Abstract: We investigate the impact of matching gift schemes using lotteries, in which the lottery match would benefit the charity, on charitable giving. We recruit 1,402 online participants to investigate the effects in seven conditions: “No Match" (Control), two sets of matching schemes of varying equivalent expected values: EV=1 (1:1 Match, 1:10% of 10 tokens, and 1:1% of 100) and EV=0.5 (2:1 Match, 1:1% of 50 tokens and 1:0.5% of 100), where a token is $0.50. Participants complete three 10-token allocation decisions for hunger-related charities and one allocation is randomly selected for realization. The 1:1 matching significantly increases giving by 15.7% compared to No Match. We find that matching schemes with a small probability of a very large amount (1% and 0.5% of 100) have significantly higher rates of giving compared to No Match (p=0.02 and p=0.10 respectively) and do not statistically differ from the 1:1 matching (p=0.98 and p=0.62 respectively). Our results have economic significance for non-profits to fundraise at lower fundraising costs while increasing donations via matching.

View NBER Working Paper Here

Download PDF

Abstract: Pile sorting, a method whereby respondents sort items or concepts into groups according to their similarity or dissimilarity, is widely used in other social sciences, but its use in economics is limited. This paper demonstrates that pile sorting techniques can be readily used in large-scale consumer surveys in two applications related to purchasing 21 foods for at-home consumption and for 21 foods for away-from-home consumption. We also introduce an approach to modeling pile sorting data based on a second-order approximation to an underlying similarity/dissimilarity function that avoids some of the downsides of common analytic techniques used in prior literature. Finally, we determine the relationship between consumer perceptions of food similarity vs. dissimilarity, as measured by pile sorting, and more traditional economic concepts related to utility substitutes vs. complements, as measured by basket-based choice experiments. The results indicate that perceived food similarities differ between the food-at-home and food-away-from-home settings. In a food-at-home grocery setting, plant-based meat alternatives are perceived as similar to vegetable options and different from meat alternatives, whereas a more complex perception of similarity/dissimilarity between meat and plant-based meat alternatives emerges in food-away-from-home restaurant settings. In the grocery context, foods that are perceived to be more similar tend to be utility complements, but in the restaurant context, foods that are perceived to be more similar are more likely to be utility substitutes. Grouping foods by their similarity and utility substitutability yields a rich characterization of consumer food preferences and perceptions that can aid marketing and policy decision-making.