The Abcs of Charitable Solicitation

A substantial experimental literature suggests that a personal solicitation is an effective way to induce people to make charitable donations. We examine whether this result generalizes to a non-experimental setting. Specifically, we estimate the effect of a marginal personal solicitation using observational data on alumni giving at an anonymous research university, which we refer to as Anon U. At Anon U, volunteers use lists provided by the Development Office to telephone classmates and solicit them for donations. The names on these lists are always in alphabetical order. The volunteers who do the soliciting often run out of time before they reach the end of their lists. These observations suggest a simple strategy for testing whether personal solicitation matters, viz., examine whether alumni with names toward the end of the alphabet are less likely to give than alumni with names toward the beginning, ceteris paribus. If so, then a marginal personal solicitation matters. Our main finding is that location in the alphabet -- and hence, a personal solicitation -- has a strong effect on probability of making a gift. A rough estimate of the elasticity of the probability of giving with respect to the probability of receiving a personal solicitation is 0.15. However, there is no statistically discernible effect on the amount given, conditional on donating. We also find that women respond more strongly to a personal solicitation than men. This is consistent with a robust result in the psychology literature, that women find it more difficult than men to refuse requests that they perceive as being legitimate.

[1]  J. Andreoni,et al.  Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism , 2001 .

[2]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World , 2007 .

[3]  Ronald G. Ehrenberg,et al.  The sources and uses of annual giving at selective private research universities and liberal arts colleges , 2003 .

[4]  H. Rosen,et al.  Altruism and the Child Cycle of Alumni Donations , 2009 .

[5]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[6]  Michael K. Price,et al.  Is a Donor in Hand Better than Two in the Bush? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment , 2008 .

[7]  Serge-Christophe Kolm,et al.  Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity , 2006 .

[8]  J. Andreoni,et al.  Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising , 2004 .

[9]  P. Franses,et al.  Irritation Due to Direct Mailings from Charities , 2006 .

[10]  P. Franses,et al.  Dynamic and Competitive Effects of Direct Mailings , 2006 .

[11]  W. Greene Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error: Comment , 1981 .

[12]  René Bekkers,et al.  Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review , 2007 .

[13]  James Andreoni,et al.  Do Government Grants to Private Charities Crowd Out Giving or Fund-raising? , 2003 .

[14]  Michael A. Gottfried,et al.  Solicitation and Donation: An Econometric Evaluation of Alumni Generosity in Higher Education , 2006 .

[15]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Gender and Social Influence: A Social Psychological Analysis. , 1983 .

[16]  Mohanbir Sawhney,et al.  Learning and using electronic information products and services: A field study , 2001 .

[17]  O. Johansson-Stenman,et al.  Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica , 2008 .

[18]  J. Havens,et al.  Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis , 1997 .

[19]  John Morgan,et al.  Funding Public Goods with Lotteries: Experimental Evidence , 2000 .

[20]  Stephanie M. Noble,et al.  Defensive Responses to Charitable Direct Mail Solicitations , 2001 .

[21]  J. Monks Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective institutions , 2003 .

[22]  An Experimental Study of the Effect of Announcements on Public Goods Contributions , 2009 .

[23]  Stepan Jurajda,et al.  Admission to Selective Schools, Alphabetically , 2005 .

[24]  Ralph B. Bristol How Much Will Alumni Give in the Future , 1992 .

[25]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Rebates Versus Matching: Does How We Subsidize Charitable Contributions Matter? , 2003 .

[26]  Shihti Yu,et al.  On the choice between sample selection and two-part models , 1996 .

[27]  Garey Ramey,et al.  Donor Behavior and Voluntary Support for Higher Education Institutions. , 1988 .

[28]  David Lucking-Reiley,et al.  The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign , 2002, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  Barış K. Yörük,et al.  How Responsive are Charitable Donors to Requests to Give? , 2006 .

[30]  B. Cunningham,et al.  The Determinants of Donative Revenue Flows from Alumni of Higher Education: An Empirical Inquiry , 2002 .

[31]  Charles T. Clotfelter,et al.  Who Are the Alumni Donors? Giving by Two Generations of Alumni from Selective Colleges , 2001 .

[32]  J. Heckman Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[33]  Willard G. Manning,et al.  Choosing Between the Sample-Selection Model and the Multi-Part Model , 1984 .

[34]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  What's in a Surname? The Effects of Surname Initials on Academic Success , 2006 .

[35]  B. Weisbrod,et al.  Mission and Money: Understanding the University , 2008 .

[36]  Steffen Huck,et al.  Comparing Charitable Fundraising Schemes: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment and a Structural Model , 2013 .