Buzzwords Without Borders: Three Field Experiments in Individual Donation Behavior

BUZZWORDS WITHOUT BORDERS: THREE FIELD
EXPERIMENTS IN INDIVIDUAL
DONATION BEHAVIOR

by
Scott J. Jackson
Submitted to Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment
of graduation requirements for University Honors

Political Science Department
Brigham Young University
August 2012

Advisor: Dr. Daniel Nielson Defense Chair: Dr. Joseph Parry
Signature: _________________________ Signature: _________________________

ABSTRACT

BUZZWORDS WITHOUT BORDERS: THREE FIELD
EXPERIMENTS IN INDIVIDUAL
DONATION BEHAVIOR

Scott J. Jackson
Political Science Department
Bachelor of Arts

This study investigates three possible means by which Non-Governmental
Development Organizations (NGDOs) may entice individuals to give monetary donations
other than by proving significant effectiveness. To determine the influence of 1)
development buzzwords, 2) reference to identifiable (as opposed to statistical) victims,
and 3) social proof (revealing the support of peers) on an individual's propensity to
donate to a given NGDO, I develop three field experiments. As all three of these methods
are not directly connected to organizational effectiveness, the results of these experiments
will reveal the degree to which money and mission are divorced (or aligned) in the
everyday fundraising efforts of NGDOs. These results will also be used to analyze policy
implications and forward possible policies for aligning financial and social incentives in
the NGDO sector. I also use Facebook and social media to answer this question. The
ii

lessons learned from these efforts are the most significant contribution of this thesis.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Neshumale.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title and Signature Page ...................................................................................................... i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. vi
I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
II. Theoretical overview ...................................................................................................... 4
Buzzwords effects ........................................................................................................... 5
Identifiable victim effects ............................................................................................... 9
Social Proof effects ....................................................................................................... 11
III. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 14
IV. Development of Experiment ....................................................................................... 16
Phase I: Rudimentary Qualtrics .................................................................................... 17
Phase II: Would you like to learn more? .................................................................. 18
Phase III: Standalone Sites ............................................................................................ 22
V. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 25
References ......................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A: Original Sustain Haiti Website .................................................................... 34
Appendix B: Phase I - Control and Treatment Language ................................................. 35
Appendix C: Phase II- Invitation to Learn More .............................................................. 38
Appendix D: Additional Wording Options for Treatment and Control Conditions ......... 41
Appendix E: Phase III- Study 2 Mock-ups (full site experiment version) ....................... 44
Appendix E: Study 3 Mock-ups (full page version) ......................................................... 48
About the Author .............................................................................................................. 56
About the Adviser ............................................................................................................. 58

v

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1: Qualtrics Participation Rates ........................................................................... 20
TABLE 2: Responses to Qualtrics surveys (as of December 2011) ................................. 21
TABLE 3: Facebook Viewer Demographics .................................................................... 27
TABLE 4: Facebook Click Rates ..................................................................................... 29

FIGURE 1: Subject brain activity resulting from exposure to neutral or emotional
words....7
FIGURE 2: Reference card and example of a line card used in Asch (1955) .................. 12
FIGURE 3: Visual overview of experiment methodology ............................................... 16
FIGURE 4: Facebook Ad Clicks (Nov-Dec 2011) ........................................................... 28

vi

1
I.Introduction
How a non-governmental development organization (NGDO) receives its money
can have powerful effects on its work (O'Dwyer, 2007; see S. Verbruggen & J.
Christiaens, 2010 for an overview of this topic). In the business sector, a profit-loss signal
drives growth and innovation and to survive businesses must respond to its messages lest
they be driven out by competitors. If a product or service yields profit, it is nourished; if
not, resources are transferred to more effective processes. This invisible hand leads to
competition, efficiency, and strategy among businesses (Smith, 1904).
The nonprofit sector, however, faces a different type of signal. On the one hand, it is
driven by the same necessity for funds. Though nonprofit, they are not non-revenue and
money is as much the lifeblood of this sector as it is for business. These realities impose a
set of financial incentives. On the other hand, nonprofits also aim to produce social
good, or some good or service valuable to society outside of what can be considered
strictly monetary. They measure their success by graduation rates and disease rates and
crime levels and these are central to many of these organizations missions (Kilby, 2004).
These indicators are their second bottom line, one of social return or social value and
they impose a set of social incentives (Emerson, 2006).
While these two sets of incentives do not necessarily conflict, they also may not
always align; growth in one of these areas does not always indicate success in another
(O'Dwyer, 2007). On any given day, a nonprofit may choose to measure its progress by
two processes that are often separated. Take the example of a nonprofit that provides
vaccines to individuals in East Africa. From the social perspective, the nonprofits
measurements of success include population disease rates, medicine uptake rates, perhaps

2
number of villages reached, etc. In this arena, the recipients of the vaccine are the
consumers and the effect of the vaccine on their situation is paramount. From a financial
perspective, however, the nonprofit measures success in terms of dollars of donations or
size and reputation of grants with donors and grantmakers as their consumers, their
product often nothing deeper than the effects of altruism and a "warm-glow" (Arrow,
1974; Duncan, 1999; Andreoni, 1989; Andreoni 1990; Ribar & Wilhelm, 2002).
Herein lies the misalignment: if the nonprofits financial supporters do not tie their
donations directly to the effect of the vaccine programthe social outcome measures
then a nonprofit may suffer from donation disconnect,
1
or the tendency to focus on
fundraising at the expense of its social purpose programs.
One place where these misalignments may manifest themselves most prominently is in
the context of donation requests targeted to average citizens. With increased access to
technology, more citizens are capable of easily finding and donating to NGDOs, and
NGDOs are able to more easily access citizen donors (Smith, Schlozman, Verba, &
Brady, 2009; Center, 2006). Although greater access to these average citizens and their
support may enable NGDOs to work more effectively, it may also cause NGDOs to use
mass appeals and advertising strategies that take advantage of citizens general lack of
expertise in development.
This thesis begins from this perplexing launch pad. I hypothesize that three means
by which NGDOs may take advantage of citizens lack of development expertisei.e.,
three ways to detect a misalignment of financial and social incentivesare the use of

1
A term of my own invention.

3
buzzwords, the use of stories (or identifiable victims), and the influence of peer behavior
(social proof).
The first study will examine the influence of development buzzwords on donation
behavior. In October 2011, William Easterlydevelopment expert and author of the
acclaimed book, White Mans Burdensparked a Twitter flurry resulting in a string of
mocking posts pointing out the empty and sometimes euphemistic nature of buzzwords
(Easterly, 2011). Other development experts, Andrea Cornwall (2010) among them, have
similarly illustrated how buzzwords are more often masks that NGDOs use to
impersonate effectiveness. This study tests what effect buzzwords do have on individuals,
particularly when asked to donate money to an NGDO in the absence of other evidence
about its effectiveness. I originally conducted this study with a co-author, although this
thesis will focus on my individual contributions for this study.
The second study will replicate a portion of a paper by Small, Loewenstein, and
Slovic (Small et al., 2007), an experiment that monitored donation behavior after priming
individuals about the discrepancies between donating to identifiableinstrumented via
individualized stories and picturesand statistical victims. The study found that this
priming tended to cause individuals to donate less to identifiable victims, but no more to
statistical victims, thus decreasing total donations. While the study was highly internally
valid, it was not as externally valid, primarily due to its lab-style data collection that did
not require subjects to respond using their own money. For this thesis, I will replicate the
original study but increase its external validity by recruiting subjects via Facebook
advertisements, using actual NGDOs, and asking subjects to make actual donations.

4
The third experiment builds upon research by Robert Cialdini to test the effect of
social proofevidence of peer approvalon donation behavior. Using a platform similar
to my two previous studies, this portion will integrate Facebook and Twitter data to show
subjects who in their friend network has supported or donated to our confederate NGDO
and will measure how this knowledge influences subjects behavior as compared to a
control without such social proof. I will use Facebook advertisements to recruit subjects
for this experiment as in the two previous studies.
II.Theoreticaloverview
In 2009, the Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that over the preceding
twelve months, 67% of Americans contributed to a charity or non-profit organization
other than their place of worship (Smith et al., 2009). The study also found that 11% of
Internet users had gone online to donate money to a nonprofit or charitable organization
in the preceding year. In 2002, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University reported
that the average amount donated by American donor households was $1,872 (Center,
2006). These studies show that modern nonprofits access a large market of potential
donors when they reach out to average U.S. citizens. How nonprofits engage this
population and, more particularly, how this population engages with nonprofits, will have
significant influence on the incentives nonprofits faces and, thereby, how they tie their
financial incentives to their social incentives. What follows is a summary of the literature
surrounding three possible techniques by which nonprofits may entice individuals to
donate to their causes. These techniques are, in the order they are addressed, 1) the use of
buzzwords, 2) the use of stories (or identifiable victims), and 3) the use of social proof.

5
Buzzwordseffects
Experto credito.
-VIRGIL
This phrase, penned nearly two thousand years ago, aptly captures the human view of
authority in a way that is not only prescriptive but also descriptive. Roughly translated it
means, trust one who has been there before, or simply, believe the expert. While we
may argue otherwise, indeed we do believe the experts. When an expert airs an opinion
on national television, he or she can shift public opinion on an issue as much as four
percentage points, regardless of the experts prophetic accuracy. This was the case in
1979 when retired generals and arms experts spoke out against the SALT II Treaty then
in debate in the Senate and dropped public support for the treaty by more than five
percent. True that experts have not had the best track record when it comes to their
predictive power (think McCarthy, or the Russian scare of the late 1970s and 80s), yet
their impact on public opinion is undeniably substantial (Page, 1987). In another famous
case, the right words and enough ingenuity allowed Frank Abagnale, Jr. to convince even
the experts of his careers (read, impersonations) as a lawyer, professor, airline pilot,
and pediatrician all before he turned 22 years old (Abagnale, 2011).
On a development-sector parallel, a similar trend often occurs in the use of
development buzzwords, important-sounding or technical words often with little
meaning beyond their emotive and persuasive value (Macquarie; Merriam-Websters). It
is fairly common to attend a development conference or visit the website of an NGDO
and be bombarded with a flurry of social entrepreneurship, empowerment, bottom-
up approaches, participatory methods, innovation, and sustainability. While often
laden with cogent substance, these words can also mask purposeful vagueness and

6
distract viewers (or hearers) from the ultimate question of authority: proven effectiveness.
As Cialdini (2001) argues, conveying this sense of expertise can be critical to persuading
others to change their behavior or follow a directive and it is certainly plausible to
imagine an industry where these words, and not proven gains in health, education, or
economic opportunity, become the driving factors of an NGDOs attractiveness.
This thesis investigates several methods by which NGDOs may persuade average
citizens to donate to their causes. This first study examines how buzzwords may serve as
one such method by presenting average citizens with the website of an NGDO working in
Haiti and manipulating the prevalence of buzzwords on this websitebuzzwords such as
empowerment, social entrepreneurship, and participatory development. I argue that
when NGDOs include buzzwords in a donation request, they can influence an average
citizens willingness to donate to their cause. This theory is based partly on several
studies showing the influence of emotive words, or of development buzzwords
themselves, to influence hearers or viewers to change their behavior.
In 2007, Kissler et al (2007) studied subjects neurological and electric brain signal
reactions to certain word types shown in rapid succession. Employing 16 native German
speakers as subjects, the experimenters showed each subject a string of both emotional
and neutral words while tracking each subjects neurological activity. They found that the
subjects brains responded more strongly to emotional words than neutral ones, with the
most activity being centered in the left hemisphere of the brain (see Figure 1 below).
Even more interestingly, this finding was the same for both pleasant and unpleasant
emotional words. In a recall test, the experimenters also found that subjects could recall
more of the emotional words than the neutral words, supporting the argument that

7
subjects not only respond more strongly to these emotional words, but their brains also
latch onto and remember them longer. The authors conclusion was that the brain is
capable of automatically differentiating between emotional and non-emotional words and
that even rapid exposure can lead to somewhat longer-term effects.

Two studies led by Andrea Cornwall (Cornwall, 2010; Cornwall, 2005) build upon this
theory by considering how officials in government circles use buzzwords to evoke
different emotional and political responses among their audiences. Selecting among other
buzzwords, Cornwall and colleagues focus on three in particularparticipation,
empowerment, and poverty reduction that they argue have appeared more
prominently than others in such circles. The resultant sociological studies argue that
Figure 1: Subject brain activity resulting from exposure to neutral or emotional words.
Source: J. Kissler, C. Herbert, P. Peyk, & M. Junghofer, 2007, Buzzwords: Early cortical responses to emotional words during reading,
Psychological Science 18(6): 475 - 481.

8
buzzwords allow ideologies to impersonate as policy and to do so with significant
persuasive ability. In a specific application, the authors argue that had the fuzzy
language of the Millennium Declaration been used in the Millennium Development
Goals, the Goals would quickly disintegrate into tools to advance governments agendas
and marching songs for activists.
In other words, buzzwords fall within Kisslers category of emotional words and I
argue that it may be because of their emotive power that NGDOs so often use them in
donation requests. While buzzwords can be substantive in certain contexts, in others they
devolve to mere jargon, meant to do no more than convey authority and speak to the
brains emotional centers so as to evoke the strongest types of responses.
And these responses can indeed be strong, even with only the slightest manipulation
of wording. In one study, Rasinsky (1989) compared individuals responses between two
surveysone asking whether the government was spending too little on welfare and
the other on assistance to the poor. Though only a tricky exchange of synonyms, the
results were dramatic: 20-25% of respondents answered that too much is being spent on
welfare, while 63-65% said too little is being spent on assistance to the poor.
2

This behavior may stem from a tendency to look more favorably upon a loss that is
framed in positive rather than negative wording, even when the losses are cardinally
identical. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) studied this tendency in the context of the
Asian Disease Problem. The researchers presented subjects with an imagined scenario
in which a fatal Asian disease can be countered only through accepting some losses. One
of these scenarios described its outcomes in terms of lives lost while the other spoke in

2
In a recent update, Green and Kern (2010) found that this response has remained consistent over time.

9
terms of lives saved. The number of dead resulting from each of these two responses was
identical. However, when forced to choose between these two policy responses, 72% of
respondents favored the positive framing over the negative framing.
While this first study of my thesis does not use a treatment of negative versus positive
wordings, it does test the effects of emotionally-positive (buzzwords) and emotionally-
neutral wording on individual responses. We hypothesize that our results will follow the
general trend of Rasinsky (1989) and Tversky and Kahneman (1981) and that a donation
request employing buzzwords will prove more effective at eliciting donations from
average citizens that one without these words regardless of whether the NGDO illustrates
its effectiveness.
Identifiablevictimeffects
This study is a replication of an experiment performed by D. Small, G. Loewenstein,
and P. Slovic (2007) intended to improve upon the original results by increasing the
studys external validity. In their paper, Small et al. hypothesize that subjects will tend to
give more in support of identified victims than to statistical victims due to two influences.
The authors summarize the first influence, known as the proportion effect, as
follows: when evaluating lives or other commodities with non-market value, individuals
tend to assign value in terms of proportions rather than in absolute terms (Baron, 1997;
Featherstonhaugh et al., 1997; Friedrich et al., 1999; Jenni & Loewenstein, 1997). Small
et al. use the example of a disaster in which 10 of 200 lives are lost compared to one in
which 10 of several million lives are lost. In the first case, the loss is comparatively much
greater and more likely to evoke a sympathetic response; in the second case, the loss is

10
relatively insignificant. An extension of this theory, then, would suggest that the most
value would be attached to a victim in a group of itself, or where the victim represents
both the numerator and the denominator. In this case, where one of one life is lost, the
proportion of victims is 100%, the highest possible. In this case where there is a single
identified victim, individuals would be likely to exhibit the greatest sympathy.
The second effect referenced in Small et al. (2007) is a qualitative difference between
individuals responses to statistical and identifiable victims. They refer to Kogut & Ritov
(2005), a study showing that individuals tend to donate more to support a single
identified victim than to a single unidentified victim, a group of unidentified victims, or
even a group of identified victims. This difference, they hypothesize, may be explained
by a dual process model of social cognition, in which mental processes are divided into
two different modes of thought: an affective mode and a deliberative mode (Chaiken &
Trope, 1999; Epstein, 1994; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Sloman, 1996). The affective
mode, they explain, operates more quickly and often dominates in situations involving
personal or specific data. The deliberative mode is more circumspect, often dominating
after the affective mode has subsided and especially when the object of thought is
abstract and impersonal.
As identifiable victim arguments tend to involve a specific person and focus on
creating a personalized appeal, Small et al. summarize that it may be influencing the
affective process and causing it to preempt the deliberative process in decision-making
(see Sherman et al., 1999; Zajonc, 1980; Epstein, 1994; Shiv & Fedorikin, 1999; Strack
& Deutsch, 2004; Wilson & Brekke, 1994; Wilson et al., 2000).

11
Through four studies, Small et al. find evidence to support this theory, showing that
individuals tend to give more to identified than statistical victims (approximately $2.83 to
identifiable victims compared to approximately $1.17 to statistical victims). They also
found that when individuals were cautioned (primed) about this discrepancy, they
decreased the amount they gave to identified victims, but also did not substantially
increase the amount they gave to statistical victims. The overall result of this
manipulation of subjects deliberative processes was a decrease in the amount individuals
gave in total.
This study teaches a great deal about why many NGDOs rely so heavily upon personal
stories and pictures instead of on statistics and reports when speaking to general citizens.
However, to perform their study, Small et al. used a convenient sample of a few hundred
individuals on the campus of a Pennsylvania university. While a university education
itself may serve as a type of priming for just such an experiment, this sample is also far
from nationally representative. For these and other reasons, this thesis will replicate this
study using a nationally representative and randomly selected sample.

SocialProofeffects
This study builds upon previous research documenting the effects of social pressure
on individual behavior. Its overall intent is to understand the growing potential for social
media as an advertising and persuasive tool in the NGDO sector. In designing this
experiment, two studies have lent particularly helpful insight.
The first, Asch (1955), examined the degree to which social pressure can cause an
individual to behave differently from how they would on his or her own. In this

12
experiment, each subject is placed in a group of seven to nine confederates of the
experimenter, but left unaware that he or she is the only subject in the group. Each group
is told they will be comparing the lengths of lines drawn on cards and receive a reference
card with three lines of different lengths drawn on it. The experiment begins by showing
the group a second card with a single line drawn on it of a certain length and asks those in
the group to match this line with that on the reference card closest in length (see Figure
2). This is done without much drama and the experimenter continues.

Figure 2: Reference card and example of a line card used in Asch (1955)
Source: Asch, S. E. 1955. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193(5): 31-35.

In the third round, the dynamics of the experiment begin to operate as all confederates
purposefully begin to match the shown line with a common incorrect line on the
reference card. Most subjects begin to become confused and dissent with some visible
discomfort. This pattern continues, with the subject becoming more and more unnerved at
each round. Occasionally, the confederates choose the correct line, so as to keep the
subject from becoming too suspicious and by the conclusion of the experiment the group
of confederates has chosen incorrectly 12 out of 18 times. Asch found that in the group of
123 tested in his experiment, subjects followed the confederates in choosing incorrectly

13
36.8 % of the time, dramatically high compared to circumstances without confederates
present, where individuals choose incorrectly less than 1% of the time. This experiment
shows that peers can have significant influence on individuals behavior, causing them to
act in ways they otherwise would not.
In a political science context, Gerber et al. (2008) shows that social pressure can also
influence voter turnout. In their experiment, the authors employ a subject pool of 180,002
households selected from the state of Michigan prior to the August 2006 primary
election. In their treatments, they first inform subjects via a mailing that records of who
does and does not vote are public information and then, in one treatment, provide a list of
whom in their household voted the year previous and, in the other treatment, a list of
whom in their neighborhood voted the year previous. In both of these treatments, the
subjects are also told that an updated chart will be mailed following the election,
implying that a record of whether they do or do not vote will be available either to their
entire household or, perhaps worse, to their entire neighborhood.
The authors find that when they show subjects their household voting records, the
subjects voter turnout increases by 4.9 percentage points. When more social pressure is
applied and subjects are shown not only their own voting records, but also those of their
neighbors, voter turnout increases 8.1 percentage points. This effect is larger than that of
live phone calls and is even comparable to face-to-face contact with canvassers. Most
other mailing-based Get Out the Vote campaigns have effects closer to only 3
percentage points or less (Knack, 2001). Other researchers have conducted similar studies
and found comparable results (see Schultz, 1999; Webster et al., 2003; Scheff, 2000;
Rind & Benjamin, 1994; Posner & Rasmussen, 1999; Whatlet et al., 1999; Cialdini &

14
Goldstein, 2004; Gerber & Rogers, 2007; Cardy, 2005; Gerber et al., 2003; Ramirez,
2005; Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
III.Methodology
I will conduct each study in this thesis using an online platform to present the control
and treatment donation requests and to gather demographic and other preliminary
behavior. Fundly, a donation platform specializing in combining Facebook access with an
embeddable donation tool, will serve as my primary donation portal and will also prove a
critical piece in my Social Proof study. I hope to recruit a diverse and representative pool
of subjects for this experiment and, for this purpose, will use Facebook advertising as my
primary subject recruitment tool. Although this will cost $0.50 to $1.70 per click, it will
allow me to access a larger and more representative group of potential subjects than
otherwise possible.
The partner NGDO, Sustain Haiti, is a legitimate charity with pending 501(c) 3 status,
and all of the appeals in the experimental conditions will be entirely factual. This
experiment poses minimal risk to subjects, participation is entirely voluntary, and I will
not be collecting personally identifiable information (PII). All other information will be
securely stored in password-protected files. However, as I am interested in observing how
individual donors act in normal situationsthis is the critical basis for my second
studythese studies cannot be carried out under the normal procedures of informed
consent.
Instead, subjects will begin by clicking on one of my Facebook advertisements and go
randomly to one of four websites. Each of these sites will immerse the subject in a
different treatment, whether control, buzzwords, identifiable victims (mostly via stories

15
and pictures), or social proof (via Facebook and Twitter plug-ins). The language on each
site will be entirely truthful, altered only slightly form the original wording on Sustain
Haitis own website (www.sustain-haiti.org). As subjects surf these websites, analytics
will track how much time they spend on each page, where their mouse hovers, what they
click, how long they spend on the website in total, and, most important, whether they
choose to donate money to support Sustain Haiti. Throughout this process, donation will
not be mandatory and subjects may exit the website at any time. In addition, I will not
collect PII such as name, social security number, financial information, etc.
To complete their donation, participating subjects will use a secure Fundly platform
embedded directly on each sites Donate page and they will be able to transfer money
to the partner NGDO. To detect repeat donorsthose who are opening the survey for a
second timeI will track subjects IP addresses and separate repeat donors during the
data cleaning stages. From start to finish, subjects will spend approximately 0-5 minutes
participating in one of the studies. A basic overview of this process is seen in Figure 3,
below.
For these studies, I have partnered with Sustain Haiti, an NGDO based in Provo, UT,
and started by BYU students, Dustin Homer and Zach Christensen. This decision was
based on several key considerations. First, Sustain Haiti is less well-known than many
other options and, thus, limits the likelihood that subjects will have had encounters with it
outside of the experiment. Secondly, as this experiment involves real money, support, and
citizens, I needed an NGDO to which I would feel comfortable directing donors, funds,
etc. Sustain Haiti fits this bill nicely. And finally, the complexity of these studies
necessitated an NGDO that was both willing to allow me to manipulate how I present

16

Figure 3: Visual overview of experiment methodology

them to the public as well as cooperative in data collection. Sustain Haiti fulfilled all of
these conditions.
Outcomes of interest for all studies in this experiment are first, whether the subjects
donate or not, and second, how much each donating subject chooses to give. Secondary
outcomes include time spent on the website and number of links selected.
To see examples of language used in the Fundly platform and donation requests, as
well as the front page of the original Sustain Haiti website, see Appendices.
IV.DevelopmentofExperiment

This thesis began as a simple project for a class with Dr. Nielson. However, as it grew
and matured into an Honors thesis, it quickly evolved into something much more than

17
that. Its focus shifted and where once it had concerned itself only with the relationship
between buzzwords and donation rates, it soon became an investigation into new methods
of experimentationsomething with much wider implications. While the primary
purpose of this thesis in my mind had, for a long time, been the first of these two focuses,
the end result has been to give few if any answers about donation rates, but many new
lessons for experiment methodology about both what does and does not work. This
section describes the evolution of this thesis methodology and sets the groundwork for
Section V: Conclusions, wherein I will offer several lessons about social science
experiment methodology learned from this experience.
PhaseI:RudimentaryQualtrics
As the first of several pilot tests, Rachel Fisheranother student in my PL SC 359R
classand I designed a simple Qualtrics survey to distribute to friends and student
organizations at BYU. The survey was structured to randomly present one of two brief
descriptions of Sustain Haiti to each subject then allow them to donate to Sustain Haiti by
clicking on a PayPal Donate button. These two descriptions varied only in the inclusion
of forms of the word empower in the treatment and its neutral synonyms in the control.
(See Appendix A for actual language.)
After dispersing our donation request to various BYU students and organizations, 85
subjects opened the Qualtrics survey and only 12 completed the survey (clicked the
finish button). However, none of those who visited this survey donated any money to
Sustain Haiti. Thus, it could be that neither the control nor the treatment had sufficient
power to entice a donation, or that Qualtrics was an unconvincing treatment platform, or
even that I had a skewed and insignificant sample.

18
PhaseII:Wouldyouliketolearnmore?
Although these struggles were unfortunate, they proved a useful pivot point for me as I
began to redesign the experiment. To overcome the discouraging dearth of donations, I
tried four changes. First, I shifted the target audience from a predominantly college-aged
populationin which university students with little to no income may be less inclined to
give donationsto a more representative population. To reach this new target audience, I
decided to try the capabilities of Facebook advertisements and created my own campaign
targeted to users who have indicated an interest in Charity/Causes.
3
Second, I lessened
the cost of participating in this pilot by changing my outcome of interest from donation
rates to nothing more that expressed interest in learning more (see Appendix C). For this,
I included a Qualtrics survey question directly following the paragraph description that
asked the question, Would you like to learn more about our organization.
My third and fourth changes were designed to expand the kinds of data I collected
about each subject and increase the controls I could use in analyzing final results. The
third change appeared after each subject indicated they were (or were not) interested in
learning more. No matter their answer, the survey asked them to indicate their previous
experience with Sustain Haiti and development organizations in general, mark their age,
and give a free answer response as to why they were (or were not) interested in learning
more. Finally, the fourth change appeared at the very end of this Qualtrics survey. To test
whether subjects were indeed inspired by the buzzwords in the paragraph description to
show their willingness to learn more, I included a link to Sustain Haitis webpage with
one of the following two invitations (depending on their previously indicated interest):

3
See Appendix C for example

19
Marked Interested:

We thank you for your interest in our organization. Please click on the link
below to explore our website and find out more about our projects. Feel
free to fill out a volunteer form or donate to our work.

http://sustain-haiti.org

Marked Not Interested:

We thank you for your time. If you change your mind, click on the link
below to explore our website and find out more about our projects.

http://sustain-haiti.org

This phase again used Qualtrics as its primary randomization and presentation method,
and it was through this that I gathered my data. However, to track the traffic involved in
my fourth change, I created four placeholder pagesone for each control/treatment,
interested/uninterested to know more combinationsthrough Weebly, an online website
creation platform, and embedded redirect Javascripts and Google Analytics codes on
each. This allowed me to count how many subjects in each cell clicked the link to find
out more about Sustain Haiti, even as they went outside the bounds of Qualtrics data
collection realm.
Ready to recruit subjects, I opened my Facebook advertising campaign with $80 worth
of funds and began the experiment. After seven months of operation, however, this pilot
had recruited only 28 subjects and only seven subjects had responded in any way to my
surveys questions. Of these seven, three received the Control block, and four the
Treatment block. Table 1 below shows descriptive statistics about these individuals.

20
More information about the respondents and their responsesor what little they
providedis found in Table 2. Of the three who responded to our Control block, all
(100%) indicated an interest in learning more about Sustain Haiti. Of the four who
responded to the Treatment block, three (75%) indicated an interest in learning more.
Only three subjects officially closed the survey by clicking the Qualtrics finished
button.
TABLE1:Qualtrics
ParticipationRates
# Started 28
# Closed 3
# Treatment 4
# Control 3

While this phase taught me a great deal about the potential of Facebook advertisements
as a subject recruitment tool in experiments (explained in Section V), it revealed little to
nothing about donation behavior. So, I went back to the drawing board.

21
TABLE2:ResponsestoQualtricssurveys(asofDecember2011)
Control

Treatment
1. Would you like to find out more about
our organization?

7. Would you like to find out more about
our organization?
Answer Response %

Answer Response %
Yes 2 100%

Yes 2 67%
No 0 0%

No 1 33%
Total 2 100%

Total 3 100%
2. How much experience have you
previously had with Sustain Haiti?

8. How much experience have you
previously had with Sustain Haiti?
Answer Response

Answer Response
None 1

None 0
Very Little 0

Very Little 0
Some 0

Some 0
Extensive 0

Extensive 1
Total 1

Total 1
3. What experience have you had with
development organizations in the past?

9. What experience have you had with
development organizations in the past?
Answer Response

Answer Response
None 1

None 0
Very little 0

Very little 0
Some 0

Some 0
Extensive 0

Extensive 1
Total 1

Total 1
4. What is your age?

10. What is your age?
Answer Response

Answer Response
< 18 0

< 18 0
18-23 1

18-23 1
23-30 0

23-30 0
30-40 0

30-40 0
40-50 0

40-50 0
50-60 0

50-60 0
> 60 0

> 60 0
Total 1

Total 1
5. Why would you like to be involved with
Sustain Haiti?

11. Why would you like to be involved
with Sustain Haiti?
No response

Responses

yes 1
6. Why would you not like to be involved
with Sustain Haiti?

12. Why would you not like to be involved
with Sustain Haiti?
No response

No response

22
PhaseIII:StandaloneSites

Perplexed but undaunted after these first two phases, I worked with my Adviser and
with Rachel Fisher, who was still assisting in the research for Study 1, to develop
possible alternative strategies. I considered a control that would include five buzzwords
in the same paragraph (empowerment, social innovation, participatory
development, social entrepreneurship, and changemakers), but decided this might
be too overt and even confusing to subjects. I tried a set of treatments that included
definitions along with my buzzwords to see if the process of direct definition could
somehow reverse or stall the effect of a buzzword.
4

However, I finally decided that all these were no more than variations on the same
theme when what I really needed was an entirely different symphony. Each of these
would face the same dilemma of being housed on an unconvincing platform and would
likely yield no more responding subjects than I had already recruited. Not to mention, all
the work I had done to this point had been only in preparation for the first of my thesiss
three studies and while the Buzzwords study was complex, the Identifiable Victims and
Social Proof studies would likely prove to be even more involved. What I needed was
something entirely differentsomething much more dynamic and capable and certainly
more convincing than Qualtrics. I needed a platform that looked, acted, and worked just
like Sustain Haitis actual website (www.sustain-haiti.org). The problem in achieving this
heroic feat, however, was that I personally had neither the skill nor the time to create four
new websitesone control and three treatments for each of my three studiesand build
them well enough to deliver a high-powered and high-quality experiment.

4
To see examples of some of these considerations, see Appendix D.

23
It was amid these deliberations that an Honors Thesis Miracle happened. Dr.
Nielsons wife happened to have a dear friend whose husband, Craig Scribner, was a
professional website analyst. In his work with VML, a digital marketing service, Craig
designed and tested websites to find advertising methods that would attract the most
visitors and the most action from each visitor. As Dr. Nielson explained my thesis to him,
Craig first expressed interest and then went so far as to offer pro bono support in building
and analyzing the websites. It was perfect.
I began to eagerly outline mock-ups for each of the pages on the four websites. I
decided to simplify the original website by removing much that was irrelevant to the
experiments: the Volunteer, Blog, Gallery, and Press pages to name a few things. This
would leave Craig and me with only a few pages to have to manage: the Home, Donate,
Thank You (after Donate), About Us, Contact Us, and Projects pages. To eliminate the
complications with tracking offsite user actions as they traveled to PayPal to make their
donations, I decided to rely solely on Fundly, a web tool that I could embed directly into
the Donate page of my new websites and that would allow me to easily link donation data
to each distinct subject. As an added bonus, Fundly had the capability of embedding
Facebook data directly into the donation mechanism, a perfect addition to my Social
Proof study. A few other slight changes (adding a Donate button to each page to make
the possibility of donating funds obvious, removing an email list subscription option, and
hiding past performance reports) would eliminate the chances of a hidden variable
skewing results.
To sufficiently distinguish each treatment from the others and obtain powerful
treatment effects, I planned to embed buzzwords, stories, or social pressure tools as

24
omnipresently as possible without being distractingly overt. The control would hold to
stern neutrality. The Buzzwords site would embed buzzwords on every site, particularly
on the scrolling picture headline on the Home page and as headlines on the Projects page.
If possible, each word would also be highlighted and even respond to a users mouse-
over action with a pop-up definition of the word so as to unambiguously attract the users
attention to its presence. The Stories site would feature large pictures and links on the
Home pages scrolling headline as well as a gallery of pictures and personal stories
featuring Haitians benefitted by Sustain Haiti on the sites Project page (called, in this
version, the Stories of Impact page). Finally, the Social Proof site would embed Twitter
and Facebook plugins on every page, although most prominently on the Donate page
through the Fundly tool. (For my actual mocks, see Appendix E.)
As I drew up these mocks, I began to realize that this would involve much more than
simply embedding buzzwords and a Google Analytics tool onto a webpage. And, while it
seemed easy enough to copy and paste a website four times, the password protection and
server access and web language skills actually required were far beyond both my and
Craigs abilities.
Thus, I reached a detour. While I will continue my experiments and seek to publish the
results in a scientific journal as I originally intended, this thesis concludes its coverage of
my research at this phase. Although disappointed that this thesis did not bear the
scientific results I had hoped, I feel that it does lend valuable insight into innovative
experimental methods, particularly regarding the use of social media and the Internet to
administer powerful randomized control trials.

25
More than anything, this thesis stands as an insight into the scientific process. No
discovery is easily earned and the pathway to discovery is anything but direct. Rather,
discovery follows a winding trail of trial and error, with each step yielding priceless
lessons even if not answering the original question. Indeed, the difficulty I faced in
obtaining even the preliminary results I did in this thesis may in fact be the beginnings of
an answer about the effectiveness of different persuasive methods in enticing donations.
Either way, I will continue to carry out this research and am committed to understanding
the relationships between donation behavior, persuasive methods, and proven
effectiveness as well as to the search for more innovative and accurate experiment
methodologies.
V.Conclusions

This section is far different from how I envisioned it at the onset of this thesis. In fact,
this entire thesis is different from what I had originally expected I would write. At the
end of my Junior year, I began writing my Honors Thesis Proposal and outlined a thesis
in which I would develop an economic framework for describing innovation in the social
sector. This was a topic I was keenly interested in and about which I had done a great
deal of preparatory work through classes and internships. However, as I began working
with Dr. Nielson and learned more about the fundamental purpose of an Honors Thesis, I
became more interested in doing a project that would allow me to learn from Dr.
Nielsons unique research in field experiments in international development.

26
It was in light of this and in consultation with Dr. Nielson that we developed this
thesis, an overlap of our two fields of interest and based on a question without many
answers in the experimental literature. And so, we began our journey.
Now, at a vital juncture of that journey, I have learned very different lessons from what
I had originally expected I would. In particular, I have learned a great deal about the
potential of Facebook to change the way we as social scientists interact with subjects.
While my experimental results were less than thrilling, these lessons hold interesting
implications for this study as well as for future research.
These lessons have both a positive and a negative side. On the positive side, my
advertisement was seen 101,948 distinct times by Facebook users across the U.S. over the
course of its seven-month run life. This sample was relatively random as well as diverse
and required no work on my part beyond the original setup process.
Of those who viewed our page, more than half the females and almost one third of the
males were between the ages of 18 and 24, with each of the remaining gender-age groups
representing between 0 and 2% of the total viewer pool. This reveals two interesting
lessons about using Facebook as a subject recruitment tool. The first is that samples
obtained through Facebook may be skewed towards females aged 18-24, a result of
Facebooks place in social life. Secondly, Facebook users who mark an interest in
Charity/Causes may also be more likely to be female than male and between the ages
of 18-24 than otherwise. While Facebook advertisements can be tailored so as to target
any demographic desired, these demographics are likely to occur for any general
advertisements. More information can be seen in Table 3 below.

27
TABLE3:FacebookViewer
Demographics
Gender Age % of Views
F 18-24 52.23%
F 25-34 1.58%
F 35-44 1.44%
F 45-54 1.82%
F 55-64 1.70%
F 65-100 1.55%
F Unknown 0.21%
M 18-24 30.87%
M 25-34 1.80%
M 35-44 1.94%
M 45-54 1.49%
M 55-64 0.71%
M 65-100 0.77%
M Unknown 0.28%
Unknown 18-24 0.83%
Unknown 35-44 0.40%
Unknown 45-54 0.29%

Another interesting aspect about Facebook advertisements is their ability to detect
and report the U.S. State (or country even) of origin of those who view and click on an
advertisement. In my sample of 101,948, the most represented states were California,
New York, Florida, and Texas, and the least represented were South Dakota, Idaho, and
New Mexico. This could be due to population differences among the states, or it could be
because of differing levels of Facebook usage across the country. Either way, scientists
using Facebook should be aware of how these trends could skew results, but still
recognize its powerful ability to provide a wealth of controls for each user.
On the more negative side, even after running for seven months, my Facebook
advertisement attracted only 26 clicks. Whatever the perks of using Facebook as a
recruitment tool, I am unconvinced that they overcame Facebooks weak ability to recruit

28
subjects into my experiment. It is true that 101,948 individuals from across the United
States saw my advertisement. However, with only 26 of these who clicked on the ad and
entered my experiment, my click-through rate was a dismal 0.026%. When college
psychology students are graded for participating in a study each semester, their click-
through rate is closer to 100%. This is a dramatic difference.
Additionally, while Facebook may cost less per subject than some traditional
methods, it is still more expensive than Amazons Mechanical Turk and the always free
student (convenient) sample option. I opened this Facebook advertising campaign with
$80 of funds; but after spending only $16.78 of this, the cost of advertisements rose such
that my advertisement was outbid by others willing to match more expensive market
trends. Interested in seeing what my Facebook advertisement would do without my
intervention, I did not increase my bid price and my advertisement stopped appearing on
Facebook. Figure 4 shows the exciting increase and equally dramatic fall-off of clicks
through my advertisement. (Note that the silent independent variable in this was my own
unwillingness to increase my advertising bid rate.)

Figure 4: Facebook Ad Clicks (Nov-Dec 2011)

29
In total, then, I paid $0.65 per subject recruited through Facebook (see Table 4 for
more information about these summary statistics). While this may be cheap compared to
many traditional subject recruitment methods it is also expensive compared to Amazons
Mechanical Turk (closer to $0.50 per subject according to Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz,
2010) and certainly compared to the free student/convenient sample option.
TABLE4:FacebookClickRates
Date Jul-16
Impressions 101,948
Clicks 26
Click-Through Rate 0.026%
Cost per Click $0.65
Cost per Impression $0.16
Amt. Spent $16.78

The one feature that may redeem Facebook in future experimentsand, indeed, is
the primary excitement in using Facebook at allis its ability to recruit subjects directly
out of real-life situations, unlike in both Mechanical Turk and convenient samples. While
many argue that student samples map closely to real-world results, making them a
reliable and cost-effective method of subject recruitment (Anderson, 1997), others find
that they present a narrow view on society (Sears, 1986). However, given their cost-
effectiveness and, of course, convenience, it would take a severely enticing alternative to
draw researchers away from convenience samples entirely. Yet, Facebook may present
just such an alternative. It is now embedded into daily social life as much as family
reunions or community theaters used to be (and much more) and its rich wealth of data
about individual users make Facebook a treasure trove of possibilities for future social
science research. To make this feature worthwhile compared to the effort and cost it
would incur is the challenge of future research.

30
References

Abagnale & Associates. 2011. About Frank Abagnale. Accessed 13 Apr 2012 from
www.abagnale.com/aboutfrank.htm.
Anderson, C. A. & B. J. Bushman. 1997. External validity of trivial experiments: The
case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology 1 (1): 19-41.
Andreoni, J. 1989. Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian
equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97: 1447-1458.
Andreoni, J. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-
glow giving. Economic Journal 100: 464-77.
Arrow, K. 1974. Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(4): 343-362.
Asch, S. E. 1955. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193(5): 31-35.
Baron, J. 1997. Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty 14: 301309.
Berinsky, A. J., G. A. Huber, & G. S. Lenz. 2010. Using Mechanical Turk as a subject
recruitment tool for experimental research. Unpublished manuscript.
Cardy, E. A. 2005. An experimental field study of the GOTV and persuasion effects of
partisan direct mail and phone calls. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 601 (September): 2840.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. 2006. Average and median amounts of
household giving & volunteering in 2002 from the Center on Philanthropy Panel
Study (COPPS) 2003 Wave. Indiana: The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana
University. http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/ (accessed 18 Nov. 2011).
Chaiken, S. & Y. Trope. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:
Guilford Press.
Cialdini, R. B. & M. R. Trost. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and
compliance. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edition, ed. D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, 151192. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B. & N. J. Goldstein. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology 55 (February): 591621.
Cialdini, R. B. 2001. Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review
79(9): 72-79.
Cornwall, A. & D. Eade. 2010. Deconstructing development discourse: Buzzwords and
fuzzwords. Oxford: Oxfam.
Cornwall, A. & K. Brock. 2005. What do buzzwords do for development policy? A
critical look at participation, empowerment and poverty reduction. Third
World Quarterly 26(7): 104360.
Duncan, B. 1999. Modeling charitable contributions of time and money. Journal of
Political Economics 72: 213-242.
Easterly, W. 2011. The AidSpeak Dictionary. williameasterly.org.
http://williameasterly.org/the-aidspeak-dictionary/ (Accessed 30 Dec, 2011).
Emerson, Jed. 2006. Moving ahead together: Implications of a blended value framework
for the future of social entrepreneurship. In Social entrepreneurship: New models
of sustainable social change, ed. Alex Nicholls. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
391-406.

31
Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious.
American Psychologist 49: 709724.
Featherstonhaugh, D., P. Slovic, S. M. Johnson, & J. Friedrich. 1997. Insensitivity to the
value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty 14: 283300.
Friedrich, J., P. Barnes, K. Chapin, I. Dawson, V. Garst, & D. Kerr. 1999.
Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase.
Journal of Consumer Psychology 8: 277299.
Gerber, A. S. & T. Rogers. 2007. The effect of descriptive social norms on voter turnout:
The importance of accentuating the positive. Yale University manuscript.
Gerber, A. S., D. P. Green & M. N. Green. 2003. The effects of partisan direct mail on
voter turnout. Electoral Studies 22 (December): 56379.
Gerber, A. S., D. P. Green, & C. W. Larimer. 2008. Social pressure and voter turnout:
Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review
102(1): 33-48.
Green, D. P. & H. L. Kern. 2010. Detecting heterogeneous treatment effects in large-
scale Experiments using bayesian additive regression trees. The Annual Summer
Meeting of the Society of Political Methodology, University of Iowa.
Jenni, K. E. & G. F. Loewenstein. 1997. Explaining the identifiable victim effect.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14: 235257.
Kahneman, D. & S. Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution
in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics of intuitive judgment: Extensions and
applications, ed. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman, 4981. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kilby, P. 2004. Accountability for empowerment: dilemmas facing non governmental
organisations. Policy and governance discussion paper no. 04-01. Asia Pacific
School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University.
Canberra.
Kissler, J., C. Herbert, P. Peyk, & M. Junghofer. 2007. Buzzwords: Early cortical
responses to emotional words during reading. Psychological Science 18(6): 475 -
481.
Knack, S. 2001. Election-day registration: The second wave. American Politics Research
29 (January): 6578.
Kogut, T. & I. Ritov. 2005. The identified victim effect: an identified group, or just a
single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18: 157167.
Lerner, J. S. & P. E. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Psychological Bulletin 125 (March): 25575.
The Macquarie Dictionary. South Yarra: The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd.. s.v.
"buzzword." http://www.credoreference.com/ (accessed 16 Nov. 2011).
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate(R) Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster. s.v.
"buzzword z-wrd." http://www.credoreference.com/ (accessed 16 Nov. 2011).
O'Dwyer, B. & J. Unerman. 2007. From functional to social accountability: Transforming
the accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental
development organizations. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal
20(3): 446-471.

32
Page, B. I., R. Y. Shapiro, & G. R. Dempsey. 1987. What Moves Public Opinion? The
American Political Science Review 81(1): 23-44.
Posner, R. A. & E. B. Rasmusen. 1999. Creating and en- forcing norms, with special
reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics 19
(September): 36982.
Ramirez, R. 2005. Giving voice to Latino voters: A field experiment on the effectiveness
of a national nonpartisan mobilization effort. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 601 (September): 6684.
Rasinski, K. A. 1989. The effect of question wording on public support for government
spending. Public Opinion Quarterly 53: 388-394.
Ribar, D. C. & M. O. Wilhelm. 2002. Altruistic and joy-of-giving motivations in
charitable behavior. Journal of Political Economy 110:425-57.
Rind, B. & D. Benjamin. 1994. Effects of public image concerns and self-image on
compliance. The Journal of Social Psychology 134 (February): 1925.
Scheff, T. J., 2000. Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological
Theory 18 (March): 8499.
Schultz, P. W. 1999. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field
experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21
(March): 2536.
Sears, D. O. 1986. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data
base on social psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 51 (3): 515-530.
Sherman, S. J., D. R. Beike, & K. R. Ryalls. 1999. Dual-processing accounts of
inconsistencies in responses to general versus specific cases. In Dual-process
theories in social psychology, ed. S. Chaiken & Y. Trope. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Shiv, B. & A. Fedorikhin. 1999. Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 26: 278
292.
Sloman, S. A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological
Bulletin 119: 322.
Small, D. A., G. Loewenstein, & P. Slovic. 2007. Sympathy and callousness: The impact
of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102: 143-153.
Smith, A., K. Schlozman, S. Verba, & H. Brady. 2009. The internet and civic
engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew
Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/ (accessed 18 Nov. 2011).
Smith, Adam. 1904. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Fifth
Edition. Edwin Cannon, ed. London Meuthen and Co., Ltd.
Strack, F. & R. Deutsch. 2004. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(3): 220247.
Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choice. Science 211(4481): 453-58.
Verbruggen, S. & J. Christiaens. 2010. Earnings management in nonprofit organizations:
Does government financing play a role? Universiteit Gent Working Paper.
https://biblio.ugent.be/ (accessed 15 Feb. 2012).

33
Webster, J. M., J. Duvall, L. M.Gaines, & R. H. Smith. 2003. The role of praise and
social comparison in the experience of pride. The Journal of Social Psychology
143 (April): 20932.
Whatley, M. A., J. M. Webster, R. H. Smith, & A. Rhodes. 1999. The effect of a favor on
public and private compliance: How internalized is the norm of reciprocity. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology 21(3): 25159.
Wilson, T. D. & N. C. Brekke. 1994. Mental contamination and mental correction:
Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin 116:
117142.
Wilson, T. D., S. Lindsey, & T. Y. Schooler. 2000. A model of dual attitudes.
Psychological Review 107(1): 101126.
Zajonc, R. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist 35: 151175.

34
AppendixA:OriginalSustainHaitiWebsite

35
AppendixB:PhaseI-ControlandTreatmentLanguage
Control:

36
Treatment:

37
PayPal:

38
AppendixC:PhaseII-InvitationtoLearnMore
Control:

39
Treatment:

40
Facebook Advertisement

41
AppendixD:AdditionalWordingOptionsforTreatmentand
ControlConditions
Including all Words

Sustain Haiti

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 M earthquake shocked the island nation of Haiti. More than
three million people were directly affected by the disaster. Sustain Haiti* was organized
in response to the earthquake as a non-denominational, independent organization
composed of changemakers, specifically Haitians, development specialists, students, and
social entrepreneurs. We seek to empower Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of the
earthquake, and surrounding regions by employing participatory approaches. We support
social innovation among Haitians through various economic, health, education, and
agriculture projects.

Including All Words & Definitions

Sustain Haiti

composed of changemakers, specifically Haitians, development specialists, students, and
social entrepreneurs. We seek to empower Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of the
earthquake, and surrounding regions by employing participatory approaches. We support
innovation among Haitians through various economic, health, education, and agriculture
projects.

Donate and support our work today.

[PayPal button here]

*Sustain Haiti is a registered Utah non-profit. Federal tax-exempt status (501c3) is
pending.

Changemakers: individuals, groups, or organizations that introduce ideas or innovations into a system that leads to a
shift in the equilibrium of effectiveness therein with a primary result being improvement in some social indicator (drop-
out rates, drug usage rates, incrimination rates, poverty levels, etc.).

42
Social Entrepreneurship: the use of entrepreneurial behaviour for social ends rather than for prot
objectives, or alternatively, that the prots generated are used for the benet of a specic disadvantaged group.
(Hibbert, S. A., Hogg, G., & Quinn, T. (2001). Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue
in Scotland. International Journal of Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7: 288301.)

Empower: to expand the assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and
hold accountable institutions that affect their lives.
(The World Bank, 2002, Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook, Ed. Deepa Narayan, Washington, DC:
World Bank Publications, xviii (retrieved from books.google.com on 3 November 2011).)

Participatory: [enabling] local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan
and to act. (Robert Chambers, 1994, The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal, Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton, USA).

Social Innovation: Social innovation refers to new ideas that resolve existing social, cultural, economic and
environmental challenges for the benefit of people and planet. A true social innovation is system-changing it
permanently alters the perceptions, behaviours and structures that previously gave rise to these challenges.
(Centre for Social Innovation, 2008, retrieved from http://www.socialinnovation.ca/about/social-innovation on 3
November 2011.)

Social Innovation

Sustain Haiti: Social Innovation for Haitians

composed of Haitians, development specialists, students, and social innovators. We use
social innovation as a strategy for assisting Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of the
earthquake, and surrounding regions. Our social innovation efforts include various
economic, health, education, and agriculture projects.

Participatory Development

Sustain Haiti: Participatory Development

designed to promote participatory development in the country. We use participatory
methods to assist Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of the earthquake, and surrounding
regions. Through all our various economic, health, education, and agriculture projects, we
make sure to take participatory approaches.

Social Entrepreneurship

Sustain Haiti: Social Entrepreneurship in Haiti


43
composed of Haitians, development specialists, students, and social entrepreneurs. We
use social entrepreneurship as a strategy to assist Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of
the earthquake, and surrounding regions. We support social entrepreneurship among
Haitians through various economic, health, education, and agriculture projects.

Changemakers

Sustain Haiti: Changemakers in Action

composed of changemakers, both Haitians and non-Haitians. We use a changemaker
framework to assist Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of the earthquake, and surrounding
regions. We support changemakers in Haiti through various economic, health, education,
and agriculture projects.

One Word with Definition (Example)

Sustain Haiti: Empowering Haitians

in response to the earthquake as a non-denominational, empowerment organization. We
seek to empower Haitians in Logne, the epicenter of the earthquake, and surrounding
regions through various economic, health, education, and agriculture projects. Your
donation goes to supporting this work, empowering Haitians to lift themselves out of
poverty and devastation.

Donate and support our work today.

[PayPal button here]

*Sustain Haiti is a registered Utah non-profit. Federal tax-exempt status (501c3) is
pending.

Empower: to expand the assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and
hold accountable institutions that affect their lives.
(The World Bank, 2002, Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook, Ed. Deepa Narayan, Washington, DC:
World Bank Publications, xviii (retrieved from books.google.com on 3 November 2011).)

44
AppendixE:PhaseIII-Study2Mock-ups(fullsiteexperiment
version)

Home Page

As recLangular plcLures (wlLh LexL below, names
llnklng Lo secuon ln ro[ecLs page):
lc: SmlLh !acqueL
newesL movle LheaLer ln Lown. MeeL enLrepreneur, SmlLh !acqueL.
lc: 8lalse 8elony/ MerlLeze aul
8lalse 8elony: 1he nexL blg Lhlng ln Lhe grocery buslness.
lc: SonAprendre 8osslgny
Cne mlcroloan, a loL more chalrs. MeeL SonAprendre 8osslgny.
As more square plcLure wlLh LexL Lo rlghL:
lc: !ulle !oseph:

!ulle !oseph [name a llnk] used Lo sell food (rlce, bean, sugar, our) ln SL.
Luenne buL aer all her money goL sLolen ln orL-Au-rlnce, she wenL
back Lo selllng charcoal ln Leogne.

She sald, 1he loan helped me so much. l don'L even know where Lo begln
ln descrlblng lL. l am very graLeful for you guys. WlLh Lhe loan, l am able Lo
feed my klds (3) wlLh Lhe proL and even pay for Lhelr school."

more >>
Pome age

45
About Us

lcLure of uaphne !oseph.
(capuon: uaphne !oseph, age 14, losL her moLher durlng Lhe
2010 earLhquake.)
Source: Czler Muhammad/1he new ?ork 1lmes
1exL: SLory..ln !anuary 12, 2010, a 7.0 M earLhquake
shocked Lhe lsland nauon of Palu. More Lhan Lhree mllllon
people were dlrecLly aecLed by Lhe dlsasLer. 1he Paluan
governmenL reporLed LhaL an esumaLed 230,000 people were
kllled and 1.3 mllllon le homeless. uaphne !oseph's moLher
was one of Lhem.

lL was for Lhls glrl and Lhe mllllons of oLhers llke her LhaL a
group of soclal enLrepreneurs formed !"#$%&'(Palu ln 2010.
8ecognlzlng Lhe llmlLs of shorL-Lerm humanlLarlan asslsLance,
we creaLed an organlzauon LhaL could meeL Paluan needs for
Lhe long run. locused on prlnclples of self-rellance and
susLalnable developmenL, our goal ls Lo help Paluans help
Lhemselves.

1he Paluan people are brave and LalenLed, buL Lhey need
help rebulldlng Lhelr llves and homes. 1hls need
lnsplres !"#$%&'()%&*. We are commlued Lo lmprovlng Lhe
llves of Lhe Paluan people.

46
Stories of Impact

SLorles of lmpacL
!ulle !oseph Age 42
!ulle !oseph used Lo sell food (rlce, bean, sugar, our) ln SL.
Luenne buL aer all her money goL sLolen ln orL-Au-rlnce,
she wenL back Lo selllng charcoal ln Leogne. She sald, 1he
loan helped me so much. l don'L even know where Lo begln ln
descrlblng lL. l am very graLeful for you guys. WlLh Lhe loan, l
am able Lo feed my klds (3) wlLh Lhe proL and even pay for
Lhelr school." She hopes Lo be able Lo save enough caplLal Lo
reLurn Lo selllng food ln SL. Luenne and Lo no longer Lravel Lo
Leogne Lo sell. WlLh Lhe funds she earns, she hopes Lo be
able Lo earn enough money Lo puL her chlldren Lhrough hlgh
school and Lo have savlngs ln her bank accounL Lo be able Lo
help her ln Lhe case of an emergency.
SLorles:
!ulle !oseph
SmlLh !acqueL
8lalse 8elony
SonAprendre 8osslgny

47
DonationPage

MarieDieulahasbeensellingpotsforeightyears.
Theloanhelpedhertosellindifferentstreetmarkets
(TomGato,Trouin)andmorepots.Shealsohasbeen
abletobuymoreatatimeandthathasallowedher
toavoidmakingtripstomoremarkets.Shealsois
abletogetthemcheaperwhenshebuysthemin
bulk.Shewouldliketohavemorecookware,notonly
pots,andhaveaspecificplacetoinstallandsell
them.
GiveMarieaMicroloan.DonatetoSustain
Haititoday.

48
AppendixE:Study3Mock-ups(fullpageversion)
Home Page

Pome age
Cr,
someLhlng
llke Lhls. l'll
help you
grab Lhe
lacebook
soclal plugln.
1hree phoLos:
1. CeL lnvolved: [oln us
on lacebook and
1wluer.
2. WhaL's everyone
Lalklng abouL?
3. !oln Lhe movemenL:
uonaLe Loday. (llnk Lo
uonaLe page)

49
AboutUs

50
Stories of Impact

Stories

Julie Joseph Age: 42
Julie Joseph used to sell food (rice, bean, sugar,
flour) in St. Etienne but after all her money got
stolen in Port-Au-Prince, she went back to selling
charcoal in Logne. She said, The loan helped
me so much. I dont even know where to begin in
describing it. I am very grateful for you guys.
With the loan, I am able to feed my kids (5) with
the profit and even pay for their school. She
hopes to be able to save enough capital to return
to selling food in St. Etienne and to no longer
travel to Logne to sell. With the funds she
earns, she hopes to be able to earn enough money
to put her children through high school and to
have savings in her bank account to be able to
help her in the case of an emergency.

!"#$%&'(#)(*+,-."(

51
Name: SonAprendre Rossigny Age:
54
SonAprendre has been selling chairs for some
time. The loan helped him to sell more chairs to
schools. He also began selling more than one size
of chairs to accommodate children. Expand his
seasonal business selling beans. He reports that
the price of beans continues to rise so he can get
higher profits for his sales. He also hopes to be
able to have more chairs available to sale when
the school year begins again to meet the demand
for them. He stated, My goals are to help my
kids finish school. But now, I am advanced in
age. Therefore I want to be able to have some
money saved up to take care of myself so that I
dont need to take out any more loans.

Name: Smith Jacquet Age: 34
Smith sells cell phone minutes, sim cards and
operates a movie theater. When Sustain Haiti
came to visit, the projector was being prepared.
With the latest round of loans, he was able to
build a new shelter (seen above) to screen movies
in. He shows one movie per day and usually has
about 20 people in attendance at the theater.

Name: Blaise Belony/ Meriteze Paul
During the first couple of loans, she began to sell
charcoal. However, with the most recent set of
loans she sold food products and other general
supplies including soap, cigarettes, matches, etc.
Her home is a steep hike down the mountain
from the St. Etienne market. She is able to sell
these products to those living down the mountain.
They continue to sell charcoal on market days in
Carrefour Dufort and Logne; however, the
groceries are much more profitable. They hope
to become the major supplier of food in the area
and sell to other vendors.

52
Name: Gertrude Durandisse
Getrude and her mother sell food in the market in
St. Etienne. They did not receive approval for the
third round of loans because she did not make her
last payment. She said that she got in an accident
in Port-au-Prince which meant that she couldnt
work as much. Additionally, they reported that
they sell food to people on credit and people had
not paid them back yet.

Name: Mathelice Jean Pierre Age: 60

He buys the goats from Trouin and the cows from
Marriani. He keeps the livestock for a few days
and then sells them at TomGato or other markets.
The loan helped him to able to buy the best
animals and more fatty cows and goats. He also
sells some peanuts and with the funds he received
from that, he was able to buy some land with the
profits that let him expand. Sustain Haiti learned
that he occasionally sells his goats and cows at a
loss. This is because he takes the going price for
the goats and cows at the market that day and it is
expensive to transport the animals back home
from the market.
Speaking of his future plans he says, I want to
be able to continue buying cows and goats that
are skinny and feed them in order to sell them for
more. I kill goat and sell the meat. I want to
continue buying beans and nuts, keep them until
the prices go up. While I can, I want to build up
a saving so I can take care of myself when I
cannot do business anymore. I was discouraged
because I had 980 HTD, the bank took it for other
people who didnt make their payment in another
MFI I was a member of.

Name: Clautude Emilien Age: 23
Clautude sells a variety of food products from a
stand in front of her house which is very near the
St. Etienne market. With the loan money she has
been able to buy more products and to buy more
things in bulk. While she still is not able to make
large savings on the products themselves as she
buys in bulk, she is able to save considerably on
transportation costs because she has more capital

53
to buy goods in bulk. She has one year left in
high school and hopes to study to become a nurse
once she completes high school. Her profits from
this business will help support her in school.

Name: Luoicitas Delice Age: 50
Luoicitas has been in business since 1987. She
sells fried food near the St. Etienne market. In the
several visits we made to the area, there was
consistently a crowd around her business. She
reported that the business was going well. During
weekly meetings with Sustain Haiti, she
frequently was eager to participate with
thoughtful answers to questions. She is a mother
of five and she reports that the expansion of her
business which was enabled by the Sustain Haiti
loan allowed her to better feed her children. She
had expressed some interest in expanding her
business into other foods, but when Sustain Haiti
visited, she had not yet done so.

Name: Genese Dieulice Age: 60

Genese has been selling coffee, gasoline and
kerosene for decades. She used to travel to
different markets in the area, however due to her
age; she runs the business from her home and in
St. Etienne. She is dependent on her daughter for
bookkeeping. When we visited her business, she
was not open for business and her supplies were
apparently gone. She reported that her son was
getting her more and that she would be open the
next day.

Name: Louis Junise Charles Age: 63
Louis Junise has been in business for about five
years. Initially, she had a shop in Port-au-Prince
but she moved to St. Etienne to help her son and
his five daughters after his wife passed away. She
had a broad range of items to sell but when the
earthquake happened she lost all of her
merchandise. She began selling motor oil, bread
and sandals after the quake. She now has
expanded to include a wide variety of food
products and hygiene products. In Sustain Haitis
latest rounds of loans she was able to expand to

54
include more food stuff. She wants to continue
doing the same business and wants to focus more
on food and less on sandals and motor oil. She
claims she has never lost any money on my
business. She has always seen a small margin of
profit. She hopes to be able to begin
accumulating more savings.

Name: Moise Estinfil Age: 39
Moise has a photocopying and printing business
which he operates in Trouin. Due to his distance
from Logne and St. Etienne, we were unable to
visit him at his business. However the
microcredit loan officer has made such visits. He
left Port-au-Prince with his wife and 5 kids
because he saw the need in the area and decided
to take the opportunity. He wants to expand the
business and offer better quality of services.
Also, laptop would be way better for him because
of the power situation. With the new loan, he
want to buy a second used Xerox machine and
gets it repair in order to get more business done
on time.

No photo available
Name: Marie Dieula Rossigny Age: 44
Marie Dieula has been selling pots for eight
years. The loan helped her to sell in different
street markets (Tom Gato, Trouin) and more pots.
She also has been able to buy more at a time and
that has allowed her to avoid making trips to
more markets. She also is able to get them
cheaper when she buys them in bulk. She would
like to have more cookware, not only pots, and
have a specific place to install and sell them.

Name: Jesula Napoleon Age:72
Jesula has been selling these products since she
was a child and is currently 72 years old. She
sells pork, oil and bouillon from her house. With
the loan she was able to buy larger pigs and was
able to make more sales.

55
Donation Page

!"#$%&&$
"'()%&$*#+)%$
,#%-./#"$',$
-0#$1.2+&3$
%44$

56
AbouttheAuthor

This research is the product of study and work with nonprofits and international
development organizations in the process of my undergraduate education. Following a
positive experience during my sophomore year in IAS 220, the introductory class for the
International Development minor, I began a more detailed study of international
development through taking ECON 431: Economics of Development. This course
exposed me to the seminal research in the economics of development as well as the
microeconomics influencing organizations, governments, and individuals in development
contexts. The following summer, I interned as a Research Associate with the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) and was tasked with producing a report reviewing
the literature about social entrepreneurship and examining its policy implications. As a
Research Associate, I was able to work alongside Glennon Harrison, a specialist in
Industry Policy, to produce CRSs first report for Congressional staff and staffers about
social entrepreneurship. This experience exposed me to additional literature about the
micromotives of development NGOs and trained me to think in terms of public policy.
I continued my exploration of this research subject through related college courses,
including PL SC 444: Political Economy of Development with Dr. Daniel Nielson and
ECON 382: Microeconomics. PL SC 444 provided me with tools to research
development questions as well as deeper knowledge of the theories of the political
economy of development. This class also marked the beginning of my relationship with
Dr. Nielson. ECON 382 introduced me to the theories in behavioral economics, many of
which have influenced the development of this research.

57
Other courses including Linear Algebra (MATH 313), Multivariable Calculus
(MATH 314), Development Economics (ECON 431), and Econometrics (ECON 388)
provide me with the tools necessary to design these experiments and perform the
statistical analyses that form a large portion of this thesis.
Additionally, I have had the opportunity to intern with several nonprofit organizations
and to study their behavior through BYUs Ballard Center for Economic Self-Reliance.
In on-campus internships with the Peery Foundation and Criterion Ventures, and through
interactions with the Acumen Fund, New Profit, Inc. (the original proposer of the idea of
a Social Innovation Fund), and Ashoka, I have observed how nonprofit leaders approach
development issues, engage with donors, and evaluate impact. This perspective has
helped me connect theory with practice through the course of this research and will
provide personal connections necessary for field research and data collection.
Drawing upon these past experiences, I developed the bulk of this thesis during the
Fall 2011 semester while in PL SC 359R: Experiments in Political Science. This class,
taught by Dr. Nielson and Dr. Joshua Gubler, consisted of both a survey of field
experiments in social science and a requirement for each student, individually or in
groups, to design an experiment of their own. The first study of this thesis is the direct
result of this class project, while the remaining two have developed through follow-up
conversations between Dr. Nielson and myself.

58
AbouttheAdviser

Dr. Daniel Nielson is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the
Political Economy and Development Lab at Brigham Young University. He received his
Ph.D. in international affairs from the University of CaliforniaSan Diego in 1997. He is
a specialist in international political economy, development, and comparative politics.
His previous research has explored international organizations, delegation, international
financial institutions, and the efficacy of foreign aid. His co-authored article on aid
shocks and violent conflict appeared in April 2011 in the American Journal of Polticial
Science. Two co-authored articles on foreign aid data and effectiveness appeared in
November 2011 in World Development. He co-edited the 2006 volume, Delegation and
Agency in International Organization, published by Cambridge University Press. He has
also authored articles in International Organization, Comparative Political Studies,
International Studies Quarterly, Review of International Organization, and numerous
other journals.
Prof. Nielson has significant experience in designing and implementing randomized
control trials (RCT). In the summer of 2009 he oversaw two RCTs in South Africa on
ethnic identification and xenophobic voting and another in El Salvador on the political
normalization of a former rebel group. In 2010-2011 he conducted additional RCTs on
international incorporation law, the effects of NGO scorecards Uganda, and the
incentives for Ugandan citizen monitors to send text messages regarding local
development conditions. He is known for his willingness to work with students and has
previously served as an honors thesis adviser for several students, including Katina

59
Stefanova in her thesis about development policy and political economy in post-
Communist Bulgaria and, more recently, Zach Davis in his thesis about authoritarian
governments and economic development. I have taken PL SC 444 from Dr. Nielson and
have just completed his class on designing field experiments (PL SC 359R).

Buzzwords Without Borders: Three Field Experiments in Individual Donation Behavior

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Buzzwords Without Borders: Three Field Experiments in Individual Donation Behavior

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BUZZWORDS WITHOUT BORDERS: THREE FIELD

Including all Words

Including All Words & Definitions

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen