From Bill Gates to Warren Buffett to MacKenzie Scott, the world’s most prominent philanthropists often make headlines for their jaw-dropping donations. Gates, for example, has already given away more than US$100 billion of his wealth and has pledged to contribute another US$200 billion over the next two decades. Of course, monetary donations aren’t restricted to the billionaire class or corporate firms. According to the World Giving Index, 35 percent of people around the world gave money to charity in 2023.

While giving to good causes can be incredibly impactful, people often view monetary donations with cynicism and can be quick to question the donor’s underlying motives. Are they compelled by a genuine desire to help and concern for the cause, or are they driven by self-interested reasons, be it receiving tax breaks, gaining social clout or out of a sense of obligation?

Research has shown that this fear of scepticism can reduce the positive impact of people’s charitable giving, inclining them to help in less effective ways. In a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, my co-author Rebecca Schaumberg (ESMT Berlin) and I explore a simple avenue through which donors can reduce this scepticism: how they structure their donations.

Perceptions of donors

Picture two donors: One gives US$500 to an animal shelter all at once, while another donates US$100 on five separate occasions over the span of a few months. Who seems more genuinely motivated to help? We predicted that most people would choose the second donor, even though the total amount given by both individuals is exactly the same. 

Why? Because people think that those who partition their donations experience more frequent impulses to give and have a stronger connection to the cause. Multiple donations are likely to be interpreted as evidence of numerous impulses to act in ways that benefit others or contribute positively to society – what we call prosocial commitment. And just as repeated actions towards a goal indicate greater personal investment and connection, multiple donations could also reflect deeper emotional engagement. 

By contrast, a one-time donation might suggest lower emotional investment, and can be perceived as an act that spotlights the magnitude of the contribution and draws attention to the donor’s financial sacrifice. But when it comes to positive moral judgements, people care less about the size of the help provided and more that the person helped at all, and for the right reasons. Partitioned giving therefore likely signals a more genuine, enduring commitment to helping others compared to a one-off grand gesture.

The power of partitioned giving

To test these ideas, we conducted 10 studies with a total of 3,816 participants. We varied whether donors gave in a lump sum or in partitions and explored whether the frequency and schedule of donations influenced perceptions of their prosocial commitment. In one study, for instance, we looked at whether presenting a company’s yearly donations as split up into smaller amounts, rather than as a single sum, led to people viewing it as more committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

Across the studies, we found that breaking up donations consistently signalled greater prosocial commitment. The number of donations seemed to act as a signal that the donor had more frequent impulses to give and a greater desire to be connected to the cause they were supporting. This held true across different donation amounts, as well as ways of describing and displaying the partitioned donations.

The effect was enhanced when donors gave on non-consecutive days (rather than consecutive days) but diminished when they gave multiple contributions on a single day (as opposed to different days). This could be because donations spread out over time are seen more as discrete acts, while clustered donations are perceived as part of a single act. However, even those who gave multiple donations on the same day were viewed as more prosocially committed than those who gave a lump-sum contribution.

Importantly, positive perceptions of partitioned giving emerged even when the effort, cost and duration of giving were the same for both partitioned and lump-sum donations. For instance, in one of our studies, we showed participants a donation form in which a donor had either typed “1” or “5” into a box to process their US$500 donation as a lump sum today (“1”) or break it up into five US$100 amounts to be processed today (“5”). 

We found that participants had more positive perceptions of the donor’s motives for giving when they opted to give in partitions rather than as a lump sum, even though the full donation amount was processed on the same day in both scenarios. This suggests that people infer someone’s prosocial commitment from them making multiple donations per se and not merely because it may require "more work” than giving a one-off amount.

What this means for donors

Our findings illustrate that how donations are structured can substantially influence people’s perceptions of donors and their motives for giving. The takeaway, whether you’re a billionaire philanthropist, corporate donor or individual that truly wants to make a difference, seems clear: Instead of giving a one-off sum, partitioning the figure into smaller amounts, and giving this over time, can reduce scepticism about your genuine intentions for giving and make your contribution more impactful.

For organisations that already split up their donations throughout the year, but do not disclose it as such, this insight is particularly useful. Rather than just reporting one large annual donation figure, companies could additionally break down how much they gave in each month or quarter. This approach can signal their legitimate and ongoing commitment to CSR, without requiring them to alter their donation practices, engage in deception or make any promises about future giving. It merely emphasises an often-overlooked dimension of the donation process.

There’s also an internal benefit to doing so. Research has shown that employees feel more positively about a company’s CSR efforts when they believe it is legitimately concerned with giving back. By highlighting not just how much they give, but also how often, companies can enhance the effectiveness of their CSR activities and potentially encourage more employees to engage in them.

That said, there are a couple of caveats to our recommendations. First, making multiple donations could generate transaction costs for the charitable organisation, such as additional administrative time and processing fees, which might reduce the overall value and impact of the contribution. Second, there’s always a risk that shrewd and strategic donors might use partitioned giving to appear generous without having genuine intent. The same pattern of giving that signals sincerity in one case could, in another, be used to fake it.

For individuals and organisations that already give in instalments, transparently communicating this information can signal greater prosocial commitment than just disclosing the total sum given. Dividing a contribution into smaller amounts paints a picture of someone who is deeply committed to making a difference and experiences frequent moments of wanting to help – and isn’t just ticking a box with a one-off donation.