Charity Without Choice: The Impact of Receiving Prosocial Gifts on Subsequent Donations

Summary

This paper investigates how receiving prosocial gifts — donations made to a charity in someone’s name — affects the recipient’s willingness to donate to the same charity later. Across four experiments (total N across studies = hundreds), the authors show that when a prosocial gift is unrequested it can reduce recipients’ future donation intentions compared with receiving no gift or when the gift was explicitly requested. The mechanism is psychological reactance: unrequested gifts threaten recipients’ sense of freedom and control, prompting them to distance themselves from the charity.

The negative effect disappears when recipients are given back choice (for example, allowed to choose which project the donation supports), when they explicitly requested the prosocial gift, or when the cause aligns with the recipient’s identity. The paper offers clear managerial implications for charities and gift-platforms: restore recipient agency to avoid undermining repeat support.

Key Points

Receiving an unrequested prosocial gift (a donation made in the recipient’s name without their prior request) lowers recipients’ willingness to donate later to the same charity.
The reduction in future donations is mediated by perceived threat to freedom and a reactance response: recipients feel their autonomy has been curtailed.
When the prosocial gift is explicitly requested by the recipient, the negative effect disappears and can even increase future donation intentions.
Managerially, offering recipients a choice about how the donation will be used (restoring decision-making control) eliminates the backfire effect.
Identity congruence between recipient and cause also attenuates the negative effect; social distance between giver and recipient is a likely moderator.

Why should I read this?

Quick and practical: if you work in fundraising, charity marketing or run a gifting platform, this paper explains why the ‘gift that gives twice’ can unexpectedly harm repeat donations. It’s not about being moral or not – it’s about agency. Give people a say and they’ll stick around; impose choices and they may push back. Saves you time and a chunk of misguided donation strategy.

Author style

Punchy. The authors present tight experimental evidence and a crisp psychological mechanism (reactance) with direct, testable takeaways for practitioners. If you care about maximising donor lifetime value or designing prosocial gift products, the details are worth a careful read.

Context and Relevance

This research sits at the intersection of gift-giving, ethical consumption and charitable marketing. Prosocial gifts are growing in popularity among millennials and Gen Z and are actively promoted by large charities. The findings matter because they show that a well-intentioned donation-as-gift can harm the recipient’s future relationship with the charity unless steps are taken to preserve recipient autonomy. It connects to wider trends emphasising personalised, consent-driven engagement and provides an easy intervention (offer a choice) charities can implement to optimise repeat giving.