Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-r4j94 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T13:56:36.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eliciting Donor Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Maren Elise Bachke ,
Frode Alfnes  and
Mette Wik
Maren Elise Bachke*
Affiliation:
UMB School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
Frode Alfnes*
Affiliation:
UMB School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
Mette Wik*
Affiliation:
UMB School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
*
e-mail: maren.bachke@umb.no
e-mail: frode.alfnes@umb.no
e-mail: mette.wik@umb.no
Get access

Abstract

Most charity organizations depend on contributions from the general public, but little research is conducted on donor preferences. Do donors have geographical, recipient, or thematic preferences? We designed a conjoint analysis experiment in which people rated development aid projects by donating money in dictator games. We find that our sample show strong age, gender, regional, and thematic preferences. Furthermore, we find significant differences between segments. The differences in donations are consistent with differences in donors’ attitudes toward development aid and their beliefs about differences in poverty and vulnerability of the recipients. The method here used for development projects can easily be adapted to elicit preferences for other kinds of projects that rely on gifts from private donors.

Résumé

Résumé

La plupart des organisations caritatives dépendent des dons du public, mais on ne possède que peu d’études sur les préférences des donateurs. Les donateurs ont-ils des préférences géographiques, de bénéficiaires ou de thèmes? Nous avons conçu une expérience d’analyse conjointe évaluant l’appréciation d’individus pour des projets d’aide au développement en fonction de leurs dons d’argent dans le cadre de jeux de dictateur. Nous constatons que notre échantillon démontre de fortes préférences d’âge, de sexe, de région et de thème. Nous constatons aussi des différences significatives entre groupes. Les différences en matière de dons sont en phase avec les différences dans les attitudes des donateurs vis-à-vis de l’aide au développement et leurs croyances quant au niveau de pauvreté et de vulnérabilité des bénéficiaires. La méthode utilisée ici pour des projets de développements peut être facilement adaptée pour étudier les préférences à l’égard d’autres types de projets dépendant des dons de donateurs privés.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die meisten gemeinnützigen Organisationen sind auf öffentliche Spenden angewiesen, aber es wurden bislang nur wenige Untersuchungen über die Prioritäten von Spendern durchgeführt. Haben Spender Präferenzen mit Hinblick auf die geographische Lage, den Empfänger oder den Zweck? Wir haben ein Experiment im Rahmen der Conjoint-Analyse entworfen, bei dem Personen in Diktatorspielen Entwicklungshilfsprojekte durch die Vergabe von Spenden bewerteten. Das Ergebnis unserer Stichprobe zeigt stark ausgeprägte Präferenzen abhängig von Alter, Geschlecht, Region und Zweck. Darüber hinaus sind große Unterschiede zwischen den Segmenten erkennbar. Die Unterschiede in den Spendenbeträgen entsprechen den unterschiedlichen Einstellungen der Spender gegenüber der Entwicklungshilfe sowie ihrer Bewertung der Unterschiede zwischen der Armut und Verletzlichkeit der Empfänger. Die hier angewandte Methode für Entwicklungsprojekte kann durchaus angepasst werden, um Präferenzen für andere Projekte, die auf die Gelder privater Spender angewiesen sind, zu ermitteln.

Resumen

Resumen

La mayoría de las organizaciones benéficas dependen de las aportaciones del público en general, pero se ha realizado poca investigación sobre las preferencias de los donantes. ¿Tienen los donantes preferencias geográficas, temáticas o de receptores? Diseñamos un experimento de análisis conjunto en el que las personas calificaron los proyectos de ayuda al desarrollo mediante la donación de dinero en juegos del dictador. Encontramos que nuestra muestra señala fuertes preferencias de edad, género, regionales y temáticas. Asimismo, encontramos diferencias significativas entre segmentos. Las diferencias en donaciones son coherentes con las diferentes en las actitudes de los donantes hacia la ayuda al desarrollo y sus creencias sobre las diferencias en la pobreza y vulnerabilidad de los receptores. El método utilizado en este caso para proyectos de desarrollo puede ser adaptado fácilmente para obtener preferencias para otros tipos de proyectos que dependen de legados de donantes privados.

摘要

摘要

大多数慈善组织依赖于公众的捐款,但是人们对于捐献者偏好的研究却很少。捐献者是否存在地域、受众或主题偏好呢?我们设计了一个协同的分析实验,在实验中,人们通过在独裁者博弈中捐款,对发展援助项目评分。我们发现,我们的样本人群显示出了强烈的年龄、性别、区域和主题偏好。不仅如此,我们还发现各部分之间存在重大差异。捐款的差异与捐献者对发展援助的态度差异以及对贫穷差异以及受众脆弱性的观点差异一致。本实验中对于发展项目所使用的方法可轻易调整,以用于发现人们对其他依赖于私人捐献者捐赠的项目的偏好。

要約

要約

ほとんどの慈善団体は一般市民からの寄付に依存するが、資金提供者の好みについてはほとんど研究されていない。資金提供者は地理的条件、受領者の種類もしくは内容によって左右されるのだろうか。本研究では、独裁者ゲームに献金することによって開発援助プロジェクトを評価する総合分析実験を考案した。このサンプルから、年代、性別、地域性、テーマの好みが明らかになった。さらにそれぞれの区分にも重要な違いがあることがわかった。寄付の相違は、開発援助に対する資金提供者の態度と受領者の貧困と脆弱性に対する信念の違いと一致している。ここで使用された開発計画方法から、個人的な資金提供者からの贈答品を当てにする他の種類のプロジェクトにおける好みが容易に明らかとなった。

ملخص

ملخص

معظم المنظمات الخيرية تعتمد على التبرعات من عامة الناس، ولكن تم إجراء القليل من البحث على تفضيلات المانح. هل يكون لدى الجهات المانحة تفضيلات جغرافية ٬ المتلقي، أوموضوعية؟ قمنا بتصميم تجربة التحليل الموحد التي فيها الناس تقوم بتقييم مشاريع مساعدات التنمية عن طريق التبرع بالمال في ألعاب الديكتاتور في الإقتصاد التجريبي. نجد أن العينات الخاصة بنا تظهرعمر قوي، نوع الجنس، الإقليمية، والأفضليات الموضوعية. علاوة على ذلك، نجد اختلافات كبيرة بين شرائح. الإختلافات في التبرعات تتفق مع وجود إختلافات في مواقف المانحين تجاه مساعدات التنمية ومعتقداتهم حول الإختلافات في الفقر وضعف المتلقين. الطريقة المستخدمة هنا لمشاريع التنمية يمكن تكييفها بسهولة لإستنباط الأفضليات لأنواع أخرى من المشاريع التي تعتمد على هدايا من المانحين من القطاع الخاص.

Keywords

AltruismCharitable givingConjoint analysisDictator gameSegmentation

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 465 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753. doi: 10.1162/003355300554881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464–477. doi: 10.2307/2234133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (2006). Philanthropy. In Kolm, S.-C. & Mercier Ythier, J. (Eds.), Handbook of giving, reciprocity and altruism (pp. 1201–1269). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (2007). Charitable giving. In Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E. (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W. T., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Altruism in experiments. In Durlaf, S. & Blume, L. (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 2737–2753. doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293–312. doi: 10.1162/003355301556419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A. B., Backus, P. G., Micklewright, J., Pharoah, C., & Schnepf, S. V. (2008). Charitable giving for overseas development: UK trends over a quarter century. IZQA DP. No. 3872.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2010). Experimental economics: Rethinking the rules. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11, 268–281. doi: 10.1007/s10683-007-9192-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(1), 43–57. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00121-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolle, T. A. (2010). Norsk bistand er blitt milliardbutikk. Accessed June 25, 2010 from www.bistandsaktuelt.no.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters, 48, 287–292. doi: 10.1016/0165-1765(94)00621-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breman, A., & Granström, O. (2008). The more we know, the more we care? Identification and deservingness in a cross-border experiment. Unpublished paper. Accessed June 25, 2010 from http://www.u.arizona.edu/~breman/.Google Scholar
Burt, C. D. B., & Popple, J. S. (1998). Memorial distortions in donation data. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 724–733. doi: 10.1080/00224549809603257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97, 818–827. doi: 10.1257/aer.97.3.818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179–192. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2000.1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., Connolly, C., & Myers, C. (2008). Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics, 11, 282–298. doi: 10.1007/s10683-007-9193-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J. B., Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 518–534. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01242.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 68, 29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2008.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221. doi: 10.1257/00028280260344740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DellaVigna, S., List, J. A., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 1–56. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Liechty, J. (2005). Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 67–82. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.42.1.67.56890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, A., Ding, M., & Huber, J. (2010). A simple mechanism to incentive-align conjoint experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Generosity, anonymity, gender. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 42–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behaviour, 16, 181–191. doi: 10.1006/game.1996.0081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108, 726–735. doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583–610. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in social sciences. Science, 326, 535–538. doi: 10.1126/science.1168244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315. doi: 10.1086/209351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, C. M., & Luttmer, E. F. P. (2009). What determines giving to Hurricane Katrina victims? Experimental evidence on racial group loyalty. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(2), 64–87.Google Scholar
Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31(3), s56–s73. doi: 10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19. doi: 10.2307/1251756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms, S. E., Scott, B. L., & Thornton, J. P. (2012). Choosing to give more: Experimental evidence on restricted gifts and charitable behavior. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 745–748. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2011.599784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H. (2008). Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: The importance of cognitive consistency. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis Policy, 8(1), Article 41.10.2202/1935-1682.1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhfeld, W. F. (2009). Marketing research methods in SAS: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques, SAS 9.2 Edition, MR-2009.Google Scholar
Landry, C., Lange, A., List, J. A., Price, M. K., & Rupp, N. G. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 747–782. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laury, S. K., & Taylor, L. O. (2008). Altruism spillovers: Are behaviors in context-free experiments predictive of altruism toward a naturally occurring public good? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 9–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Z., & Woodliffe, L. (2010). Donor misreporting: Conceptualizing social desirability bias in giving surveys. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 569–587. doi: 10.1007/s11266-010-9153-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.2.153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2011). Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1190–1201. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 482–493. doi: 10.1086/519249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 215–233. doi: 10.1086/324392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Who gives for overseas development? IZA Discussion Paper No. 3057.Google Scholar
Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2011). Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 528–534. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aaq129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2012). OECD.Stat Extracts. Accessed April 24, 2012 from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ODA_DONOR.Google Scholar
Otter, T., Tüchler, R., & Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2004). Capturing consumer heterogeneity in metric conjoint analysis using Bayesian mixture models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 285–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, V. R. (2008). Developments in conjoint analysis. In Wierenga, B. (Ed.), Handbook of marketing decision models (pp. 23–53). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-78213-3_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004). The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1625–1644. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00021-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In Chase, S. (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis (pp. 127–162). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Supphellen, M., & Nelson, M. R. (2001). Developing, exploring, and validating a typology of private philanthropic decision making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 573–603. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00056-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., & Vandebroek, M. (2008). Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 94–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittink, D. R., Vriens, M., & Burhenne, W. (1994). Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 41–52. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(94)90033-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollebæk, D, & Sivesind, K. H. (2010). Fra folkebevegelse til filantropi? Frivillig innsats i Norge 1997–2009. Senter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor. Rapport 2010:3.Google Scholar