lawrence²,

Gemelli³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The warm-glow of giving is one mechanism proposed to account for high levels of human cooperation. However, little is known about how warm-glow can be harnessed to sustain long-term cooperation to benefit wider society (vaccinations, blood donation). We argue that the power of warm-glow to sustain long-term cooperation cools offs over time but can be warmed-up with a simple intervention message. We test, and confirm this prediction, in a field-based experiment (n = 5,821) comparing warm-glow versus positive affect messages to predict long-term cooperation (blood donation) and confirm our findings in a subsequent implementation study comparing donation attendance in a 3 year pre-implementation period, prior to the warm-glow message being sent to all 1st time donors in Australia (Ns = 90,317, 93,430 & 89,606) to a 2 year post-implementation period (Ns = 81,766 & 88,551). Exogenously manipulated warm-glow can encourage long-term cooperation that benefits society. Wider societal implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…Both rebates and matches have been extensively studied and several key findings have emerged in the literature (see Vesterlund 2016;Epperson and Reif 2019, for comprehensive reviews). Probably the most notable result is that although rebates and matches imply the same price of giving if the corresponding subsidy rates r and m satisfy r = m m+1 , overall donations received by the charity are higher under matches than under equivalent rebates (Eckel and Grossman 2003, 2006a, b, 2008bLukas et al 2010;Bekkers 2015;Gandullia and Lezzi 2018;Gandullia 2019). 1 Another finding is that matching subsidies often significantly increase private contributions net of the subsidy compared to a no subsidy condition without a lead donor (Eckel et al 2007; Karlan and List 2007;Gneezy et al 2014;Huck et al 2015;Eckel and Grossman 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An influential result in the literature on charitable giving is that matching subsidies dominate rebate subsidies in raising funds. We investigate whether this result extends to “unit donation” schemes, a popular alternative form of soliciting donations. There, the donors’ choices are over the number of units of a charitable good to fund at a given unit price, rather than the amount of money to give. Comparing matches and rebates as well as simple discounts on the unit price, we find no evidence of dominance in our online experiment: the three subsidy types are equally effective overall. At a more disaggregated level, rebates lead to a higher likelihood of giving, while matching and discount subsidies lead to larger donations by donors. This suggests that charities using a unit donation scheme enjoy additional degrees of freedom in choosing a subsidy type. Rebates merit additional consideration if the primary goal is to attract donors.

show abstract

The price elasticity of warm-glow giving

Cited by 22 publications

References 9 publications

Strategies and theories to attract and retain blood donors: fairness, reciprocity, equity and warm‐glow

Strategies and theories to attract and retain blood donors: fairness, reciprocity, equity and warm‐glow

Warming up Cooling Cooperators

Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About