Anti-charity as a form of commitment

Anti-charity is a variant of the commitment contract. An amount is deposited for a goal and forfeited if the goal is not achieved. In the usual form, this amount goes to an organisation one supports, whereas with an anti-charity it goes to an organisation one opposes [1].

What matters is not the assessment of the organisation but one’s personal relationship to it. For supporters of a football club, the charitable foundation of a sporting rival may already serve as an anti-charity.

The method is based on loss aversion. Kahneman and Tversky showed that losses weigh more heavily in decisions than gains of the same size [2]. A financial stake makes use of this effect by linking failure to reach a goal with a loss.

If the stake goes to a valued organisation, the loss is partly offset by the money benefiting a cause one supports. With an anti-charity, this compensation is absent, so the same amount is likely to be perceived as a greater loss. This assumption is derived from loss aversion but has not been separately demonstrated empirically.

Research on anti-charity is still in its early stages. In five experiments, Brimhall, Tannenbaum and VanEpps found that participants rated anti-charity as more effective than a stake in favour of a supported organisation, while at the same time judging it to be less morally appropriate. They chose the stricter variant more often for others than for themselves [1]. Most of these experiments were based on hypothetical decisions.

To our knowledge, there is no field study comparing the actual effectiveness of anti-charity with that of an ordinary donation. What is established, however, is that a stake must be sufficiently high. In a field experiment with a savings product in the Philippines, 55 per cent of participants failed to reach their self-set goal. The author attributes this in part to the self-chosen penalties having been set too low [3].

Anti-charity is the stricter variant of a financial stake and is not suitable for everyone. Where there are reservations about directing money to an opposed organisation, an ordinary donation is the more appropriate choice. The participants in the study cited also judged the method to be less morally appropriate [1].

Tensio is an app for Android and iPhone in which one of two modes can be chosen for each goal. In donation mode, a forfeited stake goes to a supported organisation, and in anti-charity mode to a sports club or its foundation. In both cases, the recipient receives 80 per cent of the stake.

• Clubs and club foundations from football (1st to 3rd division), ice hockey, handball and basketball are available. Political organisations are excluded on principle.
• If a favourite club is stored in the profile, Tensio suggests its sporting rival.
• The minimum stake is €5.00 instead of €2.49. Free pause jokers are not available in this mode.

Overview of all organisations and clubs

1. Brimhall, C. I., Tannenbaum, D. & VanEpps, E. M. (2023). Choosing more aggressive commitment contracts for others than for the self. Judgment and Decision Making, 18, e12. doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.1
2. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. doi:10.2307/1914185
3. John, A. (2020). When Commitment Fails: Evidence from a Field Experiment. Management Science, 66(2), 503-529. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3236