Using Giving Games to Study and Improve Charitable Giving

Brown Bag Presentation at ICES by Jon Behar of APathThatsClear.com

April 4, 2013

Introduction

• Agenda• My Background• Questions: Why don’t people donate better?

Is there a program that could get them to?

The basics of Giving Games

• Donation decision is delegated to players• Players select from a restricted set of charities• Opportunity set is structured to provoke

thought• Designed with an intent to improve giving

behavior

The potential benefits from better giving

• $300b annual US donations, $200b from individuals

• Aggregate impact a function of both dollars and “good” per dollar

• Huge variations in impact across charities equates to enormous opportunity

Why don’t donors “give well”?•Scope Insensitivity: Donors don’t respond to the scale of the problem

• Identifiable victim effect: Tangible victims are more evocative than statistical victims.

• Psychic numbing: thinking about suffering, particularly large scale suffering, desensitizes people.

• Immediacy biases: recently received information carries more emotional weight

Making people aware of these biases can crowd out generosity

Cryder: “It seems almost as if any method of priming a deliberative mindset… leads to less generosity.”

How donors allocations deviate from utilitarian standards

• The waste heuristic: preoccupation on “efficiency” rather than impact

• Focus on Average, not Marginal, impact• Diversification heuristic: give to many orgs

instead of just the best• Parochialism: favoring in-groups (e.g. co-

nationals)• Tax vs. Charity framing: preference for

voluntary giving

What actually motivates donors?

Segment How they give % Population % Donations

Repayer

I support organizations that have had an impact on me or a loved

one. 23% 17%

Casual Giver

I primarily give to well known non-profits through a payroll deduction

at work. 18% 18%

High Impact

I give to the nonprofits I feel are generating the greatest social

good. 16% 12%

Faith BasedWe only give to organizations that

fit with our religious beliefs. 16% 18%

See the DifferenceI think it's important to support

local charities. 14% 10%

Personal Ties

A lot of my giving is in response to friends who ask me to support

their causes 13% 25%

How donors “research” charities

How to teach giving• Making donors mindful of their own giving

criteria makes them use those criteria more• Experiential philanthropy courses– Learning by Giving Foundation ($10k/class)– Once Upon a Time Foundation ($100k/class)

The Cast of Characters

• Funder: “an anonymous sponsor”• Players: College students (future donors) with

group identity• Organizers: “Effective Altruism” chapters,

experiential philanthropy students, faculty

Breakdown of Giving Games

Type # of Games Total # of players Total $Group

Discussion/Activity 11 129 2025

Giving Stall 4 907 975

Online 3 78 900

Total 18 1114 3900

Results: Group discussions

Description Organizer#

Players Charities (Votes) Prize

Vanderbilt RA VU Undergrad 17 Safe Haven (10) vs. AMF (7) $250

Intern Program VU Undergrad 14 FSD (14) vs. AMF (0) $250

A Capella (with friend) GWWC: Princeton 11AMF (8) vs. Group regranting (2) vs.

Group's Fund (1) $250

A Capella (no friend) GWWC: Princeton 7AMF (6) vs. Group's Funds (1) vs.

GiveDirectly (0) $100

Freshman Floor GWWC: Princeton 8AMF (7) vs. local KIPP (1) vs. Group's

social budget (0) $100

Survey results from Group Discussions

Description # Players Changed your thinking? Game Successful?

Vanderbilt RA 17 32% 88%

Intern Program 14 7% 43%

A Capella (with friend) 11 55% 77%

A Capella (no friend) 7 86% 93%

Freshman Floor 8 88% 100%

Avg. across players: 45% 77%

Avg. across games: 53% 80%

Survey results: Follow-up activities

Description

Brief online

follow-up game?

Live follow-up game?

Receive GiveWell research?

Share GiveWell via

FB?Attend

meeting?Accept any followup?

Organize Giving Game?

Vanderbilt RA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 62%

Intern Program #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 46%

A Capella (with friend) 73% 55% 45% 27% 73% 91% #N/A

A Capella (no friend) 57% 0% 43% 0% 14% 71% #N/A

Freshman Floor 100% 88% 63% 25% 38% 100% #N/A

Avg. of Players 77% 50% 50% 19% 46% 88% 55%

Avg. of Games 77% 47% 50% 17% 42% 87% 54%

Extrapolating to other Group Discussion GGs

• Organizer feedback suggests other games had impact similar to Princeton GGs

• Vanderbilt games likely understate expected impact

• Princeton campus has atypical exposure to effective giving message

Results: Giving StallsLocation Players Charities (Votes) Prize

Brown Activities Fair 21 AMF (17) vs. GiveDirectly (4) $1/Person

Harvard Activities Fair34 Fred Hollows (15) vs AMF (12) vs

Make-A-Wish (7) $1/PersonUK Freshers Fairs (3-4

campuses) ~800 AMF (~640) vs SCI? (~160) £200

Higher Education in the 21st Century Conference

52 (~110 attendees)

SCI (38) vs Wikipedia (14)

£2/Person + £250 Bonus (50

participants)

GWWC: Cambridge’s Giving Stall

Results: Online Games

• Selection bias makes interpretation difficult• Consistent with Giving Stalls, players seem

willing to submit comments• Some players will share games over social

media• Transition to Facebook platform in the works

Observations from cross-game analysis

• It’s plausible that GGs teach many players give better• GGs can have a significant impact on behavior• Players don’t see the money as theirs• Money matters, but mostly in a threshold sense• Organizer capability matters • Social ties between players facilitate good discussions• With Win/Win games, you can’t lose• GGs provide a great window into how donors think

GGs “jump to the solution”

Next Steps: More donors running games

• Sources of funding– My giving– Individual donors– Foundations– Organizers

• Advantages– Free to run– Leveraged impact– Emotional leverage

Next Steps: Researchers using GGs

• GGs add an intention to teach better giving to existing research frameworks

• Field experiments through collaboration with A Path That’s Clear or other funders• Giving Stalls” or Online GGs most promising models

• Data sharing will facilitate meta-analysis

Key questions to pursue

• What long-term impact do GGs have?• What are the best ways to mitigate the impact of “bad

heuristics” and propagate “good heuristics”?• How sensitive are outcomes to the artificial

constraints of the GG model?• How do the process inputs (players, prize, charities,

activity) translate to the process outputs (votes, discussion, follow-ups)?

• What are the key drivers of “viral variables”?• What strategies should a GG sponsor use?

In conclusion…

• Let’s collaborate on a field experiment!• Look for opportunities to research using GGs• If your network includes anyone who’d be

interested in GGs, please put us in touch• If you give, please give well• Any and all feedback is welcome