1 Web Appendix A: A list of charities using monetary or non-monetary pre-giving incentives (collected from faculty and staff at the Business School of the authors’ institution) A list of sample charities encloses monetary or non-monetary PGIs in their donation request letters Charities enclose monetary PGI Charities enclose non-monetary PGI Abandoned Children's fund American Heart Association Aid for Starving Children Boys Town Care Food For The Poor Children's Hunger Relief Fund Guiding Eyes For the Blind Christian Appalachian Project Habitat for Humanity Covenant House Helen Keller International Food For The Poor Humane Society Jewish Voice Ministries International Make-A-Wish Foundation Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Missionaries of Africa Path Finder International Mothers Against Drunk Driving Ronald McDonald House Charities Orbis Save The Children Paralyzed Veterans of America Sierra Club UNICEF St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Veterans of Foreign Wars United Service Organizations Water for Life World Wildlife Fund Examples:
34
Embed
A list of sample charities encloses monetary or non ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Web Appendix A: A list of charities using monetary or non-monetary pre-giving incentives (collected from faculty and staff at the Business School of the authors’ institution)
A list of sample charities encloses monetary or non-monetary PGIs in their donation request letters
Charities enclose monetary PGI Charities enclose non-monetary PGI Abandoned Children's fund American Heart Association Aid for Starving Children Boys Town Care Food For The Poor Children's Hunger Relief Fund Guiding Eyes For the Blind Christian Appalachian Project Habitat for Humanity Covenant House Helen Keller International Food For The Poor Humane Society Jewish Voice Ministries International Make-A-Wish Foundation Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Missionaries of Africa Path Finder International Mothers Against Drunk Driving Ronald McDonald House Charities Orbis Save The Children Paralyzed Veterans of America Sierra Club UNICEF St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Veterans of Foreign Wars United Service Organizations Water for Life World Wildlife Fund
Examples:
2
Web Appendix B. Details for the pilot study
The pilot study had a 2 (organization type: charity, business) X 2 (familiarity of the
Mturk participants were shown the logos of eight charities or eight for-profit businesses.
Participants in the familiar condition were asked to choose one that was familiar to them, while
participants in the unfamiliar condition were asked to choose one that was unfamiliar. They rated
their chosen organization on four communal items and four exchange items (e.g., this
organization helps people without expecting anything in return; this organization expects people
to reciprocate; Aggarwal 2004). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Following Aggarwal (2004), these items were
combined to form a Net Communality Score (the exchange items were reverse coded). The
higher the score, the more communal the organization is perceived to be. As expected, the
interaction was not significant (F(1, 197) = 3.85, p = .11, ηp2 = .01). Only the main effect of
organization type was found (Mcharities = 5.59, Mbusiness = 3.57, F(1, 197) = 137.41, p < .001, ηp2
= .41), suggesting that charitable organizations were perceived as more communally oriented
than business organizations. In addition, the Net Communality Scores for the charitable
organizations were above the mid-point of the scale (t(99) = 14.05, p < .001), indicating that
people perceived charities to be more communally than exchange oriented. The opposite was
true for businesses—the ratings were significantly below the mid-point, which suggests that
people perceive them to be more exchange than communally oriented (t(101) = -3.27, p = .001).
Similar results were found using separate communal and exchange norms. In sum, the results
suggest that people perceive charities to be more communal than businesses regardless of how
familiar these organizations are.
3
Web Appendix C. Opening Rates Results and Comparisons within Each PGI Condition
Study 1 Opening Rate Results
Conditions Letters Unopen throw away
Open without reading
Open and read
Unopen but keep
Within the monetary PGI
condition
Charity letter (monetary PGI) 13 20 38 8
Dental bill 0 2 68 9 SmartShopper 15 6 48 10 Auto esurance 68 4 6 1 Retirement ad 35 7 27 9 Credit card offer 70 2 6 1
Within the non-monetary PGI
condition
Charity letter (non-monetary PGI) 36 17 21 6
Dental bill 1 1 72 6 SmartShopper 15 7 51 8 Auto esurance 62 9 6 3 Retirement ad 28 8 30 14 Credit card offer 62 9 6 3
Within the no PGI condition
Charity letter 40 15 14 12 (no PGI) Dental bill 0 0 71 10 SmartShopper 12 7 53 9 Auto esurance 67 6 4 4 Retirement ad 45 4 24 8 Credit card offer 72 5 1 3
Comparisons of Opening Rate Within Each PGI Condition
Conditions Letters Unopen
throw away
Open without reading
Open and read
Unopen but keep
Within the monetary
PGI condition
Charity letter (monetary PGI) 13 20 38 8 vs. Solicited letter 0 2 68 9
P value <.001 <.001 <.001 0.79 vs. Unsolicited letters 47 5 22 5
P value <.001 0.001 0.009 0.39
Within the non-monetary
PGI condition
Charity letter (non-monetary PGI) 36 17 21 6 vs. Solicited letter 1 1 72 6
P value <.001 <.001 <.001 1.00 vs. Unsolicited letters 42 8 23 7
P value 0.34 0.05 0.72 0.77 Within the no PGI
condition Charity letter (no PGI) 40 15 14 12
4
vs. Solicited letter 0 0 71 10 P value <.001 <.001 <.001 0.21
vs. Unsolicited letters 49 6 21 6 P value 0.15 0.04 0.18 0.13
Note: 1. we averaged the responses for the four unsolicited letters and rounded up/down any non-integer numbers. 2. We used Fisher's Exact test for the cells with 0, and chi-square tests for all the other cells.
Unopen throw away. The number of people who chose to throw away the monetary
PGI/non-monetary PGI/no-PGI appeals without opening was significantly higher than the
solicited letter (all p < .001). The number of people who chose to throw away the monetary PGI
appeal without opening was significantly lower than the unsolicited letters (p < .001). No other
difference was found (ps >.14).
Open without reading. The number of people who chose to open the monetary PGI/non-
monetary PGI/no-PGI appeals without reading was significantly higher than both the solicited
letter (all p = .009) and the unsolicited letters (all ps < .06).
Open and read. The number of people who chose to open and read the monetary
PGI/non-monetary PGI/no-PGI appeals was significantly lower than the solicited letter (all p <
.001). The number of people who chose to open and read the monetary PGI appeal was
significantly higher than the unsolicited letters (p < .001). No other difference was found (ps
>.17).
Unopen but keep. No difference was found between any of the conditions (all ps >.12).
5
Web Appendix D. Pretests for study 2, study 3, study 4, study 5 and study 7, and additional attention check information for study 4
Study 2 pretest
We conducted a pretest to ensure that the monetary and non-monetary incentives were
perceived similarly in terms of cost (to the charity) and value (to the recipient). Seventy
participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in the pretest. Participants were asked to
imagine that they received a charity donation request letter in the mail, and a greeting card (a
quarter) was enclosed in the letter as a gift (a picture of the incentive was presented). For each
incentive, participants first estimated the cost of including the incentive on a $0-$1 slider with an
“other” option provided for text entry, and then rated the benefit they gained from receiving the
incentive on a 7-point Likert scale (1= no benefit at all, 7 = a lot of benefit). The order in which
participants answered questions about the monetary and non-monetary incentive was
randomized. Results indicated that the two incentives were perceived similarly in terms of cost
(Mmonetary = $.34, Mnon-monetary = $.26, F(1, 68) = 2.03, p = .16) and benefit (Mmonetary = 2.69, Mnon-
monetary = 3.17, , F(1, 68) = .225, p = .23).
Study 3 pretest
In the pretest, 32 students from the same university as the main study were asked to
estimate (1) the cost for the charity to send the monetary (two quarters) and non-monetary PGI (a
higher quality greeting card) (between $.25 and $1, in $.25 increments, with an open-ended
“other” option), and (2) the subjective benefit they would get from the monetary and non-
monetary PGI (1 = no benefit at all, 7 = a lot of benefit). The order in which participants rated
the incentives was counterbalanced. Results showed no difference in either the perceived cost
6
(Mmonetary = $.59, Mnon-monetary = $.56, F(1, 31) = .225, p = .64) or perceived benefit (Mmonetary=
3.47, Mnon-monetary = 3.25, F(1, 31) = .225, p = .44) of the two PGIs.
Study 4 pretest
In the pretest, 59 Mturkers were asked to estimate the cost of including each incentive for
the charity (on a $0-$1 slider with an “other” option provided for text entry), followed by a
question on the subjective benefit they gained from receiving each incentive on a 7-point Likert
scale (1 = no benefit at all, 7 = a lot of benefit). Pretest results showed no significant difference
between the monetary PGI and non-monetary PGI for either the perceived cost (M$.25 = $.48,
Mcard = $.64, p = .27) and perceived benefit (M$.25 = 2.64, Mcard = 3.03, p = .38).
Study 5 pretest
Using the same rating scales as previous pretests, 123 Mturkers were presented with an
image of one of four gifts ($.25, one card, $2.50, eight cards) and asked to estimate the cost of
including the gift for the charity on a slider, with an “other” option provided for text entry, as
well as the perceived benefit on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = no benefit at all, 7 = a lot of benefit).
Results showed that one quarter and one greeting card were perceived similarly in terms of costs
and benefits (cost: M$.25 = $.48, Mone card = $.64; benefit: M$.25 = 2.64, Mone card = 3.03; both ps
>.25) while $2.50 and eight greetings cards were perceived similarly (cost: M$2.50 = $1.83, Meight
Additional attention check information for study 4
The attention check asked participants to “Please choose ‘not at all’ for this item.”
Including participants who failed the attention check reveals a marginal effect of PGI (Mmonetary =
$12.94, Mnon-monetary = $17.04, Mcontrol = $19.88, F(2, 150) = 2.47, p = .088). Monetary PGI led to
significantly lower donations than no PGI (p = .03), and directionally lower donations than non-
monetary PGI (p = .19).
8
Web Appendix E. Stimuli for all studies Note: to comply with double-blind review, city and state names have been masked to avoid identification of the authors’ institution.
Study 2 Charity appeals for monetary and non-monetary conditions (9,000 people field study)
9
10
10
11
11
Study 3. Charity appeals for monetary PGI, non-monetary PGI and no PGI
12
12
Note: the greeting card was actually placed at the top of the letter.
13
13
14
14
Study 5. Charity appeals for monetary PGIs ($.25 and $2.50) and non-monetary PGIs (one greeting card and eight greeting cards)
15
15
Study 5 posttest. Charity appeal for high-value non-monetary PGI (eight different gifts)
16
16
Study 6. Charity appeals for three phrasings of monetary PGI, non-monetary PGI and no PGI
17
17
Study 7. Sample charity appeal for the direct mail campaign for recurring donors
18
18
Web Appendix F. Field study costs for study 2 and study 7
Study 2 Cost for 9,000 charity appeals with incentives
Incentive cost (3000 quarters; 3000 greeting cards with small envelopes)
$750 $442 $0.00
Business return cost for each PGI condition 27 response for monetary condition; 11 responses from non-monetary condition; 12 responses from the no incentive condition)
$36.05 $14.69 $16.02
Total cost $2,216.82 $1,812.46 $1,296.79 Average cost per person $0.74 $0.60 $0.43
Study 7 Cost for 2,643 charity appeals with incentives
Business return cost for each PGI condition 18 response for monetary condition (the other 4 donated online); 25 responses from non-monetary condition; 19 responses from the no incentive condition)
$24.03 $33.38 $25.37
Total cost $1,092.94 $1,065.34 $785.93 Average cost per person $1.24 $1.21 $0.89
19
19
Web Appendix G. Study 2 and study 7 donation amount results including/excluding people who returned the monetary PGI, and including/excluding the outlier (study 2 only) using the log-transformation
Study 2 results including 15 responses who returned 25 cents Log-transformed Dollar amount
Web Appendix I. Means and SDs for Proposed and Alternative Mediators and Relative Indirect Effect of Proposed and Alternative Mediators for Study 4 and Study 6
Means and SDs for Proposed and Alternative Mediators
Study Condition Communal
Norms Exchange
Norms Net
Communality Manipulative
Intent Charity
Inefficiency Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Additional relationship norm results for Study 6 For communal norms, results revealed a significant main effect of PGI (Mmonetary-help = 5.65, Mmonetary-return = 5.26, Mmonetary-gift =
5.33, Mnon-monetary = 5.61, Mcontrol = 5.67; F(4, 502) = 2.80, p = .025, ηp2 = .02). Participants in both the monetary-return condition and
the monetary-gift condition reported lower communal norms than those in the non-monetary PGI or no PGI conditions (monetary-gift vs. non-monetary PGI: p = .087, all other ps < .04). Participants in the monetary-help condition reported higher communal norms than those in the monetary-gift (p = .049) and the monetary-return (p = .017) conditions. No difference was found between any other conditions (all ps > .66). For exchange norms, the main effect of PGI type was also significant (F(4, 502) = 4.33, p = .002, ηp
2 = .03). Participants in both the monetary-return and the monetary-gift conditions reported higher exchange norms than those in the non-monetary PGI or no PGI condition (monetary-return vs. non-monetary PGI: p = .06, all other ps < .02). Participants in the monetary-help condition reported marginally lower exchange norms than those in the monetary-gift condition (p = .09) and marginally higher exchange norms than those in the no PGI condition (p = .055). No difference was found between any other conditions (all ps > .15).
22
22
Relative Indirect Effect for Proposed Mediator and Alternative Mediators
95% Bootstrap CI 95% Bootstrap CI (Study 4) (Study 6)
Note: 1. The serial mediation in the monetary-help condition using charity inefficiency was significant at the 90th percentile (Monetary vs. non-monetary PGI: B= .10, 90% CI = [.0032, .24]). The serial mediation in the monetary-help condition using manipulative intent was not significant at the 90th percentile.
Serial Mediation (study 4). It is possible that a monetary PGI will lead the charity to be perceived as inefficient or manipulative, which subsequently affects the Net Communality of the charity. Hence, we performed additional analyses to test the possibility of serial mediation from PGI typecharity inefficiency/manipulative intentNet Communality Score donation. Results showed that serial mediation through charity inefficiency and Net Communality was significant (monetary vs. no PGI: B= 1.73, 95% CI = [.41, 4.05]; monetary vs. non-monetary: B= 1.93, 95% CI = [.59, 4.11]). However, serial mediation through manipulative intent
24
24
to perceived communality or vice versa was not significant. This suggests that in addition to the conceptual model we proposed, perceived charity inefficiency also contributes to lower Net Communality, resulting in lower donations. The reversed serial mediation paths were not significant for both manipulative intent and charity inefficiency (all CIs include 0).
Serial Mediation (study 6). As in study 4, we also tested possible serial mediation models. Both serial mediation models (PGI typemanipulative intent/charity inefficiencyNet Communality donation) were significant (see tables above). The reversed serial mediation paths were not significant for both manipulative intent and charity inefficiency (all CIs include 0).
25
25
Web Appendix J. Measures of relationship norms, manipulative intent and charity inefficiency
Relationship norms. In study 4, we used four items adapted from Aggarwal (2004) to
measure communal norms (this organization is concerned about other people’s welfare; this
organization helps people without expecting anything in return; I have warm feelings toward this
organization; this organization does not promptly expect anything in return from those who
benefit from its services) and four items to measure exchange norms (whenever this organization
gives or offers something, it expects something in return; whenever this organization gives or
offers something, it expects comparable benefits in return (value for value); this organization is
behaving like a trader; whenever this organization gives or offers something, it expects quick
return). In study 6, we used the same four communal norm items, and three exchange items. We
reworded some of the exchange items: whenever this organization gives or offers something, it
expects something in return; the organization expects people to reciprocate; this organization is
like a business organization. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely
disagree, 7 = completely agree).
Manipulative intent. The manipulative intent measure was adapted from Campbell (1995)
and comprised of four items (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree): The way the
charity tried to persuade people seems acceptable to me (reverse coded); The charity tried to
manipulate donors in ways that I don’t like; I was annoyed by this charity appeal because the
charity seemed to be trying to inappropriately manage or control the donors; I didn’t mind this
charity appeal; The charity tried to be persuasive without being excessively manipulative
(reversed coded).
Charity Inefficiency. Charity inefficiency was measured using the follow three items (1 =
completely disagree, 7 = completely agree): This organization is wasting money; this
26
26
organization is not efficient in using its funding; I wonder how much of my donation will
actually go to the needy people.
27
27
Web Appendix K. Effect of PGI type and PGI value on donation amount (study 5)