Quantified Effect Size of Information Treatments on Earmarking Preference

confidence: high · 1 sources

⚠
Working research — not a recommendation.

This page records what the evidence says a policy does, not what anyone should do about it. It has been synthesized from the cited sources but has not been independently reviewed.

What the evidence says

A randomized survey experiment (Fuchs 2019, Management Science) finds that allowing donors to earmark their contributions increases willingness to donate: the source reports this difference as statistically significant, but does not give a magnitude in the reviewed material. That gap matters for this topic specifically — every claim available here establishes direction, not size, so the evidence base does not currently support a quantified effect size for any of these outcomes.

The same study locates the source of that increase: the earmarking effect is driven mainly by activating more donors to give at all, not by increasing how much existing donors contribute. In other words, earmarking changes participation on the extensive margin (more donors), with no measured effect on the intensive margin (donation amounts). A related finding from a follow-up experiment in the same study reports that earmarking options increase potential donors' perceived ability to make a specific impact, and that this sense of agency is proposed as part of what explains the increased willingness to donate — described by the source itself as "preliminary light on the effect's underlying process," so the mediation claim carries lower confidence than the direct effect.

The earmarking effect is not uniform across populations. The same study reports that earmarking is less effective in countries that score lower on autonomy relative to embeddedness, and separately less effective in countries that score lower on egalitarianism relative to hierarchy — two distinct cultural-value interactions, each reported as an attenuation of the earmarking effect rather than a reversal.

On the topic as framed — the effect of information treatments on earmarking preference — the available sources do not speak directly. Every claim here concerns earmarking as the treatment (letting donors direct funds) and its effect on donation behavior, not an information intervention that changes people's preference for earmarking itself. That is an absence worth stating plainly rather than papering over.

Where the evidence splits

No contradictions in the current sources.

Thresholds and dose-response

No threshold established in the current sources.

Open empirical questions

Findings

Allowing earmarking increases willingness to donate

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: lowconsensus: thin — single study; direction reported as statistically significant, magnitude not quantified
mechanism
not established in this claim
effect
positive increase in willingness to donate; magnitude not quantified in the source
conditions / moderators
attenuates in countries lower on autonomy relative to embeddedness, and in countries lower on egalitarianism relative to hierarchy (see cultural-moderation finding below)

The earmarking effect on donation is driven by donor activation, not donation size

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: mediumconsensus: thin — single study
mechanism
earmarking activates more donors to give, rather than increasing the amounts that already-donating donors contribute
effect
positive effect on the number of donors activated; no measured effect on donation amounts
conditions / moderators
not established

Cultural value orientation moderates the earmarking effect

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: mediumconsensus: thin — single study
mechanism
not stated beyond the interaction itself
effect
negative interaction — the earmarking effect attenuates in countries scoring lower on autonomy relative to embeddedness, and separately in countries scoring lower on egalitarianism relative to hierarchy; magnitude not quantified
conditions / moderators
holds specifically along these two cultural-value dimensions; not established for other moderators

Earmarking options increase donors' perceived ability to make specific impact

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: lowconsensus: thin — single study
mechanism
not established beyond the perception itself
effect
positive increase in perceived ability to make specific impact; magnitude not quantified
conditions / moderators
not established

Sense of agency mediates the earmarking effect on willingness to donate

confidence — direction: mediumconfidence — magnitude: lowconsensus: thin — single study, mediation explicitly framed as preliminary
mechanism
earmarking increases donors' sense of agency, which the source proposes helps explain the increased willingness to donate
effect
positive indirect effect; magnitude not quantified, described by the source as preliminary
conditions / moderators
not established