We translate insights from behavioral economics, payment research and fundraising field experiments into concrete product principles – transparent, verifiable and without promises of success.
The studies do not provide universal guarantees. Results depend on audience, context and implementation. That is why we translate research into hypotheses that organizations can test responsibly.
Europäische Zentralbank
The University of Chicago Press
The MIT Press
Oxford University Press
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization+50% or more likelihood of donating in two field experiments after the process was simplified.
What this means for DAYAA: reduce unnecessary steps and make completion as direct as possible.
Read the original study ↗Economic InquiryAn experiment published in 2026 reports higher donation amounts with contactless mobile payment than with cash.
What this means for DAYAA: make contactless digital payment methods prominent and easy to access.
Read the original study ↗Zahlungsverhalten in Deutschland 2023The share of cash in all payments fell from 58% (2021) to 51% (2023). By value, debit cards led with 32% ahead of cash with 26%, and mobile payments tripled to 6% of transactions. Only 28% name cash as their preferred method.
What this means for DAYAA: accepting cash only misses a growing share of people – card, phone and watch giving belong in the mix.
Read the original study ↗Marketing LettersIn studies with real purchases, people were willing to pay more when told to pay by credit card instead of cash – sometimes much more. The authors stress that the effect is not always present.
What this means for DAYAA: offer card payment as a full giving channel – not just an add-on to the collection box.
Read the original study ↗Journal of Economic Behavior & OrganizationIn a field experiment, many people promised to donate later by phone – most of them never did.
What this means for DAYAA: make it possible to give on the spot – at the moment people decide.
Read the original study ↗Europäische ZentralbankSPACE-Studie 2024In the European Central Bank's study, 55% of euro area respondents preferred cards or other cashless payments at the till, 22% cash. Cash's share of in-store payments fell from 59% (2022) to 52% (2024).
What this means for DAYAA: match giving channels to how people pay – contactless as the default.
Read the original study ↗The University of Chicago PressJournal of Political EconomyIn a field experiment outside a supermarket, both the rate of giving and donations rose when the ask was hard to avoid. A spoken ask increased giving sharply – but also led more people to avoid that entrance.
What this means for DAYAA: place devices where people pass anyway – and invite rather than pressure.
Read the original study ↗EthologyIn an eleven-week field experiment in a supermarket, collection buckets showing an image of eyes raised 48% more than buckets with a neutral image – especially when the store was quiet. Other studies do not always find this effect.
What this means for DAYAA: design the screen and banner deliberately and compare different visuals.
Read the original study ↗Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyThree studies – scenario experiments, a field study and store data from a fast-food chain – show that asking for a donation during payment can make customers more likely to return. Checkout fundraising as a share of sales predicted store revenue.
What this means for DAYAA: enable giving where people pay anyway – e.g. with the Go at a counter or till.
Read the original study ↗Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyA field study on the micro-lending platform Kiva and further experiments show: the closer a campaign is to its goal, the more likely people are to give – because their contribution feels more impactful.
What this means for DAYAA: show campaign goals and progress, especially on the final stretch.
Read the original study ↗The University of Chicago PressJournal of Political EconomyA classic field experiment showed very strong effects when already pledged start-up funding was visible.
What this means for DAYAA: show campaign progress and existing funding transparently, where factually accurate.
Read the original study ↗At the University of Zurich, students were more likely to contribute to two social funds when told that many others contribute. How strong the effect was depended on how someone had given before.
What this means for DAYAA: show that many people are already taking part – e.g. with donor counts and campaign progress.
Read the original study ↗Journal of Marketing ResearchResearch shows a trade-off: suggested amounts can influence the size of gifts, but may also change participation.
What this means for DAYAA: treat amount options not as decoration but make them testable.
Read the original study ↗The MIT PressThe Review of Economics and StatisticsA large field experiment on an online donation platform shows: preselected amounts strongly shape what individuals give – but did not raise total donations.
What this means for DAYAA: choose and evaluate amount options deliberately instead of relying on a simple trick.
Read the original study ↗Oxford University PressThe Economic JournalDuring a public radio station's fund drives, new donors gave more when told how much another donor had given – about 12% more in the most effective condition. Later giving did not decline as a result.
What this means for DAYAA: use suggested amounts and information about other donors deliberately – and test them.
Read the original study ↗Organizational Behavior and Human Decision ProcessesExperiments show: concrete details about how a donation will be used increase giving – mainly because donors then believe they make a difference.
What this means for DAYAA: name causes concretely on the terminal – for example what an amount makes possible.
Read the original study ↗Economic InquiryRaising suggested amounts can reduce the likelihood of donating.
What this means for DAYAA: distinguish the optimization goal – more donors or a higher average gift.
Read the original study ↗PLOS ONEA large series of studies shows: a stronger emotional reaction to identifiable individual cases does not automatically mean higher donations.
What this means for DAYAA: test storytelling instead of selling supposed psychology as certainty.
Read the original study ↗Humanities & Social Sciences CommunicationsCurrent research examines how perceived financial transparency relates to trust and nonprofit performance.
What this means for DAYAA: make project information, reports and use of funds accessible without overloading the payment flow.
Read the original study ↗Journal of Philanthropy and MarketingAn analysis of real mobile donations in Sweden over two years shows strong fluctuations by season and occasion – for example more donations at the end of the year and around televised fundraising galas.
What this means for DAYAA: time campaigns for periods when people are especially willing to give – such as religious holidays or the end of the year.
Read the original study ↗Logos: Wikimedia Commons (public domain); PLOS ONE logo: PLOS, CC BY-SA 3.0. The logos only show where the studies were published – no partnership with DAYAA.
In the long run, DAYAA should help organizations compare amount options, campaign messages and giving paths based on data – without presenting individual scientific results as a universal promise.