Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-fq6ln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-12T21:12:23.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demographic differences in the effect of price on giving in a diverse population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2025

Luke Lillehaugen ,
Porter Ludwig  and
Robert L. Mayo Open the ORCID record for Robert L. Mayo [Opens in a new window]
Luke Lillehaugen
Affiliation:
Offutt School of Business, Concordia College, 56562 Moorhead, MN, USA
Porter Ludwig
Affiliation:
Offutt School of Business, Concordia College, 56562 Moorhead, MN, USA
Robert L. Mayo*
Affiliation:
Offutt School of Business, Concordia College, 56562 Moorhead, MN, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conduct two experiments using a demographically diverse online subject pool to investigate total and extensive price elasticities of giving by age, income, gender, political ideology, and religiosity. A first exploratory experiment finds that religious subjects give more, are more likely to give, and are less sensitive to the price of giving than non-religious subjects. We find no statistically significant differences in price elasticities by age, income, gender, or political ideology. A second pre-registered experiment confirms these findings.

Keywords

AltruismPrice elasticityDemographicsDictator gameMechanical Turk

JEL classification

C99: Other D31: Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C90: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 2023 , pp. 157 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2023.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amir, O., Rand, D. G., Gal, Y. K. (2012). Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes edited by matjaz perc. PLoS ONE, 7(2),e31461. 10.1371/journal.pone.0031461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: applications to Charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458. 10.1086/261662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? gender differences in Altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312. 10.1162/003355301556419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R., Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. 10.1332/204080511X6087712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., Putterman, L. (2004). Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 581–589. 10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00065-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters, 48(3–4), 287–292. 10.1016/0165-1765(94)00621-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brañas-Garza, P., Capraro, V., Rascón-Ramírez, E. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on mechanical Turk: expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters, 170(September), 19–23. 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buso, I. M., Di Cagno, D., Ferrari, L., Larocca, V., Lorè, L., Marazzi, F., Panaccione, L., Spadoni, L. (2021). Lab-like findings from online experiments. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 7(2), 184–193. 10.1007/s40881-021-00114-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadsby, C. B., Servátka, M., Song, F. (2010). Gender and generosity: does degree of anonymity or group gender composition matter? Experimental Economics, 13(3), 299–308. 10.1007/s10683-010-9242-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R., Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. 10.1257/jel.47.2.448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108(448), 726–735. 10.1111/1468-0297.00311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., Johnson, C. A., de Oliveira, A. C. M., Rojas, C., Wilson, R. (2011). Social norms of sharing in high school: teen giving in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3), 603–612. 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.05.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583–610. 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, Joan. (1991). Successful Fundraising: A Complete Handbook for Volunteers and Professionals. Contemporary Books Chicago.Google Scholar
Gandullia, L., Lezzi, E. (2018). The price elasticity of charitable giving: new experimental evidence. Economics Letters, 173(December), 88–91. 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C., Grossman, P. (2004). Giving to secular causes by the religious and nonreligious: an experimental test of the responsiveness of giving to subsidies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 271–289. 10.1177/0899764004263423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R. et al., (2005). ‘Economic Man’ in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–855. 10.1017/S0140525X05000142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlan, D., List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774–1793. 10.1257/aer.97.5.1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, R., Clifford, S., Burleigh, T., Waggoner, P. D., Jewell, R., Winter, N. J. G. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–629. 10.1017/psrm.2020.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Leider, S., Beil, D., Duenyas, I. (2021). Running online experiments using web-conferencing software. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 7(2), 167–183. 10.1007/s40881-021-00112-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M. (2015). Gender, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Raihani, N. J., Mace, R., Lamba, S. (2013). The Effect of $1, $5 and $10 stakes in an online dictator game edited by Zoltan Barta. PLoS ONE, 8(8),e73131. 10.1371/journal.pone.0073131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, D. G., Brescoll, V. L., Everett, J. A. C., Capraro, V., Barcelo, H. (2016). Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for Men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 389–396. 10.1037/xge0000154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lili, W., Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations., 19(1), 23–42. 10.1007/s11266-008-9055-yGoogle Scholar
Wiepking, P., Maas, I. (2009). Resources that make you generous: effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 1973–1995. 10.1353/sof.0.0191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lillehaugen et. al. supplementary material

Lillehaugen et. al. supplementary material
Download Lillehaugen et. al. supplementary material(File)
File 829.4 KB