Contingent Match Incentives Increase Donations

The authors propose a new means by which nonprofits can induce donors to give today and commit to giving in the future: contingent match incentives, in which matching is made contingent on the percentage of others who give (e.g., “if X% of others give, we will match all donations”). A field experiment shows that a 75% contingent match (such that matches “kick in” only if 75% of others donate) is most effective in increasing commitment to recurring donations. An online experiment reveals that the 75% contingent match drives commitment to recurring donations because it simultaneously provides social proof while offering a low enough target to remain plausible that the match will occur. A final online experiment demonstrates that the effectiveness of the 75% contingent match extends to one-time donations. The authors discuss the practical and theoretical implications of contingent matches for managers and academics.

[1]  Chad R. Mortensen,et al.  Going along versus going alone: when fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  A. Bandura,et al.  Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. , 1981 .

[3]  S. Asch.  Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. , 1956 .

[4]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Goal gradient in helping behavior , 2013 .

[5]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels , 2008 .

[6]  The psychology of persuasion , 1996 .

[7]  F. H. Hankins,et al.  The Psychology of Social Norms , 1937 .

[8]  L. Doob.  The psychology of social norms. , 1937 .

[9]  Stephan Meier,et al.  Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment , 2006 .

[10]  Todd Rogers,et al.  Descriptive Social Norms and Motivation to Vote: Everybody's Voting and so Should You , 2009, The Journal of Politics.

[11]  Elizabeth W. Dunn,et al.  Making a Difference Matters: Impact Unlocks the Emotional Benefits of Prosocial Spending , 2013 .

[12]  Adam M. Grant.  Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference , 2007 .

[13]  B. Frey.  Not Just for the Money , 1997 .

[14]  B. Frey.  Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation , 1998 .

[15]  J. G. Miller.  Culture and development of everyday social explanation. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  B. Latané,et al.  Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Matthew S. Fritz,et al.  Mediation analysis. , 2019, Annual review of psychology.

[18]  Uri Gneezy,et al.  The W effect of incentives , 2003 .

[19]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  Social influence: compliance and conformity. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[20]  David Isaacs,et al.  Making a difference , 2013, Journal of paediatrics and child health.

[21]  P. Wesley Schultz,et al.  Changing Behavior With Normative Feedback Interventions: A Field Experiment on Curbside Recycling , 1999 .

[22]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice , 2005 .

[23]  Arnold B. Bakker,et al.  Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms , 1995 .

[24]  Jina H. Yoo,et al.  “Even a Penny Will Help!”: Legitimization of Paltry Donation and Social Proof in Soliciting Donation to a Charitable Organization , 2007 .

[25]  Carl A. Kallgren,et al.  A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. , 1990 .

[26]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  When Thinking Beats Doing: The Role of Optimistic Expectations in Goal-Based Choice , 2007 .

[27]  Minjung Koo,et al.  Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  N. Epley,et al.  Feeling "holier than thou": are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.