International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication

The Institute of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication (한국인터넷방송통신학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of Target Amounts on Donation Behavior: Insights from GoFundMe Data

  • Sohyeon Park (Korea University Business School)
  • Received : 2024.07.03
  • Accepted : 2024.07.15
  • Published : 2024.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This field study explores how varying target amounts influence donation behavior using real-world data from the online fundraising platform GoFundMe. We analyzed donation data across four different target amounts and found significant differences in donation patterns. Lower target amounts were found to encourage higher individual donations, while excessively high targets were less effective. The data revealed that donors tend to be more responsive to campaigns with achievable goals, possibly due to a perceived higher impact of their contributions. Conversely, campaigns with unrealistically high targets often struggled to gain traction, suggesting a potential donor deterrent effect. We believe these findings provide practical insights for nonprofits on setting realistic and achievable target amounts to maximize donations. Our study underscores the importance of strategic target setting in enhancing fundraising outcomes. We conclude that this insight has significant implications for how non-profit organizations approach their fundraising strategies, potentially improving the effectiveness of online charitable campaigns.

Keywords

References

  1. Giving USA, "Annual report on philanthropy for the year 2023," Giving USA Foundation, 2023. https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-u-s-charitable-giving-totaled-557-16-billion-in-2023/
  2. R. B. Cialdini and D. A. Schroeder, "Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 599-604, 1976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.599
  3. C. Fraser, R. Hite, and P. Sauer, "Increasing contributions in solicitation campaigns: The use of large and small anchor points," Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 284-287, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/209161
  4. B. Briers, M. Pandelaere, and L. Warlop, "Adding exchange to charity: A reference price explanation," Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 15-30, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.12.001
  5. A. N. Doob and D. J. McLaughlin, "The effects of target amounts on giving behavior," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 19, no. 22, pp. 1772-1777, 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01476.x
  6. C. E. Cryder, G. Loewenstein, and H. Seltman, "Goal gradient in helping behavior," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1078-1083, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.003
  7. V. Kuppuswamy and B. L. Bayus, "Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter?," Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 72-89, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.004
  8. J. Brockner, B. Guzzi, A. Kane, E. Levine, and M. Shaplen, "Organizational fundraising: Further evidence on the effects of legitimizing small donations," Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 611-614, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/209013
  9. J. T. Gourville, "Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 395-408, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/209518
  10. M. F. Reeves, D. Macolini, and J. Martin, "Legitimizing paltry contributions: On-the-spot vs. mail-in requests," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 731-738, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1987.tb00336.x
  11. P. H. Reingen, "On inducing compliance with requests," Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 5, no. 2, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 96-102, 1978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/208720
  12. S. Park and S. O. Yoon, "The effects of solicitation and target amounts on consumers' charitable giving," Journal of Business Research, vol. 141, pp. 279-289, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.091
  13. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases," Science, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124-1131, 1974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  14. N. Epley and T. Gilovich, "Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors," Psychological Science, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 391- 396, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00
  15. D. Ariely, G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec, "Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 73-106, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153
  16. B. Englich and F. Mussweiler, "Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1535-1551, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2001.tb02687.x
  17. F. Strack and T. Mussweiler, "Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 437-446, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.73.3.437
  18. J. M. Feldman and J. G. Lynch, "Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 421-435, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421
  19. S. Lim, "Tackling privacy paradox: Protecting right to self-determination of personal information by estimating the economic value of personal information and visualizing the price," International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, vol. 13, no. 2, 244-259, 2021. DPI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7236/IJIBC.2021.13.2.244