Literature DB >> 22448394

Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving.

Stefano DellaVigna1, John A List, Ulrike Malmendier.   

Abstract

Every year, 90% of Americans give money to charities. Is such generosity necessarily welfare enhancing for the giver? We present a theoretical framework that distinguishes two types of motivation: individuals like to give, for example, due to altruism or warm glow, and individuals would rather not give but dislike saying no, for example, due to social pressure. We design a door-to-door fund-raiser in which some households are informed about the exact time of solicitation with a flyer on their doorknobs. Thus, they can seek or avoid the fund-raiser. We find that the flyer reduces the share of households opening the door by 9% to 25% and, if the flyer allows checking a Do Not Disturb box, reduces giving by 28% to 42%. The latter decrease is concentrated among donations smaller than $10. These findings suggest that social pressure is an important determinant of door-to-door giving. Combining data from this and a complementary field experiment, we structurally estimate the model. The estimated social pressure cost of saying no to a solicitor is $3.80 for an in-state charity and $1.40 for an out-of-state charity. Our welfare calculations suggest that our door-to-door fund-raising campaigns on average lower the utility of the potential donors.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22448394     DOI: 10.1093/qje/qjr050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Econ        ISSN: 0033-5533


  22 in total

1.  Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets.

Authors:  Ayelet Gneezy; Uri Gneezy; Gerhard Riener; Leif D Nelson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Recommending teams promotes prosocial lending in online microfinance.

Authors:  Wei Ai; Roy Chen; Yan Chen; Qiaozhu Mei; Webb Phillips
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Demotivating incentives and motivation crowding out in charitable giving.

Authors:  Matthew Chao
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Sustaining cooperation through self-sorting: The good, the bad, and the conditional.

Authors:  Karen Evelyn Hauge; Kjell Arne Brekke; Karine Nyborg; Jo Thori Lind
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Cooperate without looking: why we care what people think and not just what they do.

Authors:  Moshe Hoffman; Erez Yoeli; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  FUNGIBILITY AND CONSUMER CHOICE: EVIDENCE FROM COMMODITY PRICE SHOCKS.

Authors:  Justine S Hastings; Jesse M Shapiro
Journal:  Q J Econ       Date:  2013-06-22

7.  Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale.

Authors:  Noshir S Contractor; Leslie A DeChurch
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits.

Authors:  John A List; James J Murphy; Michael K Price; Alexander G James
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-04-12

Review 9.  Mathematical foundations of moral preferences.

Authors:  Valerio Capraro; Matjaž Perc
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.118

10.  The role of D4 receptor gene exon III polymorphisms in shaping human altruism and prosocial behavior.

Authors:  Yushi Jiang; Soo H Chew; Richard P Ebstein
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.