Menu Expand

Nudging und soziales Engagement: Wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung
  4. Vol. 87, Issue 2
  5. pp. 139–152

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Maja, A. Nudging und soziales Engagement: Wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 87(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.139
Maja, Adena "Nudging und soziales Engagement: Wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?" Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 87.2, 2018, 139-152. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.139
Maja, Adena (2018): Nudging und soziales Engagement: Wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?, in: Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, vol. 87, iss. 2, 139-152, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.139
Format
Download

Nudging und soziales Engagement: Wie kann Nudging dazu beitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen?

Maja, Adena

Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 87 (2018), Iss. 2 : pp. 139–152

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.139
Language
German
Pages
14
Keywords

Author Details

Maja Adena, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung

References

  1. Adena, Maja (2014): Tax-price elasticity of charitable donations: Evidence from the German taxpayer panel. WZB Discussion Paper.  Google Scholar
  2. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2016): A field experiment on crowdfunding for a club good. WZB Working Paper, SP II 2016 (308).  Google Scholar
  3. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2017): Matching donations without crowding out? Some theoretical considerations, a field, and a lab experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 148 (April), 32–42.  Google Scholar
  4. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2018a): Giving once, giving twice: A two-period field experiment on intertemporal crowding in charitable giving. WZB Working Paper, SP II 2017 (305r).  Google Scholar
  5. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2018b): Online fundraising, self-deception, and the longterm impact of ask avoidance. WZB Discussion Paper, SP II 2016 (306r).  Google Scholar
  6. Adena, Maja, Steffen Huck und Imran Rasul (2014): Charitable giving and nonbinding contribution-level suggestions: Evidence from a field experiment. Review of Behavioral Economics, 1 (3), 275–293.  Google Scholar
  7. Altmann, Steffen, Armin Falk, Paul Heidhues und Rajshri Jayaraman (2014): Defaults and donations. Evidence from a field experiment. CESifo Working Paper.  Google Scholar
  8. Andreoni, James (1995): Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1), 1–21.  Google Scholar
  9. Bilanz des Helfens (2017): www.spendenrat.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Bilanz_des_Helfens_2017.pdf (abgerufen am 3.7.2018).  Google Scholar
  10. Bönke, Timm, Nima Massarrat-Mashhadi und Christian Sielaff (2012): Charitable giving in the German welfare state: Fiscal incentives and crowding out. Public Choice, 154 (1), 39–58.  Google Scholar
  11. Damgaard, Mette T. und Christina Gravert (2018): The hidden costs of nudging: Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 15–26.  Google Scholar
  12. Eckel, Catherine C. und Philip J. Grossman (2003): Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87 (3–4), 681–701.  Google Scholar
  13. Eckel, Catherine C. und Philip J. Grossman (2006): Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 72 (4), 794.  Google Scholar
  14. Eckel, Catherine C. und Philip J. Grossman (2008): Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experimental Economics, 11 (3), 234–252.  Google Scholar
  15. Falk, Armin (2007): Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75 (5), 1501–1511.  Google Scholar
  16. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg und Andreas Maaløe Jespersen (2013): Nudge and the manipulation of choice. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4 (1), 3–28.  Google Scholar
  17. Huck, Steffen und Imran Rasul (2010): Transactions costs in charitable giving : Evidence from two field experiments. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Advances, 10 (1).  Google Scholar
  18. Huck, Steffen, Imran Rasul und Andrew Shephard (2015): Comparing charitable fund-raising schemes: Evidence from a natural field experiment and a structural model. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7 (2), 326–369.  Google Scholar
  19. Kessler, Judd B. und Alvin E. Roth (2014): Getting more organs for transplantation. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 104 (5), 425–430.  Google Scholar
  20. Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis und R. Slonim (2012): Will there be blood? Incentives and substitution effects in pro-social behavior. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4 (1), 186–223.  Google Scholar
  21. Meier, Stephan (2007): Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5 (6), 1203–1222.  Google Scholar
  22. Scharf, Kimberley, Sarah Smith und Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm (2017): Lift and shift: The effect of fundraising interventions in charity space and time. CESifo Working Paper No. 6694, CESifo Group München.  Google Scholar
  23. Thaler, Richard H. (2011): Here’s how Washington State’s nudge for state park donations works via its web site. 11.10.2011. http://nudges.org/2011/10/11/heres-how-washingtonstates-nudge-for-state-park-donations-works-via-its-web-site/ (abgerufen am 20.10.2017).  Google Scholar
  24. Thaler, Richard H. (2017): It’s time to rethink the charity deduction. 18.12.2017. https://nyti.ms/2pmvncz (abgerufen am 20.10.2017).  Google Scholar
  25. Thaler, Richard H. und Cass R. Sunstein (2008): Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.  Google Scholar
  26. Tversky, Amos und Daniel Kahneman (1981): The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453–458.  Google Scholar
  27. World Giving Index (2017): www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/cafworldgivingindex2017_2167a_web_210917.pdf?sfvrsn=ed1dac40_10 (abgerufen am 3.7.2018).  Google Scholar
  28. Thaler, Richard H. und Cass R. Sunstein (2008): Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.  Google Scholar
  29. Tversky, Amos und Daniel Kahneman (1981): The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453–458.  Google Scholar
  30. Thaler, Richard H. (2011): Here’s how Washington State’s nudge for state park donations works via its web site. 11.10.2011. http://nudges.org/2011/10/11/heres-how-washingtonstates-nudge-for-state-park-donations-works-via-its-web-site/ (abgerufen am 20.10.2017).  Google Scholar
  31. Thaler, Richard H. (2017): It’s time to rethink the charity deduction. 18.12.2017. https://nyti.ms/2pmvncz (abgerufen am 20.10.2017).  Google Scholar
  32. World Giving Index (2017): www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/cafworldgivingindex2017_2167a_web_210917.pdf?sfvrsn=ed1dac40_10 (abgerufen am 3.7.2018).  Google Scholar
  33. Scharf, Kimberley, Sarah Smith und Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm (2017): Lift and shift: The effect of fundraising interventions in charity space and time. CESifo Working Paper No. 6694, CESifo Group München.  Google Scholar
  34. Meier, Stephan (2007): Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5 (6), 1203–1222.  Google Scholar
  35. Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis und R. Slonim (2012): Will there be blood? Incentives and substitution effects in pro-social behavior. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4 (1), 186–223.  Google Scholar
  36. Kessler, Judd B. und Alvin E. Roth (2014): Getting more organs for transplantation. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 104 (5), 425–430.  Google Scholar
  37. Huck, Steffen, Imran Rasul und Andrew Shephard (2015): Comparing charitable fund-raising schemes: Evidence from a natural field experiment and a structural model. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7 (2), 326–369.  Google Scholar
  38. Huck, Steffen und Imran Rasul (2010): Transactions costs in charitable giving : Evidence from two field experiments. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Advances, 10 (1).  Google Scholar
  39. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg und Andreas Maaløe Jespersen (2013): Nudge and the manipulation of choice. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4 (1), 3–28.  Google Scholar
  40. Falk, Armin (2007): Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75 (5), 1501–1511.  Google Scholar
  41. Eckel, Catherine C. und Philip J. Grossman (2008): Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experimental Economics, 11 (3), 234–252.  Google Scholar
  42. Eckel, Catherine C. und Philip J. Grossman (2006): Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 72 (4), 794.  Google Scholar
  43. Eckel, Catherine C. und Philip J. Grossman (2003): Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87 (3–4), 681–701.  Google Scholar
  44. Damgaard, Mette T. und Christina Gravert (2018): The hidden costs of nudging: Experimental evidence from reminders in fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 15–26.  Google Scholar
  45. Bönke, Timm, Nima Massarrat-Mashhadi und Christian Sielaff (2012): Charitable giving in the German welfare state: Fiscal incentives and crowding out. Public Choice, 154 (1), 39–58.  Google Scholar
  46. Bilanz des Helfens (2017): www.spendenrat.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Bilanz_des_Helfens_2017.pdf (abgerufen am 3.7.2018).  Google Scholar
  47. Andreoni, James (1995): Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1), 1–21.  Google Scholar
  48. Altmann, Steffen, Armin Falk, Paul Heidhues und Rajshri Jayaraman (2014): Defaults and donations. Evidence from a field experiment. CESifo Working Paper.  Google Scholar
  49. Adena, Maja, Steffen Huck und Imran Rasul (2014): Charitable giving and nonbinding contribution-level suggestions: Evidence from a field experiment. Review of Behavioral Economics, 1 (3), 275–293.  Google Scholar
  50. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2018b): Online fundraising, self-deception, and the longterm impact of ask avoidance. WZB Discussion Paper, SP II 2016 (306r).  Google Scholar
  51. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2018a): Giving once, giving twice: A two-period field experiment on intertemporal crowding in charitable giving. WZB Working Paper, SP II 2017 (305r).  Google Scholar
  52. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2017): Matching donations without crowding out? Some theoretical considerations, a field, and a lab experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 148 (April), 32–42.  Google Scholar
  53. Adena, Maja und Steffen Huck (2016): A field experiment on crowdfunding for a club good. WZB Working Paper, SP II 2016 (308).  Google Scholar
  54. Adena, Maja (2014): Tax-price elasticity of charitable donations: Evidence from the German taxpayer panel. WZB Discussion Paper.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Nudging shows a potential to increase social engagement. The article discusses a series of large field experiments in which nudging techniques such as defaults, anchors, or reminders were implemented. The results suggest that nudging may influence donation decisions. Thus, for example, nonbinding donation recommendations change the distribution of contribution levels. More individuals choose to donate exactly the recommended amount. Some raise whereas others lower their contribution. More people donate if the recommendation is relatively low and less do so if it is relatively high. The overall effect is not clear ex ante. This and other examples show that design decisions are not simplistic and furthermore context dependent. Finally, it is demonstrated that nudging-free situations do not exist because the status quo “non-donor” is also a default.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Maja Adena: Nudging und soziales Engagement: Wie kann Nudging dazubeitragen, die Spendenbereitschaft zu erhöhen? 1
Zusammenfassung 1
Summary 1
1 Einführung 2
2 Nudging: Methoden für Fundraising 2
2.1 Defaults 2
2.2 Anker 4
2.3 Explizite Wahl – explizites Opt-out 5
2.4 „Spende morgen mehr“ 6
2.5 Erinnerungen 6
2.6 Vereinfachungen 7
2.7 Information und Framing 7
3 Was kann der Staat machen? 8
3.1 Zur Wirksamkeit 9
3.2 Zum Verbesserungspotential 9
4 Warum Nudging und nicht typische Anreizstrukturen? 1
5 Ausblick 1
Kasten 1: Sind Steueranreize effizient für eine Erhöhung der Spendenbereitschaft? 1
Literaturverzeichnis 1

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.