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

Tonin, Mirco; Vlassopoulos, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.014

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence here is also mixed. Erkal et al (2011) find an inverted-U-shaped relationship between lab earnings and giving, while Tonin and Vlassopoulos (2017) find no relationship. While this approach is able to circumvent the problems of non-experimental data, it cannot capture giving behaviour among people of different wealth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…2 To overcome these limitations, some scholars have relied on data of income and giving originated in controlled laboratory experiments. In these experiments, subjects earn their money by performing a real effort task, and they are asked to donate a portion of their earnings to other participants in the experiment (Erkal et al, 2011) or a charity of their choice (Tonin and Vlassopoulos, 2017). The evidence here is also mixed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Generosity and Wealth: Experimental Evidence from Bogota` Stratification

Blanco¹,

Dalton

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper combines laboratory experiments with a unique feature of the city of Bogotá to uncover the relationship between generosity and wealth. Bogotá is divided by law into six socioeconomic strata which are close proxies of household wealth and income. We recruit subjects from different strata and run a series of double-blind dictator games where the recipient is the NGO Techo-Colombia, which builds transitional housing for homeless families. We identify the stratum of each subject anonymously and blindly, and match their donations with their stratum. In a first experiment we provide a fixed endowment to all participants and find that donations are significantly increasing with wealth. However, in a second experiment, we show that this is not because the rich are intrinsically more generous, but because the experimental endowment has lower real value for them. With endowments that are equivalent to their daily expenditures, the rich, the middle-class and the poor give a similar proportion of their stratum-equivalent endowment. Moreover, we find that the motivation to donate is similar across strata, where the generosity act is explained mainly by warm-glow rather than pure altruism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Generosity and Wealth: Experimental Evidence from Bogota` Stratification

Blanco¹,

Dalton

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We find that social (i.e., SVO but also HVO) and environmental (i.e., EVO 1,2,3 ) value orientations are strongly and robustly related to each other, and conclude that a consistent measurement method facilitates the detection of this relationship. However, our study is not without important restrictions, which mainly stem from the fact that we intended to deliver a first and very general exploratory implementation of eliciting exact social preference function parameters for climate-change related causes [research building on this approach has recently been published by Berger (2019)]. First our results are based on a student sample and interpretations of possible policy implications of our results should consider this.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grossman 2003, 2004;Eckel et al 2014). Donations as measures of environmental behavior in laboratory experiments were also used by Li et al (2011), Blanco et al (2012), Bachke et al (2016), Ibanez et al (2016 and Tonin and Vlassopoulos (2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and environmental preferences: measuring how people make tradeoffs among themselves, others, and collective goods

Fleiß

Ackermann²,

Fleiß

et al. 2019

Cent Eur J Oper Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social preferences like social value orientation are considered a promising solution to social dilemmas, such as mitigating anthropogenic climate change. However, evidence on the relationship between social preferences and environmental concerns is mixed, possibly because these constructs have commonly been measured by distinct methods that do not facilitate direct comparisons. We address this gap by introducing an incentivized preference-based measurement approach, extending a subject's concerns for the wellbeing of others to a subject's willingness to support environmental and humanitarian endeavors, based on a simple social preferences utility function. In this measurement approach, subjects make resource allocation choices with real consequences and the design ensures comparability of different revealed preferences (i.e., people's willingness to make tradeoffs between themselves and others via donations to NGOs supporting different environmental and social causes). We then use this measurement method in an exploratory fashion to consistently assess preferences for environmental and humanitarian concerns in a laboratory experiment. We find that social and environmental value orientations are robustly interrelated, and further that people are generally more willing to pay to benefit people in need, compared to abstract environmental causes. We conclude that interventions to nudge people towards proenvironmental behavior will have a greater impact if human suffering resulting from global climate change is made more salient.

show abstract

“…The pursuit of incentives provides a straight-forward way of assessing the relative status of high and low contributors in the Gain and Loss Treatments. According to this criterion the impact of luck 5 Examples include Cherry, Frykblom and Shogren [25], Cappelen et al [8], Oxoby and Spraggon [26], Lefgren, Sims and Stoddard [27], Tonin et al [28]. increases in the number of people who follow the randomly assigned incentives.…”

Section: Effort and Luck In Treatments With Unequal Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unequal Incentives and Perceived Fairness in Groups

Eisenkopf

2018

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incentives shape how much people contribute to the welfare of a group. These incentives do not restrict the opportunities but they change the costs of contributions. This paper studies how the random assignment of such incentives affects perceived distributive justice among group members. Do people consider differences in incentives similar to unequal opportunities, that is, situations in which some people have a lower chance to make a high contribution? The results from a real effort experiment show that the economic framing of incentives matters in this context. If some people do not work for the common good because of rather large private costs, they appreciate these ‘negative incentives’ similarly to unequal opportunities. They do not do so, and become less egalitarian, if lower effort for the group increases the chance for private gains (‘positive incentives’). Interestingly, participants reward group members who do not limit their expected contributions to the group despite adverse incentives.

show abstract

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

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

Generosity and Wealth: Experimental Evidence from Bogota` Stratification

Generosity and Wealth: Experimental Evidence from Bogota` Stratification

Social and environmental preferences: measuring how people make tradeoffs among themselves, others, and collective goods

Unequal Incentives and Perceived Fairness in Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About