Curch Goera (Frequency of going to a house of worship) 0.58 0.99 (n=1)
Left Votera 0.48 0.004 (n=1)
Singlea 0.57 0.33 (n=1)
Volunteereda 0.56 0 (n=0)
Social Sciencesa 0.35 0.004 (n=1)
Donateda (Past 12 Months) 0.26 0.004 (n=1)
Donation Amount (Total 12 Months) €51 €5 (n=3)
Donation Amount Development Cooperation €28.13 €5 (n=3) Same Organisationsa (Donation Loyalty) 0.14 0 (n=0)
Progress feedbacka 0.71 0.007(n=2)
Targetinga 0.95 1 (n=3)
Alternative with impact evaluationa 0.56 0.01 (n=2) Op1: Implementing Impact Evaluation a 1.86 2.33 (n=3)
Op2: Aid – Corruption a 2.2 0 (n=3)
Op3: Aid Commitment a 2.18 0 (n=3)
Op4: Aid Ineffective a 1.44 0 (n=3)
Appendix D: Correlations of donation amount and significant socio-demographic variables and attitudinal variables
Gender
When comparing gender-based differences, women feature relatively higher participation levels than male respondents. Both genders donate with highest frequency when assigned to the impact group, where 61% of females in the impact group decide to contribute compared to 49% in the control-treatment. Regarding the male respondents, 45% decide to donate when assigned in the impact group compared to 41% of the male participants in the control
52
treatment. Also, the valuation of male respondents between the impact- and seal group is very similar, where donation participation equals 45% for both treatments.
Female participants show higher giving levels then male respondents which goes along with previous study findings. Also both genders prefer the impact treatment, where female participants assigned to the impact group donate on average €20 (male: €14) compared to €13 in the control group (male: €12).
Figure A3: Donation Participation and Giving Levels per Gender and Treatment
Church Visiting Tendency
Persons who visit the church feature higher donation participation than respondents who never visit which goes along with previous study findings. Only the seal-treatment is an exception where 50% of non-church goers are willing to donate compared to a donation likelihood of 49% of church-visiting participants when assigned to the seal-treatment. The difference of 1% however is small. For participants who visit the church, donation participation is highest when assigned to the impact treatment (62%), followed by the control- (51%) and seal-group (49%). Regarding participants who do not visit the church however, giving participation is highest for persons assigned to the seal treatment (50%), followed by the impact group (46%) and the control treatment (40%).
Church Visitors feature higher giving levels than non church-visitors which holds true for all 3 treatments (the difference however is very small for respondents assigned to the seal-group).
Also, both church visiting types donate the highest amounts when assigned to the impact group (€20 for church visitors/ €14 for non church visitors), followed by the control- (€14/
€11) and the seal-treatment (€10/ €9).
53
Figure A4: Donation Participation and Giving Levels per Church Visiting Tendency and Treatment
Political Orientation
Results differ widely for each political orientation type. Participants, who voted for left-wing parties, also prefer the impact treatment when regarding donation participation rates (66%), followed by the control- (53%) and seal group (48%). This supports previous findings within this study, where donation participation tends to be (significantly) higher for persons assigned in the impact treatment compared to the other treatments. Center voters prefer the seal treatment (54%), followed by the control (45%)- and finally the impact treatment (38%).
Right voters value each treatment equally (33%).
Regarding giving levels findings for participants, who are left voters, support previous results in this study. Therefore, donation amounts are highest for persons assigned to the impact treatment (€23), followed by the control group (€17) and the seal-treatment (€12). Left voters also feature higher giving levels compared to center and right wing voters, which goes along with expectations and other study findings.
Figure A5: Donation Participation and Giving Levels for Each Political Orientation and Treatment
.618644
54
Partnership Status
Giving participation regarding all three treatments is higher for participants who are single compared to persons in a relationship. This finding does not go along with previous studies, where persons in a partnership normally feature higher giving levels than singles. The current study however focuses on students, whereas other studies take a different sample group into account, where persons in a relationship often might share a household together. This makes comparison therefore difficult since partners who share a common household have a different financial position. Both singles and non-singles feature highest donation participation when assigned to the impact-treatment (57%/ 51%).
Also giving levels for all three treatments are higher for single participants compared to respondents being in a relationship. Both relationship types value the impact treatment highest in regard to donated amounts, where single persons donate on average €20 (within partnership: €14) when assigned to the impact group, followed by €13 (within partnership:
€12) in the control group and €12 (within partnership: €8) in the seal treatment.
Figure A6: Giving Participation and Levels for Each Partnership Status
.663793
55
Development Cooperation Interest
Persons interested in the topic of development cooperation feature higher participation levels compared to respondent who are not interested, which goes along with previous expectations.
Interested persons value the impact treatment highest where donation participation rates make up 63% when assigned to the impact group, followed by 53% for persons in the control- and 52% in the seal-treatment. Non interested respondents however feature highest donation participation levels when assigned to the seal group (45%), followed by the impact- (36%) and control group (31%).
Figure A7: Giving Participation and Levels Regarding Development Cooperation Interest
OP1
The majority of 75% out of 578 respondents agrees that impact evaluations should take place before an aid program is implemented which also holds true when differentiating for treatments. However, giving levels seem unaffected for respondents opting for impact evaluations taking place before an aid program is implemented.
.627451
56
Figure A8: Giving Levels Regarding OP1
OP3
The majority of 82% having 578 respondents in total thinks that indeed, much has been done in the field of Development Cooperation but at the same time much more could have been done. The result remains stable when differentiating for treatments. Persons who think that much has been done but at the same time more could have been undertaken to support poverty alleviation also feature higher giving levels on average. This goes along with prior expectations as it signals that persons care about the topic and support development cooperation practice. This effect is especially pronounced when being primed with the impact treatment.
Figure A9: Giving Levels Regarding OP3
17.2737
12.792
10.0472
05101520
Giving Levels
Impact Control Seal
Yes
16.087
13.3065
8.76923
051015
Giving Levels
Impact Control Seal
No
OP1: Impact Evaluations before Aid Implementation
57
OP4
For the statement that development cooperation is apparently ineffective, the majority of 59%
(578 respondents in total) does not support this argument. The results do not change when differentiating for treatments however relatively fewer people neglect this argument when assigned to the impact treatment (54%) compared to control (61%) and seal (62%). This might indicate that persons think that aid at the moment is quite effective. As goes along with expectations, persons who think that aid is effective also feature higher giving levels on average (except for respondents within control group where giving levels are equal irrespective of their opinion on aid effectiveness).
18.5163
13.6065
10.2296
05101520
Giving Levels
Impact Control Seal
Yes
10.3659
9.84375
7.64516
0246810
Giving Levels
Impact Control Seal
No
OP3: Development Aid - Much Done, But Not Enough
58
Figure A9: Giving Levels Regarding OP4