IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2207.07490.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Crypto Rewards in Fundraising: From a Quasi-Experiment to a Dictator Game

Author

Listed:
  • Jane

    (Xue)

  • Tan
  • Yong Tan

Abstract

Conditional thank-you gifts are one of the most widely used incentives for charitable giving. Past studies explored non-monetary thank-you gifts (e.g., mugs and shirts) and monetary thank-you gifts (e.g., rebates that return some of the donations to the giver). Following the rapid growth of blockchain technology, a novel form of thank-you gifts emerged: the crypto rewards. Through two studies, we analyze crypto thank-you gifts to shed light on fundraising designs in the digital world. In Study I, we examine the Ukrainian government's crypto fundraising plea that accepts donations in both Ethereum and Bitcoin. We find that Ethereum is substantially more effective in enticing giving than Bitcoin, as the hourly donation count increased 706.07% more for Ethereum than for Bitcoin when crypto rewards are present. This is likely because the crypto rewards are more likely to be issued on Ethereum than Bitcoin. However, the decrease in contribution sizes is also more substantial in Ethereum than in Bitcoin in response to the crypto rewards. In Study II, we conducted a laboratory experiment following a dictator game design to investigate the impact of crypto rewards in a more general scenario, with the crypto rewards specified as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The crypto rewards in Study II carry no monetary value but only serve to recognize donors symbolically. As such, the NFT thank-you gifts did not effectively induce people to donate; a traditional 1:1 donation matching strictly outperforms both the condition without thank-you gifts and the condition with NFT thank-you gifts. Nevertheless, the NFT thank-you gifts effectively increased the contribution sizes, conditional on the choice to give, when the NFT's graphic design primes donor identity and encompasses the charity recipient.

Suggested Citation

  • Jane & Tan & Yong Tan, 2022. "The Effect of Crypto Rewards in Fundraising: From a Quasi-Experiment to a Dictator Game," Papers 2207.07490, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2207.07490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.07490
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francisco Alpizar & Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2008. "Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 299-314, September.
    2. Esther Duflo, 2001. "Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 795-813, September.
    3. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    4. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2006. "The Impact of Social Comparisons on Nonprofit Fund Raising," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments Investigating Fundraising and Charitable Contributors, pages 143-156, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    6. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.
    7. Hans Fricke, 2017. "Identification Based on Difference-in-Differences Approaches with Multiple Treatments," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(3), pages 426-433, June.
    8. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    9. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Full title Does Context Matter More for Hypothetical Than for Actual Contributions? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-02-efd, Resources for the Future.
    10. Zlatev, Julian J. & Miller, Dale T., 2016. "Selfishly benevolent or benevolently selfish: When self-interest undermines versus promotes prosocial behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 112-122.
    11. Armin Falk, 2007. "Gift Exchange in the Field," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1501-1511, September.
    12. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    13. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen Liang & Murat Tunc & Gordon Burtch, 2024. "Market Responses to Genuine Versus Strategic Generosity: An Empirical Examination of NFT Charity Fundraisers," Papers 2401.12064, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    2. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    3. Matthew Chao & Geoffrey Fisher, 2022. "Self-Interested Giving: The Relationship Between Conditional Gifts, Charitable Donations, and Donor Self-Interestedness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4537-4567, June.
    4. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2023. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Fang, Xing, 2022. "Why we hide good deeds? The selfless and anonymous donation behavior in crowdfunding," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. John List, 2008. "Introduction to field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 203-212, September.
    8. Martinsson, Peter & Villegas-Palacio, Clara, 2010. "Does disclosure crowd out cooperation?," Working Papers in Economics 446, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Kurz, Konstantin & Bock, Carolin & Knodt, Michèle & Stöckl, Anna, 2022. "A Friend in Need Is a Friend Indeed? Analysis of the Willingness to Share Self-Produced Electricity During a Long-lasting Power Outage," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 136773, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    10. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    11. Sho Miyaji, 2024. "Instrumented Difference-in-Differences with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects," Papers 2405.12083, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    12. Wang, Xia & Tong, Luqiong, 2015. "Hide the light or let it shine? Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’ happiness," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 418-424.
    13. Antoine Beretti & Charles Figuières & Gilles Grolleau, 2013. "Using Money to Motivate Both ‘Saints’ and ‘Sinners’: a Field Experiment on Motivational Crowding-Out," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(1), pages 63-77, February.
    14. Luigino Bruni & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2020. "The Pied Piper: Prizes, Incentives, and Motivation Crowding-in," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 643-658, October.
    15. Lange, Andreas & Price, Michael K. & Santore, Rudy, 2017. "Signaling quality through gifts: Implications for the charitable sector," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 48-61.
    16. Konstantin Kurz & Carolin Bock & Michèle Knodt & Anna Stöckl, 2022. "A Friend in Need Is a Friend Indeed? Analysis of the Willingness to Share Self-Produced Electricity During a Long-lasting Power Outage," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 727-761, December.
    17. Carpenter, Jeffrey, 2017. "The sequencing of gift exchange: A field trial," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 26-31.
    18. Simon Gaechter & Esther Kessler & Manfred Koenigstein, 2011. "The roles of incentives and voluntary cooperation for contractual compliance," Discussion Papers 2011-06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Kubo, Takahiro & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2018. "Voluntary Contributions to Hiking Trail Maintenance: Evidence From a Field Experiment in a National Park, Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 124-128.
    20. Sho Miyaji, 2024. "Instrumented Difference-in-Differences with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects," Discussion Paper Series DP2024-22, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2207.07490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.