Hardnose the Dictator

Cherry, Todd L.; Frykblom, Peter; Shogren, Jason F.

doi:10.1257/00028280260344740

Cited by 823 publications

(531 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

485

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Although dictator game experiments have often been used to study generosity, dictator behavior can hardly yet be said to be well understood. Dictator giving is, for example, highly sensitive to the construction of choice sets (Dana et al 2006;List 2007;Bardsley 2008, Asheim et al 2010, whether endowments are earned (Cherry et al 2002) and the degree of dictator anonymity (Hoffman et al 2008). Such findings are hard to reconcile with standard economic models of preferences defined only over final outcomes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are nurses more altruistic than real estate brokers?

Jacobsen

Eika²,

Helland

et al. 2011

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are nurses more altruistic than real estate brokers?

Jacobsen

Eika²,

Helland

et al. 2011

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Andreoni 2006). 13 Finally, our results have implications for the design of effective fundraising by charities. As the average donation collected from the two groups in our experiment is identical, it would seem that there is no sense for charities to target their fundraising efforts and resources toward high earners and disregard low earners.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…As the average donation collected from the two groups in our experiment is identical, it would seem that there is no sense for charities to target their fundraising efforts and resources toward high earners and disregard low earners. Of course, in reality, differences in earnings are due to a vast array of factors that are left out of our experiment, so this implication should be treated as only a step toward a better understanding of whether an individual's salary is a good indication of whether he 13 In a similar vein, Mayo and Tinsley (2009) argue that a donor's inability -which is a function of his income -to disentangle the role of luck and effort in determining the recipient's income is also important in explaining patterns of charitable giving in the US.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing one’s fortune? An experimental study on earned income and giving

Tonin

Vlassopoulos

2017

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SIZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. In this paper we investigate the relationship between earnings and charitable giving. We set up a real effort experiment, in which subjects enter data in four one-hour occasions and are paid a piece rate. From the second occasion onwards, we randomly assign half of the subjects to a treatment with higher piece rates. At the end we ask subjects whether they want to donate a share of their earnings to a charity of their choice. We find that, despite large differences in earnings due to the different piece rates, subjects receiving the higher piece rate are actually less likely to give, and that givers in the two groups give the same share of their total earnings. Charities receive the same average donation from members of the two groups indicating that subjects in this experiment do not treat charitable giving as a normal good. JEL Classification:D64, J39

show abstract

“…Our study contributes to the literature on what people view as a fair distribution and how fairness considerations shape individual behavior (e.g., Fehr and Schmidt, 1999;Konow, 2000;Cherry, Frykblom, and Shogren, 2002;Falk, Fehr, and Fischbacher, 2003;Tyran and Sausgruber, 2006;Cappelen, Drange Hole, Sørensen, and Tungodden, 2007;Konow, Saijo, and Akai, 2009;Almås, Cappelen, Sørensen, and Tungodden, 2010;Cabrales, Miniaci, Piovesan, and Ponti, 2010;Rodriguez-Lara and Moreno-Garrido, 2012;Cappelen, Moene, Sørensen, and Tungodden, 2013b;Durante, Putterman, and Weele, 2014;Bartling, Weber, and Yao, 2015;Jakiela, 2015). A number of papers both in social psychology and in behavioral economics have shown that a majority of people appear to view income inequalities as fair if the inequalities are proportional to differences in performance (e.g., Adams, 1965;Walster, Berscheid, and Walster, 1973;Leventhal, 1980;Konow, 2000;Frohlich, Oppenheimer, and Kurki, 2004;Cappelen, Sørensen, and Tungodden, 2010;Cappelen et al, 2007Cappelen et al, , 2013a.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Fairness in Winner-Take-All Markets.

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reports the first experimental study on people's fairness views on extreme income inequalities arising from winner-take-all reward structures. We find that the majority of participants consider extreme income inequality generated in winner-take-all situations as fair, independent of the winning margin. Spectators appear to endorse a "factual merit" fairness argument for no redistribution: the winner deserves all the earnings because these earnings were determined by his or her performance. Our findings shed light on the present political debate on redistribution, by suggesting that people may object less to certain types of extreme income inequality than commonly assumed. JEL Classification Numbers: C91, D63

show abstract

Hardnose the Dictator

Cited by 823 publications

References 7 publications

Are nurses more altruistic than real estate brokers?

Are nurses more altruistic than real estate brokers?

Sharing one’s fortune? An experimental study on earned income and giving

Fairness in Winner-Take-All Markets.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About