Skip to main content
PMC home page
Frontiers in Psychology logoLink to Frontiers in Psychology
. 2022 Mar 7;13:768823. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.768823

Climate Donations Inspired by Evidence-Based Fundraising

Ren Ryba 1, Matthew J Dry 2, Sean D Connell 1,*
PMCID: PMC8936950  PMID: 35321034

Abstract

Everyone has an opportunity to contribute to climate solutions. To help people engage with this opportunity, it is critical to understand how climate organizations and fundraisers can best communicate with people and win their financial support. In particular, fundraisers often rely on practical skills and anecdotal beliefs at the expense of scientific knowledge. Fundraisers could be motivated to achieve a substantial boost in funding for climate solutions, if there is evidence of the financial gains that science-based fundraising makes available. In this Perspective, we provide a preliminary foray into such evidence. We bring together findings from philanthropic research and climate psychology to identify what factors can help captivate donors. Then, through an experimental study of a charitable appeal for a climate charity, we show how putting these factors into practice may contribute toward an increase in donated money. This provides optimism that evidence-based fundraising can inspire donors to contribute much-needed resources toward climate solutions.

Keywords: communication, conservation, effective altruism, non-profit, philanthropy

Introduction

When it comes to climate solutions, non-profit organizations have a vital role to play (Osuri, 2010). These charities further climate research and policy by funding research into new technologies, developing mitigation strategies, and educating the public (Osuri, 2010; Nisbet, 2018), particularly important roles given the failure of developed nations to deliver public money (Roberts et al., 2021). To perform these roles in society, charities generally rely on donations from the public (Yen et al., 1997; Verssimo et al., 2018). However, there remains a chasm between the current size of the climate non-profit sector and the resources that are needed to effectively confront climate change (Yeo, 2019). So, for climate charities to maximize their impact, it is critical to understand what motivates people to engage with them (Ryba and Connell, 2020).

As fundraising remains an emerging profession, many fundraisers and the charities they support adopt the mind-set that fundraising is more of an art than a science (Cremades and Corcoran, 2016; Phillips, 2016). Fundraisers often emphasize practical skills and anecdotal beliefs at the expense of theoretical and empirical knowledge (Lindahl and Conley, 2002; Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010; Aldrich, 2016). This is despite the inroads that have been made in the scientific literature into how non-profit organizations can use messages to increase their appeal to donors (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010; Whillans, 2016) and, separately, what drives people’s concern for climate change (Weber, 2010, 2016; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica, 2014). For fundraising to meaningfully contribute to urgently needed climate solutions, organizations have the opportunity to adopt an evidence-based perspective on how to engage with donors. And for the organizations that do so, the financial rewards may be substantial (Oppenheimer and Olivola, 2011).

In particular, at the center of successful fundraising campaigns is an inspiring message to donors (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010; Whillans, 2016). Crafting an inspiring message is cost-effective for climate charities, which makes this an accessible, tractable way to maximize the impact of fundraising efforts in this resource-scarce sector (Ramutsindela et al., 2013; Waldron et al., 2013)—all it requires is the motivation to put empirical findings into practice (Whillans, 2016).

The non-profit sector can potentially unlock millions of dollars for climate solutions, if there is evidence of the financial gains that science-based fundraising makes available. Here, we show how such evidence may be provided. We bring together findings from philanthropic research and climate psychology to identify what factors can help captivate donors. Then, through an experimental study of a charitable appeal for a climate charity, we show how putting these factors into practice may cause an increase in donated money.

The Science of Climate Charity

At the interface of environment and fundraising is an emerging literature on how to spur financial support for environmental non-profits (Yen et al., 1997; Bulte et al., 2005; Israel, 2007; Markowitz et al., 2013; Vollan et al., 2017; Lundberg et al., 2019, 2020; Nelson et al., 2019). Field, laboratory and online studies have identified a range of factors that encourage charitable donations to environmental causes in scenarios involving real money (Christie, 2007; Uehleke and Sturm, 2017; Shreedhar and Mourato, 2019). For example, a donor might give more money if a message evokes emotions rather than social norms (Bergquist et al., 2020); if a message highlights humanity’s responsibility (Shreedhar and Mourato, 2019); if a message emphasizes charismatic or flagship species (Thomas-Walters and Raihani, 2017; Verssimo et al., 2018; Shreedhar and Mourato, 2019); if a message emphasizes threatened species (Veríssimo et al., 2017); if a message focuses on the non-human beneficiaries of donations (Batavia et al., 2018); or even if a message features amusing memes (Lenda et al., 2020).

More specifically, some researchers have begun to investigate the components of an effective message in the context of real-money donations for climate solutions (Löschel et al., 2013). Here, a donor may make give more money if a message emphasizes the impact of anthropogenic climate change, rather than extreme weather events (Ellis et al., 2016); if a message features scientific information from experts about the impacts of climate change (Milinski et al., 2006); if the location of the mitigation is made salient (Diederich and Goeschl, 2018); if the message emphasizes the impact on incomes of future generations (Svenningsen, 2019); if the message is framed as doing good, rather than undoing harm (Blasch, 2014); and possibly if a message highlights social norms (Löschel et al., 2017; Goeschl et al., 2018).

However, these studies are relatively few, and they represent only a subset of the many components of an effective message that have been identified by research on fundraising and, separately, public engagement with climate (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica, 2014; Weber, 2016, 2010; Whillans, 2016). So, if climate charities are to make the most of their resources, there is a potentially lucrative opportunity to take advantage of these complementary bodies of literature. Here, we show the potential monetary gains that may arise from doing so, through an experimental study involving real donors giving real money to a climate charity.

Crafting Captivating Messages: An Experimental Study

A climate organization that engages with the literature on effective messaging may receive significant financial returns. To provide preliminary evidence on these financial benefits, we now turn to our experimental study.

Data Collection

We created three textual messages that each aimed to solicit donations for a climate organization, Coalition for Rainforest Nations1 (Halstead, 2018). The messages were the same in content and logical flow, but they differed systematically in eight components known to influence the effectiveness of charity messages or climate messages (Ryba et al., 2021). This way, we could assess how the different combinations of message characteristics influence the money donated. The combinations of each of the eight components present in each of the three messages are described in Table 1. The eight components themselves were:

TABLE 1.

The eight components used to craft messages of different impact levels.

Message characteristic Meaning Level in high-impact message Level in med-impact message Level in low-impact message
Impact Does the message state the concrete impact of donating? A concrete measure of the averted carbon dioxide emissions per dollar donated. A statement that emissions are averted, but with no concrete measure. A statement that emissions are averted, but with no concrete measure.
Motives Does the message invoke altruistic or self-interested motives? A statement that a donation will help preserve the environment. A statement that a donation will help preserve the environment. A statement that a donation will give a feeling of satisfaction.
Endorsement Is the charity endorsed by an authority figure? An endorsement by a policy researcher from a well-known university. An endorsement by a policy researcher from a well-known university. No endorsement by an authority figure.
Co-benefits Does the message mention positive side effects of donating? A statement that donations also increase employment in developing countries. No mention of positive side effects of donating. No mention of positive side effects of donating.
Frame Is the message framed in terms of climate or a different issue? Framed in terms of climate change. Framed in terms of climate change. Framed in terms of air pollution and its impact on human health.
Proximity Does the message focus on consequences of the issue that are nearby in space and time? Emphasis of consequences in the same country and year of the study. Emphasis of consequences in a different continent and future century. Emphasis of consequences in a different continent and future century.
Social norms Does the message mention how the reader’s peers feel about the issue? A statement that university students are concerned about the issue. No mention of university students. No mention of university students.
Growing risk Does the message emphasize that the issue is increasing in severity? A statement that the risk is growing more urgent each year. No mention of the growing risk. No mention of the growing risk.
Open in a new tab

The three messages, which were constructed using systematic combinations of the above characteristics, were designated as high, medium, and low impact based on findings from existing research. The combinations of characteristics present in each of the three messages are summarized in Table 1. These messages constitute the experimental treatment in this study (see Supplementary Information for full messages).

The core outcome variable in this study is the amount of money donated to the designated charitable organization. We recruited participants from undergraduate science classrooms. We asked each participant to read one of the three messages, assigned at random via an online survey platform (SurveyMonkey). Each participant was informed, via the survey page, that we were giving them $10 in cash. They were offered the opportunity to donate some amount of this cash to the charity. They were told that they could donate any amount from $0 to 10, and that they would keep any money they did not donate.

To correct for differences in donations due to personal factors (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011), we also collected data on their characteristics, including their demographics, beliefs, and worldviews, using a survey. At the end, participants received the money they chose to keep, and the money they chose to give was donated to the charity as a lump sum. Participants were also offered the chance to give general feedback. All donations and survey responses were anonymous. Participants were not made aware of the experimental manipulation until after the experiment.

We approached three classrooms, consisting of 79 students, for participation. We selected this number as 55 participants, allowing for 70% completion, achieved a power above 0.95 given an R-squared value of 0.20 and a significance level of 0.05 for multiple regression with 5 predictors (Cohen, 1992). All 79 students chose to participate, and 70 participants (24 high-impact, 24 medium-impact, 22 low-impact) gave complete responses. We only analyzed complete responses, as required by principal component analysis.

Data was collected during three sessions in March and April 2020. The first two sessions were conducted in university laboratories in Adelaide, Australia during teaching hours. The third session (15 participants) was conducted online, since university campuses closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in between sessions of data collection. Participants in the online session were given a version of the experiment where the money was hypothetical only. Existing research shows that hypothetical rewards and real rewards can yield similar findings (Kühberger et al., 2002; Locey et al., 2011), although divergences have been documented (Vlaev, 2012). We include the hypothetical participants in the statistical model, but also generate a model where they are excluded to examine the effects of this decision (see Discussion).

The experiment and survey were approved by the School of Psychology Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Adelaide (approval number: H-2020/06).

Statistical Analysis

We generated linear regression models to assess how donation size was affected by the message and the variables corresponding to the demographics, worldviews, and political beliefs. However, many of those latter variables were highly correlated. To transform these correlated donor characteristics into a set of uncorrelated variables, we applied principal component analysis (PCA). This produced a set of principal components (PCs) that each consisted of a linear combination of donor characteristics. We retained the first three components (PC1, PC2, PC3) based on the criterion of Lott (1973), applicable for principal component regression as performed here (Jolliffe, 2002). On the first component (PC1), a lower position corresponded to the political left, support for progressive parties, concern about climate change, and an egalitarian worldview; a higher position corresponded the political right, support for conservative parties, less concern about climate change, and a hierarchical worldview. On the second component (PC2), a lower position corresponded to younger age, less financial security, and an individualist worldview; a higher position corresponded to older age, greater financial security, and a communitarian worldview. On the third component (PC3), a lower position corresponded to lower religious beliefs, older age, and an individualist worldview; a higher position corresponded to greater religious beliefs, younger age, and a communitarian worldview. We note that these are only some of the items that compose each of the PCs; for the visualization, see Supplementary Information.

We generated linear regression models to assess how donation size was affected by the message and the covariates, as represented by the retained PCs (Table 2). We allowed for interaction terms between the message and each PC, as interactions between message characteristics and donor characteristics have been found in previous research (McDonald et al., 2015; Rickard et al., 2016; e.g., Kim and Ahn, 2019).

TABLE 2.

Linear regression model for the effects of message impact and personal characteristics on money donated.

Donation
Predictors Estimates std. Error t p
Intercept 14.83 5.03 2.95 0.005 *
Impact −5.46 2.37 −2.30 0.025 *
PC1 −3.67 4.42 −0.83 0.409
PC2 −9.28 6.10 −1.52 0.133
PC3 −8.68 6.14 −1.41 0.162
PC1*Message 2.74 2.46 1.12 0.268
PC2*Message 6.75 3.14 2.15 0.035 *
PC3*Message 4.48 2.75 1.63 0.108
Observations df 70 62
R2/R2 adjusted 0.157/0.062
AIC 381.426
Open in a new tab

*p < 0.05.

In our models, we expressed message-impact as a continuous variable. We encountered no need to restrict the response variable to between $0 and 10, as the linear model did not make predictions outside this range. Finally, to express results in a way that is meaningful to a charity organization, we used the models to predict the donation at each message impact, given mean values of PC1 and PC2.

Data analysis was performed in R, using the packages multilevel for Cronbach’s alpha scores, factoextra for principal component analysis, and ggplot2 and sjPlot for visualization (Bliese, 2016; Wickham, 2016; Lüdecke, 2018; Kassambara and Mundt, 2020; R Core Team, 2020).

Results

The average donation was AUD $6.10 (SD: $3.56). Without controlling for covariates, the average donation for the high-impact message was $6.83 (SD: $3.91), compared to $5.83 (SD: $3.40) for the medium-impact message and $5.59 (SD: $3.36) for the low-impact message.

The outcome of this experimental study provides preliminary evidence as to how climate organizations can capture greater funding by drawing on findings from scientific research to craft an inspiring message. A boost of 25%, from the low- to the high-impact message, as calculated from model predictions, is substantial when considered across the fundraising efforts of a climate organization or the entire sector (Bergquist et al., 2020). The funding that climate and environmental organizations currently receive is far short of what is necessary to achieve solutions (Osuri, 2010; Waldron et al., 2013; Bergquist et al., 2020; Ryba and Connell, 2020). Achieving a boost in private donations for a minimal investment of effort can be part of the answer.

Discussion

Evidence can be a powerful motivator for change. There is much progress remaining for society to reach the level of funding necessary to achieve meaningful climate solutions (Yeo, 2019; Nature Climate Change, 2020). Fundraisers and the climate organizations that they support have the opportunity to adopt an evidence-based viewpoint on how to captivate donors, drawing upon the evolving literature on philanthropic studies (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2010; Whillans, 2016) and climate psychology (Weber, 2010, 2016; Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica, 2014). The evidence in our experimental study shows that the financial returns for doing so could be substantial. This provides optimism that the non-profit sector can inspire donors to contribute much-needed resources toward climate solutions.

There are a number of avenues by which our experimental study can be improved. Firstly, our sample size was quite low, at 70 observations across three treatment groups. While this number satisfied our initial power analysis, we were expecting far more participants. However, the university at which participants were recruited was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in between experimental sessions. Indeed, many members of the research community have had to reconsider study design and adjust expectations for this reason (Barroga and Matanguihan, 2020; Coleman et al., 2020). The small sample size increases the risk of overinterpreting the data, particularly given the interaction effects and inclusion of three PCs. We included the interaction effects based on previous theoretical and empirical studies on this topic. Likewise, we retained three PCs based on the criterion of Lott (1973). However, this criterion (as with every decision rule for retaining PCs) is imperfect. When the interaction terms or PC3 are dropped, for example, the effect sizes remain similar, but the statistical significance does not. For this reason, we strongly encourage the interpretation of this study as a preliminary foundation for future work with larger sample sizes.

Secondly, and relatedly, a small number of our participants were given an online version of the experiment with rewards that were hypothetical, rather than real. Adapting studies to online platforms is another change that many researchers have had to make (Garcia and Barclay, 2020; Hussain, 2020; Vicente et al., 2020). The statistical results are very similar when this subgroup is excluded (see Supplementary Information). Thirdly, manipulation checks may ensure that participants understood the information presented to them. This would help ensure that the treatments are meaningful and effective in bringing about the intended changes (Hauser et al., 2018). Fourthly, the summary statistics of participant demographics reveal that the sample was typical for a university campus, but not necessarily representative of potential audiences of climate organizations (see Supplementary Information). Given these limitations, we encourage the interpretation of our experimental study as a preliminary step, and we anticipate future studies that take further steps down these avenues toward improving the methodology.

Here, we showed how adopting a broad toolkit from published literature may boost donations to a climate organization. To help organizations make the most of this opportunity, researchers can unpack the science of effective climate appeals at a finer scale. Published studies in that context, using real money, are few (Milinski et al., 2006; Blasch, 2014; Ellis et al., 2016; Löschel et al., 2017, 2013; Diederich and Goeschl, 2018; Goeschl et al., 2018; Svenningsen, 2019). Openings remain for providing insight into precisely what inspires donors to contribute to climate solutions. We believe that this is an important avenue for future research—providing detailed insight for climate organizations to engage with donors can help capture greater donations, which in turn can help address the resource gap in the societal challenge that is addressing climate change.

In our experimental study, we provided donors with the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback. This revealed one further avenue by which climate charities can be aided: building trust. Several participants expressed skepticism of charities, with comments such as “Charities are rife with misuse of funds,’ and ‘I often find myself skeptical of a charity’s merits.” This skepticism mirrors issues with trust and accountability in the not-for-profit sector as a whole (Bourassa and Stang, 2016; Kantar Public, 2017). The emergence of effective altruism, a movement that promotes donating to causes and organizations supported by rigorous, scientific evidence, provides one way for charities to demonstrate their effectiveness (MacAskill, 2015; Singer, 2015). Indeed, scientific evidence of a charity’s effectiveness has been shown to increase donations (Vollan et al., 2017), and we selected the charity in this study for its performance in a systematic assessment of climate charities (Halstead, 2018). Educating donors about the scientific evidence for a charitable organization may be a critical step toward restoring donors’ trust and generosity.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by School of Psychology Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Adelaide. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

RR and SC performed investigation. RR performed data curation, formal analysis, and wrote original draft. All authors contributed to review, editing, conceptualization, and methodology.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the experimental participants for contributing their time and effort, as well as the facilitators for contributing to the smoothly run experimental sessions.

Funding Statement

RR was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. SC was supported by an ARC grant (LP20020100).

Footnotes

1

We selected this organization as it ranked as a highly effective, evidence-based climate charity at the time of the study. More recent evidence has revised the conclusion as to this charity’s cost-effectiveness. We encourage interested readers to seek the latest recommendations for cost-effective charities, available from many organizations including Founders Pledge (www.founderspledge.com).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.768823/full#supplementary-material

Data_Sheet_1.docx (682.3KB, docx)

References

  1. Aldrich E. E. (2016). “Fundraising as a profession,” in Achieving Excellence in Fundraising, eds Tempel E. R., Sailer T. I., Burlingame D. F. (Hoboken: Wiley Publishing; ), 503–516. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballew M. T., Leiserowitz A., Roser-Renouf C., Rosenthal S. A., Kotcher J. E., Marlon J. R., et al. (2019). Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 61 4–18. 10.1080/00139157.2019.1589300 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barroga E., Matanguihan G. J. (2020). Fundamental shifts in research, ethics and peer review in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Korean Med. Sci. 35:e395. 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Batavia C., Bruskotter J. T., Jones J. A., Vucetich J. A., Gosnell H., Nelson M. P. (2018). Nature for whom? How type of beneficiary influences the effectiveness of conservation outreach messages. Biol. Conserv. 228 158–166. 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bekkers R., Wiepking P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 40 924–973. 10.1177/0899764010380927 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bekkers R., Wiepking P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving I: religion, education, age and socialisation. Volunt. Sect. Rev. 2 337–365. 10.1332/204080511x6087712 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger N., Lindemann A.-K., Boel G.-F. (2019). Public perception of climate change and implications for risk communication. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesund. 62 612–619. 10.1007/s00103-019-02930-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergquist M., Nystrom L., Nilsson A. (2020). Feeling or following? A field-experiment comparing social norms-based and emotions-based motives encouraging pro-environmental donations. J. Consum. Behav. 19 351–358. 10.1002/cb.1813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Blasch J. (2014). Consumer Demand for Voluntary Carbon Offsets: The Role of Motivations, Contexts, and Framing for Public Good Provision to Mitigate Climate Change. Zürich: ETH Zurich, 10.3929/ETHZ-A-010345632 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bliese P. (2016). multilevel: Multilevel Functions. Available Online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=multilevel (accessed September 1, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  11. Bourassa M. A., Stang A. C. (2016). Knowledge is power: why public knowledge matters to charities. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 21 13–30. 10.1002/nvsm.1537 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brügger A., Dessai S., Devine-Wright P., Morton T. A., Pidgeon N. F. (2015a). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5 1031–1037. 10.1038/nclimate2760 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brügger A., Morton T. A., Dessai S. (2015b). Hand in hand: public endorsement of climate change mitigation and adaptation. PLoS One 10:e0124843. 10.1371/journal.pone.0124843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Brugger A., Pidgeon N. F. (2018). Spatial framing, existing associations and climate change beliefs. Environ. Values 27 559–584. 10.3197/096327118X15321668325966 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bulte E., Gerking S., List J. A., de Zeeuw A. (2005). The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 49 330–342. 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.06.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions [CRED] and EcoAmerica (2014). Connecting on Climate: A Guide to Effective Climate Communication. New York: Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen M.-F. (2019). Social representations of climate change and pro-environmental behavior intentions in Taiwan. Int. Sociol. 34 327–346. 10.1177/0268580919832737 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Christie M. (2007). An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method: the case of red kite conservation in the United Kingdom. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 55 159–169. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00085.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chu H., Yang J. Z. (2019). Emotion and the psychological distance of climate change. Sci. Commun. 41 761–789. 10.1177/1075547019889637 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112 155–9. 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Coleman B. C., Kean J., Brandt C. A., Peduzzi P., Kerns R. D. (2020). Adapting to disruption of research during the COVID-19 pandemic while testing nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. Transl. Behav. Med. 10 827–834. 10.1093/tbm/ibaa074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cremades A., Corcoran B. (2016). The Art of Startup Fundraising: Pitching Investors, Negotiating the Deal, and Everything Else Entrepreneurs Need to Know, 1st Edition. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  23. de Vries H. B., Lubart T. I. (2019). Scientific creativity: divergent and convergent thinking and the impact of culture. J. Creat. Behav. 53 145–155. 10.1002/jocb.184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Diederich J., Goeschl T. (2018). Voluntary action for climate change mitigation does not exhibit locational preferences. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 90 175–180. 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis S. F., Fooks J. R., Messer K. D., Miller M. J. (2016). The effects of climate change information on charitable giving for water quality protection: a field experiment. Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev. 45 319–337. 10.1017/age.2016.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Evans L., Milfont T. L., Lawrence J. (2014). Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Glob. Environ. Change 25 69–75. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Everuss L., Carvalho M., Casanova J. L., Chaffee D., Lever-Tracy C. (2017). Assessing the public willingness to contribute income to mitigate the effects of climate change: a comparison of Adelaide and Lisbon. J. Sociol. 53 144078331668466. 10.1177/1440783316684661 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Garcia S. G., Barclay K. (2020). Adapting Research Methodologies in the Covid-19 Pandemic: Resources for Researchers. Ultimo: University of Technology Sydney. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gifford R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66 290–302. 10.1037/a0023566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Goeschl T., Kettner S. E., Lohse J., Schwieren C. (2018). From social information to social norms: evidence from two experiments on donation behaviour. Games 9:91. 10.3390/g9040091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Halstead J. (2018). Climate Change Cause Area Report. London: Founders Pledge. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hauser D. J., Ellsworth P. C., Gonzalez R. (2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Front. Psychol. 9:998. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hornsey M. J., Fielding K. S., McStay R., Reser J. P., Bradley G. L. (2016). Are people high in skepticism about anthropogenic climate change necessarily resistant to influence? some cause for optimism. Environ. Behav. 48 905–928. 10.1177/0013916515574085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hussain Z. (2020). Field Research in Lockdown: Revisiting Slow Science in the Time of COVID-19. [Updated 2020]. LSE Blogs. Available Online at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2020/04/29/field-research-in-lockdown-revisiting-slow-science-in-the-time-of-covid-19 (accessed September 1, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  35. Israel D. K. (2007). Charitable donations: evidence of demand for environmental protection? Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 13 171–182. 10.1007/s11294-007-9080-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Johannsen I. M., Lassonde K. A., Wilkerson F., Schaab G. (2018). Communicating climate change: reinforcing comprehension and personal ties to climate change through maps. Cartogr. J. 55 85–100. 10.1080/00087041.2017.1386834 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones C., Hine D. W., Marks A. D. G. (2017). The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Anal. 37 331–341. 10.1111/risa.12601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kahan D. M., Peters E., Wittlin M., Slovic P., Ouellette L. L., Braman D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2 732–735. 10.1038/nclimate1547 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kantar Public (2017). ACNC Public Trust and Confidence in Australian Charities 2017. Sydney, NSW: Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kassambara A., Mundt F. (2020). factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. Available Online at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (accessed September 1, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim K., Ahn S. J. (2019). The moderating role of cultural background in temporal framing: focusing on climate change awareness advertising. Asian J. Commun. 29 363–385. 10.1080/01292986.2019.1624793 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Krosnick J. A., Holbrook A. L., Lowe L., Visser P. S. (2006). The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim. Change 77 7–43. 10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kühberger A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., Perner J. (2002). Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89 1162–1175. 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lee P.-S., Sung Y.-H., Wu C.-C., Ho L.-C., Chiou W.-B. (2018). Using episodic future thinking to pre-experience climate change increases pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 52 60–81. 10.1177/0013916518790590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lenda M., Skórka P., Mazur B., Sutherland W., Tryjanowski P., Moroń D., et al. (2020). Effects of amusing memes on concern for unappealing species. Conserv. Biol. 34 1200–1209. 10.1111/cobi.13523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindahl W. E., Conley A. T. (2002). Literature review: philanthropic fundraising. Nonprofit Manage. Leadersh. 13 91–91. [Google Scholar]
  47. Locey M. L., Jones B. A., Rachlin H. (2011). Real and hypothetical rewards. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6 552–564. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Löschel A., Sturm B., Uehleke R. (2017). Revealed preferences for voluntary climate change mitigation when the purely individual perspective is relaxed – evidence from a framed field experiment. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 67 149–160. 10.1016/j.socec.2016.12.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Löschel A., Sturm B., Vogt C. (2013). The demand for climate protection—Empirical evidence from Germany. Econ. Lett. 118 415–418. 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.12.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lundberg P., Vainio A., MacMillan D. C., Smith R. J., Verissimo D., Arponen A. (2019). The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate. Anim. Conserv. 22 432–443. 10.1111/acv.12477 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lundberg P., Veríssimo D., Vainio A., Arponen A. (2020). Preferences for different flagship types in fundraising for nature conservation. Biol. Conserv. 250:108738. 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108738 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. MacAskill W. (2015). Doing Good Better. New York: Avery. [Google Scholar]
  53. Maibach E. W., Nisbet M., Baldwin P., Akerlof K., Diao G. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10:299. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Maibach E. W., Roser-Renouf C., Leiserowitz A. (2008). Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: a public health perspective. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 35 488–500. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Markowitz E. M., Shariff A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nat. Clim. Change 2 243–247. 10.1038/nclimate1378 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Markowitz E. M., Slovic P., Västfjäll D., Hodges S. D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8 397–406. [Google Scholar]
  57. McDonald R. I., Chai H. Y., Newell B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 44 109–118. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mildenberger M., Lubell M., Hummel M. (2019). Personalized risk messaging can reduce climate concerns. Glob. Environ. Change 55 15–24. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Milfont T. L., Evans L., Sibley C. G., Ries J., Cunningham A. (2014). Proximity to coast is linked to climate change belief. PLoS One 9:e103180. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Milinski M., Semmann D., Krambeck H. J., Marotzke J. (2006). Stabilizing the Earth’s climate is not a losing game: supporting evidence from public goods experiments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103 3994–3998. 10.1073/pnas.0504902103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Myers T. A., Nisbet M. C., Maibach E. W., Leiserowitz A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim. Change 113 1105–1112. 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Nature Climate Change (2020). Splashing the cash. Nat. Clim. Change 10:271. 10.1038/s41558-020-0755-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Nelson K. M., Partelow S., Schlueter A. (2019). Nudging tourists to donate for conservation: experimental evidence on soliciting voluntary contributions for coastal management. J. Environ. Manage. 237 30–43. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Nisbet M. C. (2018). Strategic philanthropy in the post-Cap-and-Trade years: reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9:e524. 10.1002/wcc.524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Oppenheimer D. M., Olivola C. Y. (2011). The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity. East Sussex: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  66. Osuri L. T. (2010). Charities warm to climate. Nature 464 821–821. 10.1038/464821a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Phillips G. (2016). The Art of Fundraising. Scotts Valley: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. [Google Scholar]
  68. R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ramutsindela M., Spierenburg M., Wels H. (2013). Sponsoring Nature: Environmental Philanthropy for Conservation. Milton Park: Routledge, 10.4324/9781315066011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Rickard L. N., Yang Z. J., Schuldt J. P. (2016). Here and now, there and then: how “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Glob. Environ. Change 38 97–107. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Roberts J. T., Weikmans R., Robinson S., Ciplet D., Khan M., Falzon D. (2021). Rebooting a failed promise of climate finance. Nat. Clim. Change 11 180–182. 10.1038/s41558-021-00990-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Romero-Canyas R., Larson-Konar D., Redlawsk D. P., Borie-Holtz D., Gaby K., Langer S., et al. (2019). Bringing the heat home: television spots about local impacts reduce global warming denialism. Environ. Commun. 13 740–760. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1455725 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Roser-Renouf C., Maibach E. W. (2018). “Strategic communication research to illuminate and promote public engagement with climate change,” in Change and Maintaining Change, eds Hope D. A., Bevins R. A. (Cham: Springer International Publishing; ), 167–218. 10.1007/978-3-319-96920-6_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Ryba R., Connell S. D. (2020). Funding conservation through an emerging social movement. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35 3–6. 10.1016/j.tree.2019.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Ryba R., Doubleday Z. A., Dry M. J., Semmler C., Connell S. D. (2021). Better writing in scientific publications builds reader confidence and understanding. Front. Psychol. 12:3484. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Schuldt J. P., Rickard L. N., Yang Z. J. (2018). Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 55 147–153. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Shreedhar G., Mourato S. (2019). Experimental evidence on the impact of biodiversity conservation videos on charitable donations. Ecol. Econ. 158 180–193. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Singer P. (2015). The Most Good You Can Do. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  79. Singh A. S., Zwickle A., Bruskotter J. T., Wilson R. (2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 73 93–99. 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Spence A., Poortinga W., Pidgeon N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32 957–972. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Stoknes P. E. (2014). Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox.” Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 161–170. 10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Svenningsen L. S. (2019). Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy. Clim. Change 157 319–336. 10.1007/s10584-019-02546-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Thomas-Walters L., Raihani N. J. (2017). Supporting conservation: the roles of flagship species and identifiable victims. Conserv. Lett. 10 581–587. 10.1111/conl.12319 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Uehleke R., Sturm B. (2017). The influence of collective action on the demand for voluntary climate change mitigation in hypothetical and real situations. Environ. Resour. Econ. 67 429–454. 10.1007/s10640-016-0028-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. van der Linden S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41 112–124. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. van der Linden S., Maibach E., Leiserowitz A. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10 758–763. 10.1177/1745691615598516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Veríssimo D., Vaughan G., Ridout M., Waterman C., MacMillan D., Smith R. J. (2017). Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biol. Conserv. 211 95–101. 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Verssimo D., Campbell H. A., Tollington S., MacMillan D. C., Smith R. J. (2018). Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a “real world” campaign. PLoS One 13:e0191888. 10.1371/journal.pone.0191888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Vicente H., Delicado A., Rowland J., Estevens J., Weiß A., Falanga R., et al. (2020). “Going virtual: finding new ways to engage higher education students in a participatory project about science,” in Research in the Age of COVID: Vol. 1, Response and Reassessment, eds Kara H., Khoo S. M. (Bristol: Bristol University Press; ), 20–29. 10.2307/j.ctv18gfz2s.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Vlaev I. (2012). How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 33 963–972. 10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Vollan B., Henning K., Staewa D. (2017). Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment. J. Dev. Effect. 9 500–518. 10.1080/19439342.2017.1377752 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Waldron A., Mooers A. O., Miller D. C., Nibbelink N., Redding D., Kuhn T. S., et al. (2013). Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 12144–12148. 10.1073/pnas.1221370110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Walker B. J. A., Kurz T., Russel D. (2018). Towards an understanding of when non-climate frames can generate public support for climate change policy. Environ. Behav. 50 781–806. 10.1177/0013916517713299 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Wang S., Hurlstone M. J., Leviston Z., Walker I., Lawrence C. (2019). Climate change from a distance: an analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. Front. Psychol. 10:230. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Weber E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 332–342. 10.1002/wcc.41 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Weber E. U. (2016). What shapes perceptions of climate change? New research since 2010. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 7 125–134. 10.1002/wcc.377 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Whillans A. V. (2016). A Brief Introduction to the Science of Fundraising. Washington: Council for Advancement and Support of Education. [Google Scholar]
  98. Whitmarsh L., O’Neill S., Lorenzoni I. (2013). Public engagement with climate change: what do we know and where do we go from here? Int. J. Media Cult. Polit. 9 7–25. 10.1386/macp.9.1.7_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Wiest S. L., Raymond L., Clawson R. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 31 187–198. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Yen S. T., Boxall P. C., Adamowicz W. L. (1997). An econometric analysis of donations for environmental conservation in Canada. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 22 246–263. [Google Scholar]
  101. Yeo S. (2019). Where climate cash is flowing and why it’s not enough. Nature 573 328–331. 10.1038/d41586-019-02712-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Zaval L., Markowitz E. M., Weber E. U. (2015). How will I be remembered? conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychol. Sci. 26 231–236. 10.1177/0956797614561266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data_Sheet_1.docx (682.3KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Articles from Frontiers in Psychology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES