What Works to Increase Charitable Donations? A Meta-Review with Meta-Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Many charities rely on donations to support their work addressing some of the world’s most pressing problems. We conducted a meta-review to determine what interventions work to increase charitable donations. We found 21 systematic reviews incorporating 1339 primary studies and over 2,139,938 participants. Our meta-meta-analysis estimated the average effect of an intervention on charitable donation size and incidence: r = 0.08 (95% CI [0.03, 0.12]). Due to limitations in the included systematic reviews, we are not certain this estimate reflects the true overall effect size. The most robust evidence found suggests charities could increase donations by (1) emphasising individual beneficiaries, (2) increasing the visibility of donations, (3) describing the impact of the donation, and (4) enacting or promoting tax-deductibility of the charity. We make recommendations for improving primary research and reviews about charitable donations, and how to apply the meta-review findings to increase charitable donations.

Exploring the Effects of Volunteering on the Social, Mental, and Physical Health and Well-being of Volunteers: An Umbrella Review

“…Umbrella reviews also assess the quality of the included systematic reviews and weight findings accordingly (Smith et al, 2011 ), which may help to establish a causal influence of volunteering. The emerging use of an umbrella review methodology in third sector research has enabled clear recommendations for practice, exploration of moderators and mediators, identification of gaps in the research, and recommendations for future reviews (Saeri et al, 2022 ; Woldie et al, 2018 ).…”

An interdisciplinary synthesis of research on understanding and promoting well‐doing

“…The most popular intervention, nudging, usually targets intuitive reactive mechanisms (see Section 2.2). It can be applied to promote effective charitable giving in a highly cost‐effective manner (Saeri et al., 2022). However, it is less well‐suited to promote effective forms of proactive well‐doing that require yet unknown strategic intellectual activities over an extended period of time (e.g., inventing climate‐friendly technologies).…”

The Implications of Nudging to Encourage Pro-Environmental Behaviour: The Moderating Effects of Biospheric Values and Carbon Footprints

“…The most common indicators of behaviour change success are self-reports or behavioural observations, which measure the frequency, intensity, or duration of specific behaviours (Steg & Vlek, 2009). This is often simplified to the percentage of participants whose behaviour was changed (Arnott et al, 2014;Mertens et al, 2022;Saeri et al, 2022;Webb & Sheeran, 2006).…”

“…In turn, pro-environmental behaviour change interventions often rely on overly simplified measures of success (Kormos & Gifford, 2014;Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009). One example of this is the focus on the percentage of participants whose behaviour was changed (Arnott et al, 2014;Hummel & Maedche, 2019;Mertens et al, 2022;Saeri et al, 2022;Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Although this can be useful, it fails to acknowledge the climate justice call for equitable, not just equal change (Niederberger, 2012).…”