Investigating How the Appearance and Presence of a Dog Affects Donations

Overview

Objectives/Goals My goal was to see if the appearance and presence of a dog of effect how much, if anything people would donate to the local SPCA. With this knowledge I can help local organizations plan successful fund raising events. Methods/Materials Method: Set up area with kennel, table, sign and chair at Vons Grocery Store; Put dog in kennel; Sit in chair and wait for adults to walk pass(don't attract any attention);As adults walk pass, mark either male and female and if they donated (no verbal cues);Count 200 people, then leave; Repeat for each variable Materials 6 Dog Types - Big, Small, Friendly Looking, Mean Looking, Control (no dog) and Stuffed; 4x4 Portable Wire Kennels; Clipboard and Paper; Table & Chair; Jar for Donations; Poster Board 20"x30"; People Results My hypotheses stated that the control (no dog) would get the least number of donors, which was correct. I was also correct when I stated that the mean looking dog would get the second least donors. I found that my hypothesis for the small dog was incorrect. My hypothesis stated that the small dog would get the most donors due to the fact that most people would think that he/she was cute. Less than 5% of the 200 people who passed to the control (no dog) donated. When compared to the control (no dog) The Mean Looking Dog and the Small Dog they had over 66% more donors. The Friendly looking Dog and the Big Dog both received 25 donations each. Comparing The Friendly looking Dog and the Big Dog to the control (no dog) they received 177% more donations. The real surprise was the Stuffed Dog. With 22 donations, it was right on the heels of The Friendly looking Dog and the Big Dog. 144% more donors than the control (no dog). Out of 1,200 people that passed our area 110 people donated, which is 9%. 55% were female and 45% were male. However, 70% of the donations were from females and 30% came from males. The male and female donation pattern was almost identical to the overall group, + or - 3%. Conclusions/Discussion The dogs, whether alive or stuffed, who had a more positive or happy image received more donors. The less attractive dogs received fewer donors, but were still better than no dog. This proves a positive image is always better than a negative image.

Competition history

• CSEF 2009 Behavioral & Social Sciences · Entry J0309

Resources

• CSEF project summary ↗

Related projects

Closest projects by meaning, across every fair and year in the corpus.

Browse more like this

• All Behavioural and Social Sciences projects
• CSEF Behavioural and Social Sciences projects
• Every CSEF 2009 project