On reminder effects, drop-outs and dominance: Evidence from an online experiment on charitable giving

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2015, Pages

  Sonntag, Axel ^a   Zizzo, Daniel John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BRITISH CITIZEN; CHILD; CHINESE; E-MAIL; FEE; FEMALE; GIFT GIVING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MONEY; MOTIVATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; POVERTY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SALARY; SCHOOL CHILD; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SOCIAL WELFARE; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT; INTERNET; PROBABILITY; REMINDER SYSTEM; SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFIT;

CHARITIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; PROBABILITY; REMINDER SYSTEMS; SALARIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84941992248     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134705     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Kocher MG, Martinsson P, Visser M. Does stake size matter for cooperation and punishment? Econ Lett. 2008;99:508-511.
2. Johansson-Stenman O, Mahmud M, Martinsson P. Does stake size matter in trust games? Econ Lett. 2005;88:365-369.
3. Novakova J, Flegr J. How much is our fairness worth? The effect of raising stakes on offers by proposers and minimum acceptable offers in dictator and ultimatum games. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060966 PMID: 23580080
4. Slonim R, Roth AE. Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: an experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica. 1998;66:569-596.
5. Tepper K. The Role of Labeling Processes in Elderly Consumers' Responses to Age Segmentation Cues. J Consum Res. 1994;20:503-519.
6. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C, Wiersma G. Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. J Econ Psychol. 2003;24:49-64. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870 (02) 00154-X
7. Carroll GD, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC, Metrick A. Optimal defaults and active decisions. NBER Work Pap Ser. Cambridge, Mass.; 2005;124:1639-1674. Available: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11074.
8. Garrod L, Hviid M, Loomes G, Price CW. Competition remedies in consumer markets. Loyola Consum Law Rev. 2009;21:439-495.
9. Huck S, Rasul I. Comparing charitable fundraising schemes: evidence from a natural field experiment. Unpubl Work Pap. 2008;
10. Huck S, Rasul I. Transactions costs in charitable giving: evidence from two field experiments. BE J Econ Anal Policy-Adv. 2010;10.
11. Damgaard MT, Gravert C. Now or never! The effect of deadlines on charitable giving: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Econ Work Pap. 2014;03.
12. Calzolari G, Nardotto M. Nudging with information: a randomized field experiment on reminders and feedback. Cent Econ Policy Res-Discuss Pap. Bologna; 2011;8571.
13. Vervloet M, Linn AJ, Van Weert JCM, De Bakker DH, Bouvy ML, Van Dijk L. The effectiveness of interventions using electronic reminders to improve adherence to chronic medication: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:696-704. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000748 PMID: 22534082
14. Taubinsky D. From Intentions to Actions: A Model and Experimental Evidence of Inattentive Choice. Work Pap. 2013;
15. Karlan D, McConnell M, Mullainathan S, Zinman J. Getting to the Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving. SSRN Electron J. 2010;42.
16. Moxnes E. Estimating customer utility of energy efficiency standards for refrigerators. J Econ Psychol. 2004;25:707-724.
17. Murphy K. Enforcing Tax Compliance: To Punish or Persuade? Econ Anal Policy. 2008;38:113-136.
18. Cho C-H, Cheon HJ. Why do people avoid advertising on the internet? J Advert. 2004;33:89-97.
19. Andersson M, Fredriksson M, Berndt A. Open or delete: decision-makers' attitudes towards e-mail marketing messages. Adv Soc Sci Res J. 2014;1:133-144.
20. Hirschman EC. Differences in consumer purchase behavior by credit card payment system. J Consum Res. 1979;6:58-66.
21. Thomas M, Desai KK, Seenivasan S. How credit card payments increase unhealthy food purchases: visceral regulation of vices. J Consum Res. 2011;38:126-139.
22. Chatterjee P, Rose RL. Do payment mechanisms change the way consumers perceive products? J Consum Res. 2012;38:1129-1139.
23. Soetevent AR. Payment choice, image motivation and contributions to charity: evidence from a field experiment. Am Econ J Econ Policy 3. 2011;3:180-205.
24. Jones A, Marriott R. Determinants of the level and methods of charitable giving in the 1990 Family Expenditure Survey. Appl Econ Lett. 1994;1:200-203.
25. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journals Risk Uncertain. 1988;1:7-59.
26. Smith VL. Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. Am Econ Rev. 1982;72:923-955.
27. Zizzo DJ. Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Exp Econ. 2010;13:75-98.
28. Greiner B. The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0-a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Univ Col Work Pap Ser. 2004;10.
29. Reinstein D, Riener G. House Money Effects on Charitable Giving: An Experiment. Unpubl Work Pap. 2009;
30. Sitzia S, Zheng J, Zizzo DJ. Complexity and smart nudges with inattentive consumers. Unpubl Work Pap. 2012;12-13.
31. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41:1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4. 1149 PMID: 19897823
32. Karlan D, List JA. Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Am Econ Rev. 2007;97:1774-1793.
33. Frank B. Good news for experimenters: subjects do not care about your welfare. Econ Lett. 1998;61:171-174.
34. Fleming P, Zizzo DJ. A simple stress test of experimenter demand effects. Theory Decis. 2014;78:219-231.
35. McKenzie T, Pharoah C. How generous is the UK? Charitable giving in the context of household spending. Cent Charit Giv Philanthr Brief Note. 2011;7:1-8.
36. BLS. Consumer expenditure survey. US Bur Labor Stat. 2012; Available: http://www.bls.gov/cex.
37. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ, Milano A. Is More Information Always Better? An Experimental Study of Charitable Giving and Hurricane Katrina. South Econ J. 2007;74:388-411.
38. Wolsen A. Fundraising myth busters: Solicitation frequency [Internet]. 2015. Available: http://www.andrewolsen. net/fundraising-myth-busters-solicitation-frequency/. Accessed 11 June 2015.
39. CharityeMail-Email marketing for charities and Not For Profit Organisations. Why Do Email Newsletters? [Internet]. 2015. Available: http://www.charityemail.co.uk/why-do-email-newsletters. Accessed 11 June 2015.
40. Garecht J. Effective fundrasing by email. In: The Fundrasing Authority [Internet]. 2014. Available: http://www.thefundraisingauthority.com/fundraising-basics/fundraising-by-mail/. Accesed 11 June 2015.