Table S2.
Results split by amount donated in 2013
| Specification | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6a | A7a |
| Dependent variable | Chose to donate | Chose to donate | Chose to donate | Chose to donate | Chose to donate | Chose to donate |
| Regression model | OLS | OLS | OLS | OLS | OLS | OLS |
| 2013 donations threshold | <$90 | $90+ | <$30 | $30+ | <$180 | $180+ |
| N | 2,071 | 1,570 | 812 | 2,829 | 3,037 | 604 |
| R2 | 0.028 | 0.026 | 0.028 | 0.020 | 0.030 | 0.009 |
| Treatment | ||||||
| Swag offered | −0.014 (0.012) | −0.031 (0.014)** | 0.012 (0.017) | −0.026 (0.011)** | −0.023 (0.010)** | −0.020 (0.019) |
| Meals offered | −0.025 (0.012)** | −0.031 (0.014)** | −0.001 (0.015) | −0.031 (0.010)*** | −0.032 (0.010)*** | −0.012 (0.022) |
| Constant | 0.105 (0.023)*** | 0.150 (0.023)*** | 0.084 (0.039)** | 0.136 (0.018)*** | 0.152 (0.021)*** | 0.087 (0.026)*** |
| Month fixed effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
All SEs are Huber–White robust. **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01.
a
Only 17% of the sample gave at $180+ in 2013, which is in large part why model A6 resembles the main results and model A7 fails to achieve statistical significance.