Effects of Feedback about Overhead Spending from Charitable Organizations on Overhead Aversion

References

• Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Whillans, A. V., Grant, A. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 88, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454. https://doi.org/10.1086/209080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. (2006). Predicting the lifetime durations of donors to charities. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 15(1/2), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v15n01_03
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, W. (2006). Should donors care about overhead cost? Do they care? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006287219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1997). Effects of goal-directed emotions on salesperson volitions, behavior, and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, J. R., Clicque, S. H., Leighten, B. A., & Milton, F. (1976). A test of positive reinforcement of customers. Journal of Marketing, 40(4), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297604000413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charity Digital. (2015). Over 80% of those who donate to charity want feedback. Retrieved November 8, 2022, from https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/over-80-of-those-who-donate-to-charity-want-feedback-3526
   Google Scholar
• Charity Navigator. (2020). Most Americans believe non-profits spend too much on overhead. Retrieved November 8, 2022, from https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=727
   Google Scholar
• Charles, C., Sloan, M. F., & Schubert, P. (2020). If someone else pays for overhead, do donors still care? The American Review of Public Administration, 50(4–5), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020913989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coupet, J., & Berrett, J. L. (2019). Toward a valid approach to nonprofit efficiency measurement. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, E. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freling, T. H., Vincent, L. H., & Henard, D. H. (2014). When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furneaux, C., & Wymer, W. (2015). Public trust in Australian charities: Accounting for cause and effect. Third Sector Review, 21(2), 99–127.
   Google Scholar
• Gemelli, C. N., Carver, A., Garn, A., Wright, S. T., & Davison, T. E. (2017). Evaluation of the impact of a personalized postdonation short messaging service on the retention of whole blood donors. Transfusion, 58(3), 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.14463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gneezy, U., Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346(6209), 632–635. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gneezy, U., List, J. A., & Wu, G. (2006). The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1283–1309. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/121.4.1283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goette, L., & Tripodi, E. (2020). Does positive feedback of social impact motivate prosocial behavior? A field experiment with blood donors. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 175, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1086/209517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gourville, J. T. (1999). The effect of implicit versus explicit comparisons on temporal pricing claims. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084712717
   Google Scholar
• Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017935
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, M. (1977). A comparison of publicly delivered and anonymously delivered verbal feedback in brief personal growth groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(3), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.3.385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & McKee, M. (2004). Feedback information and contributions to not-for-profit enterprises: Experimental investigations and implications for large-scale fundraising. Public Finance Review, 32(5), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142104267064
   Google Scholar
• Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774–1793. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.1774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keenan, E. A., & Gneezy, A. (2016). Understanding and overcoming overhead aversion in charity. In P. Moreau & S. Puntoni (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 44, pp. 129–130). Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, E. A., Saccardo, S., & Gneezy, A. (2017). Overcoming overhead aversion with choice. In A. Gneezy, V. Griskevicius, & P. Willimans (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 45, pp. 191–195). Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Khodakarami, F., Petersen, J. A., & Venkatesan, R. (2015). Developing donor relationships: The role of the breadth of giving. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2012). The small-area hypothesis: Effects of progress monitoring on goal adherence. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1086/663827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecy, J. D., & Searing, E. A. M. (2015). Anatomy of the nonprofit starvation cycle: An analysis of falling overhead ratios in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014527175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1086/209174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meer, J. (2014). Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010a). Charitable organizations’ storytelling influence on donors’ emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010b). ‘Don’t forget to say thank you’: The effect of an acknowledgement on donor relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672571003780064
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, L., & Günther, I. (2019). Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 136, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.08.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelidou, N., Micevski, M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2015). An evaluation of nonprofit brand image: Toward a better conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1657–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohan, B., Buell, R. W., & John, L. K. (2020). Lifting the veil: The benefits of cost transparency. Marketing Science, 39(6), 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moussaoui, L. S., Herren-Vichet, J., Baldelli, S., Waldvogel, S., & Desrichard, O. (2019). Examining if sending text messages to thank blood donors for saving lives is a “great idea?” Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 31(5), 486–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2018.1526753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, G. E., & Shen, Y. J. (2012). The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 973–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonprofits Source. (2019). The ultimate list of charitable giving statistics for 2018. Retrieved November 8, 2022, from https://nonprofitssource.com/online-giving-statistics/
   Google Scholar
• Polonsky, M. J., & Sargeant, A. (2007). Managing the donation service experience. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.163
   Google Scholar
• Portillo, J. E., & Stinn, J. (2018). Overhead aversion: Do some types of overhead matter more than others? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 72, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu H., & Daniel J. L. (2021). Is “overhead” a tainted word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranganathan, S. K., & Henley, W. H. (2008). Determinants of charitable donation intentions: A structural equation model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.297
   Google Scholar
• Reficco, E., Layrisse, F., & Barrios, A. (2021). From donation-based NPO to social enterprise: A journey of transformation through business-model innovation. Journal of Business Research, 125, 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004a). Building Donor Loyalty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004b). Reasons for lapse: The case of face-to-face donation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.245
   Google Scholar
• Shehu, E., Clement, M., Winterich, K. P., & Veseli, B. (2019). Increasing donor retention with feedback on donation use. In R. Bagchi, L. Block, & L. Lee (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 47, pp. 93–98). Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Simonsohn, U. (2009). Direct risk aversion: Evidence from risky prospects valued below their worst outcome. Psychological Science, 20(6), 686–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02349.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinkelman, D., & Mankaney, K. (2007). When is administrative efficiency associated with charitable donations? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Iwaarden, J., van der Wiele, T., Williams, R., & Moxham, C. (2009). Charities: How important is performance to donors? International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710910924143
   Google Scholar
• Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye, N., Teng, L., Yu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). “What’s in it for me?”: The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar