What Factors Determine Who Will Donate to Charity?

Researchers Lindskold, Forte, Haake, and Schmidt (1977) wanted to determine whether the gender and method of request of a solicitor (face-to-face versus an impersonal approach) would influence the monetary donations given to charity by college students. The researchers hypothesized that a more direct approach would be more successful than the impersonal request. They also predicted that the active solicitor would be more successful in an environment without a lot of people than in a crowded one, because the potential donor would have less of a chance to escape by blending in with the crowd. Last, it was predicted that females would be more successful than males at getting donations, due to their perceived level of trustworthiness.

College students as pedestrians on the street corner in Ohio were recruited as subjects for this study. The independent variables were the genders of the solicitors, their method of requesting donations, and the environment (crowded or not). The dependent variables were the number of people who donated and the amount of donations received.
The basic procedure of this experiment was that three male college students and three female college students worked one a time as solicitors for donations for Athens County Society for Crippled Children and Adults. Each student worked in 15 minute intervals in the following conditions: densely populated and direct approach, densely populated and impersonal approach, and sparsely populated and direct approach.

For the direct approach, the solicitor targeted a specific student by making eye contact and directly asking for a donation. For the impersonal approach, the solicitor did not make eye contact, and while not targeting anyone in particular, requested that people give to the children.

As the researchers predicted, the results of the study showed that the direct appeal in fact was more successful than an impersonal appeal, especially in a sparsely populated environment. The researchers speculated that when in a less-crowded area, the donor feels more pressure to give because they are put on the spot.

While Lindskold, Forte, Haake, and Schmidt examined how the type of appeal would influence donations, Wiesenthal, Angstrom and Silverman (1983) examined how group size would influence the amount of donations.The purpose of their experiment was to determine if people are more inclined to be socially responsible when alone or in a group. More specifically, are people in groups less likely to make a charitable donation than one individual, and if so, would they make smaller donations? It was hypothesized that the single individuals would be more willing to contribute to charity than the groups.

The participants in this experiment were undergraduate college students at a pub located on campus. The independent variables were whether the patrons of the pub were alone or in a group, and the size of the group. The dependent variables were the size of the contributions, and whether or not the participants contributed at all.
To obtain the data, undergraduate experimenters volunteered to go to the pub and approach people who were either alone or in a group and request a donation for The Guatamalan Relief Fund. The experiments provided participants with a receipt, which gave them an opportunity to record pertinent information.

It was found that as the size of the group increased, the amount of donations actually decreased. A person who was there alone gave the largest donation, and the biggest group gave nothing at all. The original hypothesis was supported.

In the next experiment by Wiesenthal, Austom, and Silverman (1983), the purpose was to find out if number of students in a classroom would impact the amount of donations received. It was hypothesized that the more students in a class, the smaller the amount of donations would be given per student, and that classrooms with less students would donate more.
A field study of students in 20 classrooms of various sizes were the participants for this study. The Independent Variable was the amount of people in the classroom, and the number of collection tins that went around the room. The dependent variable was the size of the donations.

The collection began right before the actual class started. One male and one female experimenter went into each class. After an introduction by the instructor, the female explained why the donations were being collected and passed around one collection tin for every 15 students.

The hypothesis was supported in this experiment as well. The effect of modeling offers a plausible explanation for the lack of contributions from the larger groups and larger classrooms. We look at other peoples’ behavior to see what is acceptable in an unfamiliar situation. Because one or several group members did not make a donation, the other group members felt it was okay to follow suit and fail to contribute as well.

Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) examined whether requesting lower donation amounts would influence the amount of donations to charity. They wanted to determine whether adding the phrase “even a penny will help” at the end of a request for donations would solve the problem of high compliance but lower donation amounts that came from legitimizing small contributions to charity. It was hypothesized that a participant would offer more financial assistance if the solicitor indirectly made it know that a small donation is acceptable but not optimal.

The participants in this study were middle class homeowners in the suburbs. The Independent Variable was the method of request employed by the solicitors. The dependent variables were whether or not the participant made a donation, and the amount of donations made.

The procedure entailed four pairs of researchers (each pair consisted of one male and one female college-aged solicitor) who went door-to-door at certain times to ensure randomness. Once at the home of the participant, a solicitor would ask for a donation using either the standard request or the “even a penny” request.

The results of this experiment showed that compliance was higher for the “even a penny” request, and the size of donations given for it were about the same (not lower) than the standard request. This is because compliance is virtually unavoidable when the minimal donation is legitimized.

In their next experiment, all things were the same except for the method of request used by the solicitors. Instead of using the phrase “even a penny will help”, the phrase “even a dollar will help” was used. In addition, some of the participants were given a fake survey on a scale from one to seven about how they perceived the monetary need of the charity. For this group, the dependent variable was the amount given.

It was hypothesized that the “even a penny” condition and the social legitimization condition would be similar in terms of donations and both would be more successful than the even a dollar condition. However, the results showed that again the donations for each group were about the same, the most common donation was a dollar.

While the experiment above examined whether asking for a small donation to charity would influence the amount of donations, Wegant and Smith (1987) have examined the impact of asking for a larger contribution to charity. They wanted to find out whether the size of the request for a donation had any impact on the amount of donations that were actually received. They hypothesized that asking for a large contribution would decrease the amount of people willing to give donations. A second hypothesis was asking for a large contribution would not increase the amount of donations by the people who did contribute.

Researchers went to the participants houses in pairs, one being the observer who would later record the data, and the other person was the one giving the plea for the charity. The independent variables were the standard request, the even a penny request, and the generous request. In the standard condition, no set value was requested. In the even a penny condition, smaller contributions were acceptable. In the generous conditions, emphasis was placed on larger donations.
The results of the experiment confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis. A small request increased the probability of receiving a donation. People do not want to seem cheap, and suggesting a small donation will encourage them to give when they would have otherwise refused. Fundraisers should beware of asking for large donations, because doing so makes it seem like small donations are not acceptable.

Wegant and Smith also wanted to find out whether fund-raising strategies in mail-out campaigns would mirror the findings of the door-to-door research. The independent variables were the same, except the base amount of $5 was used instead of a penny. The dependent variables were whether people donated or not, and under which conditions.
The results were the same for both experiments. Asking for small donations increases the likelihood of receiving a donation. More money can be raised by actually asking for less.

The purpose of the present research was to examine variables such as different request strategies and whether or not a person receives a light touch. We varied how people were asked to make a donation, and whether or not the experimenter touched the participant. I predict that touching the participant lightly on the arm might have a positive influence on the amount of donations given. I predict that requesting a penny will influence people to make more donations. I predict that requesting a dollar will not be as effective as asking for a penny. I predict that in the dollar/penny condition, the most donations will be made. I predict that the penny/dollar condition will be the least effective in terms of getting donations.

Participants

Eighty people (males and females) were randomly chosen at the food court in the mall. We only recruited participants who were sitting alone, in order to avoid any group influence.

Procedure

We approached each person and asked them to make a donation using one of four request strategies. In the penny condition, we included the phrase “even a penny will help” when requesting a donation. In the dollar condition, we included the phrase “even a dollar will help” when requesting a donation. In the dollar/penny condition, we first said “even a dollar will help” and then said “you know, even a penny will help.” In the penny/dollar condition, we first said “even a penny will help” and then said “better yet, even a dollar will help.” A 2nd independent variable manipulated whether or not the potential donor was touched. Half of the participants when asked to donate were lightly touched by the experimenter on the arm or shoulder, the other half were not.

The dependent variables are the number of people who donate in each condition, the amount of money donated, and what the perceived need of the charity is according to the participant. Participants were asked to rate their perception of need using a scale from 1 to 5. A level 1 score indicated a very needy charity, while a level 5 score indicated a charity that was not perceived as needy.

Results

A contingency table analysis examined if participants’ willingness to donate was related to whether or not they were touched by the researcher. The two variables were not significantly related, X , (1, N = 80) =.21, p > .001. Examination of the frequencies showed that of the participants that were touched, 23 were willing to donate, while 17 were not. Of those participants that were not touched, 25 were willing to donate, while 15 were not.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine differences in the average amount of money donated based on the four request strategies. The ANOVA was not significant, F (3, 44) = 5.01, p>.001. Because the ANOVA was not significant, post-hoc tests were not conducted. Participants in the penny condition donated an average of $2.75 (SD = 1.32), those in the dollar condition donated an average of $4.07 (SD = 1.55), those in the penny/dollar condition donated an average of $2.11 (SD = 1.27), and those in the dollar/penny condition donated an average of $3.75 (SD = 1.18).

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in the average rating of the charity’s need based on whether or not the participants received a light touch or not. The ANOVA was not significant, F (3, 44) =.95, p = .53. Because the ANOVA was not significant, post-hoc tests were not conducted. Examination of the means showed that on the 5-point scale, participants in the penny condition indicated an average need rating of 3 (SD =1.33), participants in the dollar condition indicated an average need rating of 2.92 (SD = 1.12), participants in the penny/dollar condition indicated an average need rating of 2.56 (SD = .88), and participants in the dollar/penny condition indicated an average need rating of 3.25 (SD = 1.13).

An independent samples t-test examined if there was significant difference in the average amount of money donated based on whether or not the participants were touched by the researcher. The test was not significant, t (46) = .49, p = .63. Participants who were touched by the researcher donated an average of $3.43 (SD = 1.31), while participants who were not touched donated an average of $3.22 (SD = 1.67).

Another independent samples t-test examined if there was a significant difference in the average rating of the charity’s need based on whether or not participants were touched by the researcher. This test was also not significant, t (46) = .12, p = .90. Participants who were touched rated the need of the charity an average of 3 (SD = 1.04) on the 5-point scale, while participants who were not touched rated the need of the charity an average of 2.96 (SD = 1.21) on the 5-point scale.
A correlation coefficient was computed to examine the relationship between the average amount of money donated and the average need rating. Results showed that the correlation was not significant, r = -.08, p = .60.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to examine variables such as different request strategies and whether or not the participants were touched, and the influence these variables would have on the amount of donations received and the number of donations received. While similar to past charity research, the present research added further evidence that reinforces the idea that an effective request strategy will impact the amount of money that people are willing to donate, and the amount of people who will make donations.

The results of this study showed that the majority of donations were actually made by the people who were not touched. Of the four request strategies, the most money was donated by participants in the dollar condition, followed by those in the dollar/penny condition, the penny condition, and finally the penny/dollar condition, which donated the least amount of money. These findings did not support my hypothesis, however, the results were consistent with past research and replicated some of the findings.

Some limitations of the study include extraneous variables that were not accounted for that could possibly have influenced the results. These variables include the time of day the donations were collected, the gender of the researchers and participants, the ages of the participants, and whether or not the participant liked the solicitor. Because the present study did not examine the effects of these variables, it is not known for sure if such variables could have influenced the results in any way. Future research will have to determine this.
Not only is my research important for adding knowledge to the field of charity research, it is also important for creating an awareness of the importance of charity research in general, as well as helping people raise more money for charities by employing these request strategies. It would also benefit people who are involved in any type of fundraising to use these methods in order increase donations. To increase the likelihood of receiving a donation, a small donation should be suggested. It has been shown repeatedly that more money can be raised by actually asking for less. Since in the present study a light touch on the arm actually decreased donations, I would also suggest that solicitors keep their hands to themselves, since some participants were obviously put off by this.
While my research has addressed some important issues, there is a lot of future research that can be added to this field. If I were to do another study about charity, I would want to research the influence of liking the solicitor on the amount of donations received, since people generally will do favors for people that they like. In this hypothetical study, I would also employ strategies that increase liking, in order to get the most donations. I would predict that the more the donator liked the solicitor, the more likely they would be to donate, and that they would also donate more money. I feel this would be a really interesting study.
Given that the results of my research were not significant, perhaps future research could address the reason for this. If someone could find out exactly why the hypotheses were not supported, it would have more implications for the field of charity research. While I think it is important to know that touching a participant could influence their decision to donate, I think it is more important to understand why this is so. Perhaps when debriefing the participants, a questionnaire about their opinion on being touched could be given.
In conclusion, there is more to getting donations than just asking. Variables such as the way people are asked, as well as being touched when asked, have been shown to have an influence on the number and amount of donations received by a charity.