A Few More Words for a Few More Cents: The Roles of Beneficiary and Message Frames during a Door-to-Door Donation Collection

ABSTRACT

Door-to-door collections provide an essential source of income for charitable organizations. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of a door-to-door donation collection technique has been waning in recent years. Previous studies have shown that framing can improve the effectiveness of charitable appeals. Hence, this research aims at gaining insights into the possible effects of framing charitable appeals on donation behavior in a door-to-door collection context. A field experiment, employing a door-to-door collection for a Dutch charitable organization, using a 2x3 between-subjects design, was conducted with 528 households in a Dutch municipality. Results show that of the two framing types (beneficiary frame and message frame) used for the door-to-door collection technique, only message frame influences the amount donated to the charitable organization, as the use of a loss frame appeal resulted in a higher amount of money donated than the use of a gain frame appeal. Moreover, when compared to the current practice of just requesting for a small donation without any message element (the control condition), including message elements to the door-to-door collection script did not improve people’s donation behavior and increase the amount donated. These findings have important implications for how door-to-door collections must be performed.

KEYWORDS:

• Door-to-door collection technique
• donation beneficiary
• message valence
• donation behavior

Introduction

Monetary donations are crucial for the survival of charitable organizations (Beldad et al., 2014; Hsu et al., 2005). Hence, charitable organizations are pressed to employ various techniques to effectively collect monetary donations. Techniques such as door-to-door collections, the use of fundraisers, and giving donors the option to either give a one-time donation or structural donations are commonly used (Donatiewijzer, 2012). Strategic use of these methods is pivotal, as the method that charitable organizations use to acquire donor support is essential in optimizing their charitable appeals (Grace & Griffin, 2006; White & Peloza, 2009).

A door-to-door fundraising technique, which refers to the act of recruiters knocking on the doors of private houses to collect monetary donations, is a popular collection technique (Sargeant & Hudson, 2007) and many charitable organizations use this technique to acquire funds (Landry et al., 2006). However, results of a survey among UK citizens show that door-to-door donation collection is regarded the most bothersome of all donation collection techniques despite its effectiveness in collecting money (Cooney, 2017).

Although door-to-door collection has become less effective in securing financial donations in the last 20 years (CBF, 2017a), it is still a popular collection strategy in the Netherlands, where the study described in this paper was conducted. In the Dutch context, door-to-door collection follows a specific schedule every year, and this schedule can be at a national level or at a municipal level. The collection schedule at a national level, which is created by municipalities, is normally reserved for large-scale charitable organizations (e.g., Amnesty International) that are officially certified by the Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving (CBF) or The Netherlands Fundraising Regulator.

CBF stipulates that, in principle, a large-scale charitable organization can carry out its door-to-door collection on a particular week of the year. However, small-scale charitable organizations can also request for a collection moment in this national schedule, specifically during the “free periods” (no scheduled collection from large-scale charities), if they have secured the permission of a specific municipality where the week-long collection will be performed.

The collection schedule at the municipal level specifies at which week of the year both large-scale and local charitable organizations can carry out their door-to-door donation collections. Permits released to charitable organizations enable Dutch municipalities to evenly designate the collection moments for those organizations at a specific week of the year. With this collection schedule, households can be informed of the charitable organization that will knock at their doors for a donation collection per week (CBF, 2020). Door-to-door collections are normally done by volunteers within a municipality, and these collections are usually scheduled at the end of a workday.

However, given the decreased effectiveness of door-to-door collection, possible modifications in the approach merit attention from both scientific and practical standpoints. A relatively easy improvement could involve changes in the doorstep conversation strategy. Previous studies have shown how actions such as stating the exact amount that should be donated (Weyant & Smith, 1987) and maintaining eye contact with the donor (Bull & Gibson-Robinson, 1981) during a door-to-door collection would increase a donor’s inclination to give or to raise the amount of money given. However, more subtle message elements in the door-to-door collection context have received much less research attention, such as framing the donation beneficiaries in a certain way (self vs others; White & Peloza, 2009) and framing of the donation strategy (promotion vs prevention; Bullard & Penner, 2017). Framing a message in either a positive (gain) or a negative (loss) way has not yet been studied in a door-to-door collection context.

Previous studies have shown that the way donation request messages are framed can enhance charitable appeals and might increase a person’s intention to donate to a charitable organization (Chang & Lee, 2009; Das et al., 2008; Jeong et al., 2011; Ye et al., 2015). In charitable appeals, two types of message frames are commonly used: an indication of who will benefit from the donation and the valence of the charitable appeal (Chang & Lee, 2009; Fisher et al., 2008).

While the effects of message valence and statement of donation beneficiary, when used in campaigns, on donation intention and behavior are already known, their effects when employed in a door-to-door technique are still not fully understood. The primary goal of the study, hence, is to determine the effects of the two message elements on people’s donation behavior and on the amount of money they will give. The study described in this paper addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent do the type of beneficiary and the message valence as emphasized during a door-to-door donation collection influence donors’ giving behavior and the amount of money that they will donate?

2. To what extent do the type of beneficiary and the message valence emphasized during a door-to-door donation collection interact in influencing donors’ giving behavior and the amount of money that they will donate?

Theoretical framework

Message elements

Charitable organizations can encourage donation behavior by capitalizing on eight mechanisms (awareness of need, solicitation, costs and benefits, altruism, reputation, psychological benefits, values, and efficacy) in their charitable appeals (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). In the Netherlands, most door-to-door collections primarily resort to the “solicitation” mechanism in their charitable appeals, as it is customary for a collector to simply ask potential donors if they would like to financially contribute to the collecting charitable organization.

Since charitable acts generally emerge from a combination of multiple mechanisms (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011), a collector could expand the script used when requesting a potential donor to extend a small financial donation by stating the specific beneficiary of the donation (beneficiary frame) and by carefully framing the message pertaining to the possible consequences of the donation behavior (message frame).

Beneficiary frame

While a specific donation will primarily benefit those who are in need, referred to as “benefit to others,” that same donation could also potentially benefit the giver, thereby resulting in “benefit to self” (Ye et al., 2015). Differentiating these two beneficiary frames from each other is imperative since charitable organizations tend to emphasize either both types or one of the two in their charitable appeals (Fisher et al., 2008; White & Peloza, 2009). The emphasis on who benefits from a charitable act is grounded on the tenet that charitable giving is often motivated by either egoistic or altruistic motives (Chang, 2014; Feiler et al., 2012).

According to White and Peloza (2009), when charitable giving is positioned as egoistically motivated, benefits to the donor are emphasized. On the contrary, the researchers add, when charitable giving is positioned as altruistic, benefits to others are highlighted. In this study, the concepts “self-benefit appeals” (emphasis on the donor as the potential beneficiary of the monetary donation) and “other-benefit appeals” (emphasis on other unknown individuals as beneficiaries of the donation; Fisher et al., 2008; White & Peloza, 2009) will be used as beneficiary frames. This beneficiary frame dichotomy is applicable when the collection of monetary donations deals with issues that directly affect not only a specific target group at the present time but also donors who might experience the affliction that triggered the donation collection.

According to the Theory of Self-Interest, people are oriented to pursue their self-interests (Miller, 1999) and this means that even donation behavior is unconsciously motivated by some egoistic desires (Fisher et al., 2008; Grace & Griffin, 2006; Holmes et al., 2002; Ratner & Miller, 2001; Ye et al., 2015). The individual wants to accomplish this desire and hopes for a result (Cropanzano et al., 2005), meaning that giving a monetary donation must result in a possible benefit for the donor to prompt him to extend the requested financial help. Since making a monetary donation can be a costly pursuit (Piff et al., 2010), a self-benefit appeal can amplify the attractiveness of the donation act.

Holmes et al. (2002) reported that an emphasis on self-benefit in return for a donation increases monetary donation intention compared to requests for donations that do not highlight self-benefit. In fact, one study (Landry et al., 2006) found that individuals who received a lottery ticket for a monetary donation are more inclined to donate and to donate a higher amount of money, at the average. Furthermore, another study (Falk, 2007) has shown that emphasizing self-benefit positively influences donation behavior. In that study, the inclusion of free postcards and envelopes to solicitation letters that asked for monetary donations resulted in more individuals making the donations.

Nonetheless, it is not just tangible benefits that matter, as illusory or intangible benefits can also enhance the attractiveness of donating (White & Peloza, 2009). For instance, people’s anticipation of intrinsic benefits such as feeling good can already motivate them to donate money to a charitable organization (Chang, 2012; Grace & Griffin, 2006).

On the contrary, previous studies have shown that donating can also be altruistically motivated. In a study on a televised fund-raising event, Fisher et al. (2008) found that other-benefit appeals are more effective than self-benefit appeals, as the number of donations was higher when individuals believed their monetary donation would help others instead of themselves. Another study into organ donation also reported that altruism is significantly associated with donation intention and behavior (Morgan & Miller, 2002).

Bekkers and Wiepking (2011), however, claim that egoistic motives outweigh altruistic motives for an individual’s decision to donate. Based on Construal Level Theory’s proposition that differences in psychological distance (time, space, social distance, hypotheticality) influence mental construal, which subsequently determines performance of a behavior (Trope et al., 2007), the use of a self-benefit appeal could reduce the perceived psychological distance between a donor and the issue, especially as the emphasis is on the hypothetical benefit that the donor will derive from his donation. This prompts the first set of research hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: The use of a self-benefit appeal during a door-to-door donation collection (a) positively results in donation behavior and (b) generates higher amount of money donated than the use of an other-benefit appeal.

Nonetheless, charitable organizations can also opt to emphasize both the donor and the actual donation recipients as beneficiaries in a charitable appeal (White & Peloza, 2009). The effects of using such a strategy in a charitable context, however, is still unknown. A study by Holmes et al. (2002) offers an interesting view on the potential of such appeals. In their study, which did not include an actual appeal that emphasized the benefits for both the donor and unknown others, participants were offered the chance to behave in an altruistic and an egoistic manner simultaneously. Specifically, those participants could support a charitable cause (exemplifying an altruistic behavior) by purchasing a candle for themselves (exemplifying an egoistic behavior). The act can be regarded as partly altruistic since participants had little interest in the candle.

Holmes et al. (2002) claim that “helping behavior is facilitated when the framing of the helping act allows people to see themselves as altruistic but not unconditionally so” (p. 150). The use of both self-benefit and environmental (somewhat similar to other-benefit) appeals when marketing sustainably produced chocolates can result in positive consumers outcomes (e.g. product quality perception, purchase intention; Banjarnahor et al., 2017).

Nonetheless, when used to enhance people’s charitable giving, organizations must realize that the approach can be a double-edged sword. Results of a series of experiments Feiler et al. (2012) performed showed that combining the two appeals in one message can increase persuasion awareness, resulting in psychological reactance, eventually reducing people’s motivation to give. These findings provided the foundation for the next research hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: The use of both appeals during a door-to-door donation collection (a) negatively results in donation behavior and (b) lowers the amount of money donated than the exclusive use of either a self-benefit appeal or an other-benefit appeal.

Message frames

Charitable appeals can be positioned on a continuum from negative to positive valence, which, in the literature, are referred to as loss frame and gain frame appeals, respectively (Chang & Lee, 2009; Das et al., 2008). This corresponds to Prospect Theory’s proposition that outcomes can be expressed as “positive or negative deviations (gains or losses) from a neutral reference outcome” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1986, p. S258). Loss frames emphasize negative consequences that will happen or that positive consequences could not be expected when a desirable action is not performed; while gain frames accentuate the positive consequences that will occur or the negative consequences that could be avoided when a desirable action is pursued (Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran, 2004; Rothman et al., 2006).

Framing of outcomes as either gain (positive) or loss (negative) generates variations in people’s preferences and choices (Tversky & Kahneman, 1986). A central proposition of Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) Prospect Theory is that when making decisions about options that are framed in terms of losses and gains, people are inclined to avoid risks when gains are expected, while their tendency to take risks is higher when losses are certain.

Although it has been reported that both positive and negative frames contribute to people’s positive response to an issue when compared to the neutral framing of that issue, the question as to which of the two frames has a stronger effect remains unresolved (Levin et al., 1998). Indeed, the literature on the use of the two frames as persuasion strategies is characterized by contradictory findings (Chang & Lee, 2009; Chang & Lee, 2010; Farrell et al., 2001; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007; Reinhart et al., 2007).

Results of Lindemeier’s (2008) experiment did not support the hypothesis that a gain frame message has a stronger impact on people’s willingness to volunteer than a loss frame message. Nonetheless, when studied in the context of charitable giving, the use of loss or negative framing in a charitable advertisement resulted in a higher intention to donate (Chang & Lee, 2010), stronger donation behavior (Erlandsson et al., 2018), and more reactance (Xu, 2019) than the use of gain or positive framing, which, according to Erlandsson et al. (2018), is viewed positively and has the potential to mitigate negative emotions (e.g anger) typically resulting from negative framing.

The concept of loss aversion from Prospect Theory (Brenner et al., 2007) highlights that individuals’ responses to losses are more extreme than responses to gains (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In the context of charitable giving, not being able to help might result in negative feelings, while being able to help might generate positive feelings. Therefore, a potential donor might respond more extremely to loss frames compared to gain frames. As such, loss frames are expected to be more effective in influencing donation behavior than gain frames. This leads to the third set of research hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3: The use of a loss frame during a door-to-door donation collection (a) positively results in donation behavior and (b) generates higher amount of money donated than the use of a gain frame.

The Interaction Effects of Beneficiary Type and Message ValenceAlthough it is assumed that the combination of the self- and the other-benefit appeals during a door-to-door collection is worse than the exclusive use of one of the two appeals, it is likely that the impact of the appeal on donation behavior would also depend on a second element employed in the persuasion strategy. Previous research into the effects of the types of beneficiary frames on donation, for instance, shows that donation intention is activated when other-benefit appeals are used for an issue that has an uncontrollable cause, whereas self-benefit appeals work best for conditions with controllable causes (Hsieh & Yucel-Aybat, 2018). The impact of an other-benefit appeal on organ donation is also reported to be moderated by a person’s level of emphatic concern, such that those with high levels of emphatic concern are more inclined to donate when confronted by an other-benefit appeal (Cohen & Hoffner, 2012).

While the use of beneficiary frames and message frames is hardly new in the charitable collection context, their effects are often explored independent of each other. Research into the interaction effects of both message elements can potentially inform the effective use of a specific valence when considering the appeal type that will be emphasized. It has been reported that the effectiveness of either loss (negative) or gain (positive) frames would expectedly vary according to an individual’s susceptibility to negative consequences resulting from his inaction (e.g. not donating to a charitable organization; Cao, 2016). Specifically, Cao found that when people’s susceptibility to negative consequences increases, advertisements using loss frame messages are more effective in increasing donation than advertisements containing gain frame messages.

Thus far, only one study has investigated the interaction effects for beneficiary frames and message frames. When attempts at persuading donors capitalize on a self-benefit appeal, the impact of this appeal type could be strengthened by using a loss frame since people are known to be loss averse (Abdellaoui et al., 2008), especially when confronted with an issue that is proximate to them. Additionally, when viewed from a donor’s perspective, the use of the other-benefit appeal could result in positive outcomes when combined with gain frame. Given the deficit in empirical research into the abovementioned interaction, we propose the research question below.

To what extent does the effect of a beneficiary frame (other- vs self-benefit) on donation behavior and on the amount of money donated depend on the message frame (positive vs negative) used for a door-to-door collection effort?

Figure 1 shows the hypothesized relationships among beneficiary type, message frames, donation behavior, and the amount of money donated.

Figure 1. Comprehensive research model for the field experiment

Method

Research design

In this research, the effects of beneficiary frame (other-benefit appeal vs self-benefit appeal vs combined appeals) and message frame (gain frame appeal vs loss frame appeal) on (a) donation behavior and (b) the amount of money donated during a door-to-door collection were tested with a field experiment using a 3 × 2 between-subjects design with 528 respondents. The dependent variables measured in this study corresponded to the two-stage donating behavior introduced by Dickert, Sagara, and Slovic (2011) – with the first stage involving the individual decision to donate (or not), and the second stage pertaining to the decision on the amount to donate.

To conduct the experiment in a realistic manner, the researchers collaborated with a health-related Dutch charitable organization. The selection of the charitable organization was based on two criteria: (a) the goals and the activities of the charitable organization must be applicable to individuals of all ages since Dutch households consist of individuals from various age categories and (b) the charitable organization operates in the Netherlands and the organization’s cause is relevant for the Dutch population, as the experiment was conducted in the Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, a charitable organization can only collect funds through a door-to-door collection approach during a specified collection week (CBF, 2017b). The assigned collection week for the cooperating charitable organization was in September 2017. For religious reasons, no door-to-door collection was held on a Sunday. The door-to-door collection was done between 16:00 and 20:00 hours every day, since most household members are normally home within this timeframe.

Procedure and materials

Prior to the main experiment, a pretest (N = 12) was performed to validate the manipulations and measurements for the main experiment. The main experiment consisted of seven conditions (one control condition and six treatment conditions) (see Table 1). The field experiment was conducted in a period of six sequential days in September 2017, in an “average” municipality located in the central part of the Netherlands.

Table 1. Donation request messages used for the door-to-door collection across the 7 conditions

Condition	Donation Request Message ^a,b
(Beneficiary frame + Message frame)
1 Self-benefit + Gain frame	The amount of Dutch people suffering from (name of the affliction) is increasing. This could happen to you. With your donation “the charitable organization” can help you. Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?
2 Other-benefit + Gain frame	The amount of Dutch people suffering from (name of the affliction) is increasing. This could happen to others. With your donation “the charitable organization” can help others. Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?
3 Combined benefits + Gain frame	The amount of Dutch people suffering from (name of the affliction) is increasing. This could happen to you and others. With your donation “the charitable organization” can help you and others. Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?
4 Self-benefit + Loss frame	The amount of Dutch people suffering from (name of the affliction) is increasing. This could happen to you. Without your donation “the charitable organization” cannot help you. Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?
5 Other-benefit + Loss frame	The amount of Dutch people suffering from (name of the affliction) is increasing. This could happen to others. Without your donation “the charitable organization” cannot help others. Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?
6 Combined benefits + Loss frame	The amount of Dutch people suffering from name of the afflicti is increasing. This could happen to you and others. Without your donation “the charitable organization” cannot help you and others. Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?
7 No message elements	Do you have a contribution for “the charitable organization”?

^aThe main experiment was conducted in Dutch. Table 1 shows the translations of the Dutch messages used.

^bThe charitable appeals focused on intangible benefits.

To prevent possible bias (Landry et al., 2006), only one researcher of the team acted as the collector for a Dutch charitable organization. This researcher wore the same outfit and sported the same hairstyle throughout the collection period. As much as possible, the researcher also maintained the same friendly attitude and expression throughout the entire collection period since the possible effects of variations in expression and overall disposition must be reduced or controlled.

In line with the Dutch collecting routines, we subscribed to a typical politeness script. Hence, for the duration of the collection period, the researcher greeted the person who opened the door, and asked that person whether he/she was willing to donate. Messages containing the manipulations for the experiment were eventually delivered. Informal conversations were avoided before the message was presented, although once a donation was given, the researcher had the possibility to engage in a brief informal talk to keep the situation normal as much as possible. The different messages used during the collection period are presented in Table 1.

For a specific collection day, each of the seven conditions (Table 1) were used for about half an hour per condition (until 10 or 5 valid donation requests were made). To prevent possible bias, everyday we started with another condition. After each condition, the researcher walked back to the car to swap the donation can (secretly marked for each condition) and to briefly rehearse the text for the next condition. Table 2 shows the randomization of the messages for a specific collection day.

Table 2. Random ordering of the 7 donation request messages used for a specific day throughout the six-day door-to-door collection

Order of Conditions (with number of respondents assigned to a condition)	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
	7 (n = 10)	2 (n = 10)	4 (n = 10)	6 (n = 10)	3 (n = 10)	5 (n = 10)
	1 (n = 10)	6 (n = 10)	3 (n = 10)	5 (n = 10)	2 (n = 10)	7 (n = 10)
	2 (n = 10)	4 (n = 10)	5 (n = 10)	1 (n = 10)	7 (n = 10)	3 (n = 10)
	3 (n = 10)	7 (n = 10)	6 (n = 10)	4 (n = 10)	1 (n = 10)	2 (n = 10)
	4 (n = 10)	5 (n = 10)	2 (n = 10)	7 (n = 10)	6 (n = 10)	1 (n = 10)
	5 (n = 10)	1 (n = 10)	7 (n = 10)	3 (n = 10)	4 (n = 10)	6 (n = 10)
	6 (n = 10)	3 (n = 10)	1 (n = 10)	2 (n = 10)	5 (n = 10)	4 (n = 10)
	1 (n = 5)	6 (n = 5)	3 (n = 5)	4 (n = 5)	2 (n = 5)	7 (n = 8)
	3 (n = 5)	2 (n = 5)	5 (n = 5)	7 (n = 5)	3 (n = 5)
	5 (n = 5)	4 (n = 5)	2 (n = 5)	6 (n = 5)	1 (n = 5)
	7 (n = 5)	1 (n = 5)	6 (n = 5)	5 (n = 5)	4 (n = 5)
Total	n = 90	n = 90	n = 90	n = 90	n = 90	n = 78

Donation behavior was measured through two dependent variables – donation behavior and amount of money donated. The collector carried an official collection tin from the cooperating Dutch charitable organization that was sealed (legally mandatory). For each of the seven conditions (six experimental and one control), a separate collection tin was used for the entire duration of the experiment.

After the initial request for a donation, with or without the extra sentence regarding the beneficiary and valence, two types of information were noted. First, it was registered if the person who opened the door gave a monetary donation or refused to donate. Second, as the slit in the collection tin enabled the collector to see how much money was exactly given, the amount given was subsequently recorded after the donor had closed the door. At the end of the study, the total amount of money in each of the seven collection tins was counted (with two persons from the cooperating charitable organization).

At the end of the interaction, just before the door was closed, the researcher notified the (non)donor that the collector was conducting an experiment. The collector ensured all (non)donors anonymity in their research participation. Donors were ensured all contributions were donated to the cooperating Dutch charitable organization. When the (non)donor agreed to participate in the study, demographic information (age and gender) was collected, and manipulation checks were performed (resulting in N = 528).

Manipulation check

Manipulation checks were performed using two verbal multiple-choice questions in Dutch. The first question measured the effectiveness of the manipulation for the independent variable “beneficiary type.” The question asked was ‘Who was emphasized as the beneficiary in the charitable appeal? Was this yourself, others, or yourself and others?’.

The second question measured the effectiveness of the manipulation for the independent variable “message valence.” For this manipulation, this question was asked: ‘Did the charitable appeal emphasize the positive outcomes of donating or the negative outcomes of not donating?’.

In total,  450 respondents correctly answered both manipulation check questions, and these respondents were included in the final sample. Three respondents incorrectly answered the question measuring the effectiveness of the manipulation for the independent variable beneficiary. These respondents were excluded from the research during the field experiment to ensure that the manipulation was 100% successful.

Experimental participants

A total of 959 Dutch households residing in a specific municipality were approached to make a monetary donation to the cooperating Dutch charitable organization through a door-to-door collection technique. Approximately 41.5% of the approached households (n = 398) did not open the door, and were removed from the sample, resulting in a participation rate of 58.5%. Another 33 respondents were removed from the sample since they had already donated money to the cooperating Dutch charitable organization through different means (n = 12), had money ready when they answered the door, and, therefore, the messages formulated for the experiment were not relevant anymore (n = 9), did not comprehend the Dutch language (n = 4), did not answer the manipulation check correctly (n = 3), did not want to participate in the study (n = 3), or were underaged (n = 2).

The final sample consisted of 528 Dutch households. Respondents’ (the household member who opened the door during the experiment) age ranged from 18 to 93 years, with the mean age of the sample pegged at 54 years (SD = 17.1). In total, 45.5% (n = 240) of the respondents were male, with the remaining 54.5% (n = 288) of the respondents being female.

Results

A total amount of € 636.65 was collected for the cooperating charitable organization within the six-day door-to-door donation collection. Of the 528 households that meet the inclusion criteria used for the study, 423 (80%) decided to donate, while 105 opted not to donate (20%). Table 3 displays the number of households that donated and did not donate across the seven experimental conditions.

Table 3. Number of households that donated and did not donate across the seven experimental conditions

Donation Behavior	EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS							TOTAL
	Self- benefit & Gain frame	Other-benefit & Gain frame	Self + Other-benefit & Gain frame	Self-benefit & Loss frame	Other-benefit & Loss frame	Self + Other-benefit & Loss frame	No message elements included
Households that donated	58 (77.3%)	57 (76.0%)	64 (85.3%)	54 (72.0%)	55 (73.3%)	60 (75.0%)	75 (96.2%)	423
Households that did not donate	17 (22.7%)	18 (24.0%)	11 (14.7%)	21 (28.0%)	20 (26.7%)	15 (25.0%)	3 (3.8%)	105
TOTAL	75 (100%)	75 (100%)	75 (100%)	75 (100%)	75 (100%)	75 (100%)	78 (100%)	528

From the households (n = 423) that decided to donate, an average of € 1.48 (SD = 1.06) was collected per household. Figure 2 presents the average amount donated to the cooperating charitable organization across the six donation request messages (and the control group).

Figure 2. Average amount among households that donated across the various experimental conditions (confidence interval of 95%).

Inclusion of message elements in the script used for a door-to-door donation collection

To test whether charitable appeals including beneficiary and valence message elements (a) prompted donation behavior and (b) generated higher amount of money donated compared to charitable appeals not including beneficiary type and message valence elements, logistic regression analysis (for the variable “donation behavior” – yes vs no) and analysis of variance (for the variable “amount of money donated”) were performed.

Analysis reveals that including beneficiary and valence message elements has a significant main effect (B = −1.989, S.E. = .600, p < .05) on donation behavior. Specifically, when beneficiary and valence message elements were included (a) less individuals were willing to comply to the solicitation to make a monetary donation compared to when no message elements were included. Furthermore, analysis results show that including beneficiary and message valence elements has no significant main effect (F(1, 419) = .95, p = .33) on the amount of money donated to the cooperating charitable organization.

Specifically, regardless of whether the two message elements were included, people’s donation behavior and the amount of money donated did not differ significantly among individuals who heard one of the seven messages. The finding that including message elements to the door-to-door collection script can be detrimental to people’s donation behavior and the amount that they donated has important implications for the current practice of door-to-door donation collection.

The impact of beneficiary type on donation behavior and average amount of money donated

Self-benefit vs other-benefit

It was hypothesized that self-benefit appeals would prompt donation behavior (H1a) and a higher amount donated (H1b) than other-benefit appeals. Results of logistic regression analysis show that benefit type has no effect on donation behavior (B = −.003, S.E. = .27, p = .99), as self-benefit appeals do not generate more donation behavior than other-benefit appeals. Thus, hypothesis 1a is not supported.

ANOVA results additionally indicate that beneficiary type has no significant effect on the amount of money donated to the cooperating charitable organization [F (1, 216) = 2.34, p = .13]. While the amount of money donated is lower in a self-benefit appeal condition (M = €1.34, SD = .096) than in the other-benefit appeal condition (M = €1.55, SD = .097), the difference is not statistically significant. Hence, hypothesis 1b is also not supported.

Self-and-other-benefit (mixed appeal) vs self-benefit or other-benefit

It was hypothesized that the use of a mixed appeal would negatively result in donation behavior than the exclusive use of either an other-benefit appeal or a self-benefit appeal (H2a). It was also hypothesized that the use of a mixed appeal would lower the amount of money donated than the exclusive use of either an other-benefit appeal or a self-benefit appeal (H2b).

Results of logistic regression analysis reveal that no main significant effects exist for a mixed appeal compared to other-benefit appeals (B = −.486, S.E. = .29, p = .09) and self-benefit appeals (B = −.481, S.E. = .287, p = .09) on donation behavior, indicating that the use of a mixed appeal or the exclusive use of one appeal has no impact on donation behavior. Hence, hypothesis 2a is not supported.

Analysis of variance results additionally show that the differences in the amount of money donated to the cooperating charitable organization are not statistically significant [F(1, 336) = 1.409, p = .25]. The amount people donated when confronted with a mixed appeal (M = €1.55, S.E. = .099) is not significantly different from the amount of money people donated when confronted with an exclusively other-benefit appeal (M = €1.55, S.E. = .099) or an exclusively self-benefit appeal (M = €1.34, S.E. = .098). Therefore, hypothesis 2b is also not supported.

The impact of message valence on donation behavior and average amount of money donated among those who donated

It was hypothesized that loss frame appeals would generate more donation behavior (H3a) and a higher amount of money donated (H3b) than gain frame appeals. Results of logistic regression analysis show that message valence has no main effect on donation behavior (B = −.266, S.E. = .228, p = .24), as the use of a loss frame does not generate more donation behavior compared to a gain frame. Hence, hypothesis 3a is not supported.

Analysis of variance further reveals that message valence has a significant effect on the amount of money donated to the cooperating charitable organization [F(1, 336) = 5.935, p < .05], as the use of a loss frame appeal (M = €1.61, S.E. = .081) resulted in a higher amount of money donated than the use of a gain frame appeal (M = €1.34, S.E. = .078). This result supports hypothesis 3b.

Interaction effects between beneficiary type and message valence

To determine whether the effect of beneficiary type on donation behavior and amount of money donated hinges on the type of message frame used for the donation request, the possible interaction effect of the two message elements was also tested. Analysis of variance results indicate that the assumed interaction effects on both donation behavior and amount of money donated are not statistically significant.

Discussion of results, implications, and future research directions

Discussion of results

Several empirical studies into the impact of both beneficiary type (e.g., Falk, 2007; Holmes et al., 2002; Landry et al., 2006) and message valence (e.g., Cao, 2016; Das et al., 2008), specifically in the context of prosocial behavior, have shown that the use of these elements in persuasive messages can potentially influence individual attitude and behavioral intention. However, results of the field experiment reported in this paper indicate that of the two frames (beneficiary frame and message frame) used for the door-to-door collection technique, only message valence influences the amount donated to the charitable organization.

Initially formalized as a component of prospect theory (Brenner et al., 2007), loss aversion states that people’s response to losses is more extreme than their response to gains (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Losses seem to have more impact than gains of equal magnitude (Bilgin, 2012; Kermer et al., 2006), hence, the popular phrase: losses loom larger than gains (Brenner et al., 2007). In the context of charitable giving, not being able to help might seem a negative thing, while being able to help would appear to be a good thing. Therefore, a potential donor might respond somewhat extremely to loss frame appeals compared to gain frame appeals, which is reflected in the act of making a monetary donation resulting in a higher amount. Hence, loss frame appeals generate a higher amount than gain frame appeals. Our finding echoes what Erlandsson et al. (2018) found in their series of experiments – that although positive appeals are liked more, negative appeals are slightly better in prompting donors to give more compared to when positive appeals are used.

The use of a mixed appeal when compared to the exclusive use of either an other-benefit appeal and a self-benefit appeal has no effect on donation behavior and the amount of money donated. While it is initially assumed that the simultaneous use of the two frames in a charity appeal would increase people’s persuasion awareness, eventually leading to psychological reactance, and subsequently lowering their donation intention (Feiler et al., 2012), our findings signify that the type of beneficiary emphasized in the message may not matter that much for donors.

One possible explanation for these contradictory findings is the nature of the experiments conducted to test the effects of message appeal. In the experiment of Feiler et al. (2011), participants were confronted with a textual message that they had time to read and process. In our field experiment, participants might not have immediately experienced the impact of message appeals. A certain amount of time and cognitive effort is apparently needed when thoroughly and systematically processing a message (Chen et al., 1999), and only when a message is systematically processed will that message trigger a certain response from the message recipient (Obermiller, 1985). This type of message processing is untenable considering the spontaneous character of the interaction characterizing a door-to-door donation collection.

Despite the absence of statistical significance, it is surprising that using a mixed appeal might be able to instigate the desired behavior more when compared to an other-benefit appeal and a self-benefit appeal. This is similar to what Holmes et al. (2002) found in their study – that people want to be altruistic, but also want to benefit from their altruistic act.

The absence of an interaction effect for message frames and beneficiary frames could be potentially explained by perceptions of people’s susceptibility to the affliction and to the risk of being a donation recipient in the future. It is emphasized that the effects of a specific frame are complicated by the presence of risk in a situation, as risk might amplify the assessment of framing effects (Levin et al., 1998). In relation to Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) assertion that risks are avoided in situations involving sure gains and risks are pursued when losses are expected, the role of beneficiary type as a precondition for the effect of an appeal type to occur might only be activated when people regard themselves vulnerable to the issue that precipitated donation collection.

Furthermore, an interesting finding from the field experiment is that when compared to the control condition (not including any message element), emphasizing the type of beneficiary of the donation and framing the possible impact of the donation (gain vs loss) does not improve people’s donation behavior and does not increase the amount that they will donate. The inclusion of message elements during a door-to-door collection clearly altered the approach used to request for small donations, and this alteration to how door-to-door donation collectors interact with potential donors might have caused disorientation among individuals confronted with the messages. Potentially, those exposed to the new message elements might have recognized manipulative intent and experienced psychological reactance, which, according to Reinhart et al. (2007), could mediate the impact of message frames on individual response. Alternatively, the new elements added to the typical script used during a door-to-door collection might not have captured the full attention of donors, as they might have been mentally occupied by the things that they were doing when the door-to-door donation collector rang the doorbell.

Practical implications

The practical relevance of using door-to-door collections for monetary donations for charitable organizations is still pressing. Our research shows that the doorstep conversation is a relevant tool that can influence donating behavior, but the specific mechanisms and strategies need further investigation. In our study, a countereffect appeared, the more emphasis on the conversation, the lower the participation and amount of money donated. A possible explanation might also be that “different” or “non-regular” behavior from people who asked for a donation evoke, consciously or even sub-consciously, a barrier in donating behavior. Despite this finding, charitable organizations should invest in finding potential methods to increase monetary donations and should adjust the current form of door-to-door collecting since the effectiveness of door-to-door collections is waning (CBF, 2017a).

Future research directions

The design and method of this research represented a door-to-door collection with the addition of beneficiary and valence message elements. Respondents did not know they were participating in a study until after they complied, or did not comply, to the charitable solicitation and a monetary donation was, or was not, made. Their behavior represents unbiased and natural behavior. Unfortunately, during a door-to-door collection a collector has limited amount of time at the door of a household. Lingering on might raise suspicion in other households regarding the collection since a collection generally does not take so much time.

The short timeframe limits the information that can be gathered from respondents. Therefore, merely age, gender, and manipulation checks were assessed. Information regarding the composition of the household, the education and income of the (non)donor, and affiliation with the charitable organization were not assessed. These variables could potentially affect donation behavior during a door-to-door collection as well.

This research has provided a groundwork in fivefold for future research. Future work should focus on mixed appeals and extend the findings of this research in order to determine if mixed appeals could be more effective than the sole use of other-benefit appeals and self-benefit appeals in influencing donation behavior. Additionally, the likelihood that the effect of a specific type of benefit appeal might be moderated by respondents’ characteristics also merits attention. For instance, in one study, it is reported that people who feel socially excluded respond better to other-benefits appeals, while those who feel socially included are affected equally by other-benefit and self-benefit appeals (Bae et al., 2019).

Given the nature of our experiment, it was not possible to explore whether the effects of the appeals are due to donors’ disposition (e.g., affinity with the cause prompting donation collection, level of empathic concern, perceived efficacy of the donation). For instance, one can surmise that individuals who feel affected by the affliction of others because such affliction could also happen to them might be driven to give when confronted with a message that simultaneously uses the two types of appeals. Additionally, one who believes that his donation will mitigate other people’s problems might be triggered by an other-benefit appeal.

It should also be noted that people’s affective state (Keller et al., 2003) and the characteristics of the message recipient and the desired action promoted in the message (Rothman et al., 2006) could determine the effectiveness of either gain or loss frames. For instance, women are reported to respond positively to help-others (other-benefit) appeal, while the use of a help-self (self-benefit) appeal would work best for men (Brunel & Nelson, 2000).

The perceived seriousness of the message described in the charity appeal is also crucial, as a loss appeal might work when used for issues with high risk of negative consequences, while gain appeal could suffice for issues with low risks of undesirable outcomes (Rothman et al., 2006). However, collecting information about those moderators in a field experiment is not entirely feasible.

Conclusion

For years, door-to-door donation collection in the Netherlands has been using a conventional script that primarily contains requests for small donations and an indication of the collecting organization’s identity. Such a script hardly includes persuasive elements (e.g. reasons for the collection, implications of the donation, beneficiaries of the donation). However, with the dwindling effectiveness of a door-to-door collection technique, new ways of implementing such a technique merit exploration.

Results of our study have clearly shown the value of emphasizing the impact of one’s donation, as using a loss frame appeal during a door-to-door collection slightly leads to higher amounts donated than using a gain frame appeal. This is a promising starting point, as gradually expanding the scripts for door-to-door collection with the inclusion of a few persuasive elements might already result in positive outcomes. However, this script expansion is a novel approach and must be pursued with caution, as door-to-door donors who are used to the straightforward scripts for donation collection might not immediately warm up to something entirely new.

Disclosure statement

No external funding was extended to the study reported in this paper.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.