scholarly journals Responsibility and prosocial behavior - Experimental evidence on charitable donations by individuals and group representatives

2021 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 101643
Author(s):  
Astrid Dannenberg ◽  
Peter Martinsson
Keyword(s):  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Charitable Donations

scholarly journals Prosocial Behavior Across Professional Boundaries: Experimental Evidence From Hospitals

SAGE Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824401984669
Author(s):  
Ulf Liebe ◽  
Elias Naumann ◽  
Andreas Tutic
Keyword(s):  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Professional Boundaries

Self-Interested Giving: The Relationship Between Conditional Gifts, Charitable Donations, and Donor Self-Interestedness

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Chao ◽  
Geoffrey Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Charitable Donations ◽  
Prosocial Motives ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Other Regarding ◽  
The Relationship

Nonprofits regularly use conditional “thank you” gifts to entice prospective donors to give, yet experimental evidence suggests that their effects are mixed in practice. This paper uses multiple laboratory experiments to test when and why thank you gifts vary in effectiveness. First, we demonstrate that although gifts often increase donations to charities that donors did not rate highly, many of the same gifts had no effects or negative effects for charities that prospective donors already liked. We replicate these findings in a second experiment that uses a different range of charity and gift options as well as different measures of participant perceptions of a charity. We also find that making gifts optional, as is common in fundraising campaigns, does not eliminate these negative gift effects. In additional experiments, we directly test for donor motives using self-report and priming experiments. We find that thank you gifts increase (decrease) the weight that donors place on self-interested (prosocial) motives, leading to changes in donation patterns. Altogether, our results suggest that practitioners may find gifts more useful when appealing to donors not already familiar with or favorably inclined to their charity, such as during donor acquisition campaigns. They may be less useful when appealing to recent donors or others who already favor the charity, in part because the gift may activate mindsets or norms that emphasize self-interested motives instead of more prosocial, other-regarding motives. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.

scholarly journals The robustness of reciprocity: Experimental evidence that each form of reciprocity is robust to the presence of other forms of reciprocity

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (23) ◽  
pp. eaba0504
Author(s):  
David Melamed ◽  
Brent Simpson ◽  
Jered Abernathy
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Real World ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Current Understanding ◽  
The Real ◽  
Topological Features

Prosocial behavior is paradoxical because it often entails a cost to one’s own welfare to benefit others. Theoretical models suggest that prosociality is driven by several forms of reciprocity. Although we know a great deal about how each of these forms operates in isolation, they are rarely isolated in the real world. Rather, the topological features of human social networks are such that people are often confronted with multiple types of reciprocity simultaneously. Does our current understanding of human prosociality break down if we account for the fact that the various forms of reciprocity tend to co-occur in nature? Results of a large experiment show that each basis of human reciprocity is remarkably robust to the presence of other bases. This lends strong support to existing models of prosociality and puts theory and research on firmer ground in explaining the high levels of prosociality observed in human social networks.

scholarly journals Comparing Money and Time Donation: What Do Experiments Tell Us?

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 65-94
Author(s):  
Tingting He
Keyword(s):  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Experimental Research ◽  
Charitable Donations ◽  
Vast Amount

Abstract Money donation and time donation, as charitable donations from individuals to organizations, are two forms of prosocial behavior that have been increasingly studied in recent years. Despite the vast amount of research about money and/or time donation, however, only limited work has been done on reviewing the research on these two forms of charitable donations as comparable or parallel entities. In this paper, we seek to help fill this gap by reviewing the existing research. We applied the backwards and forwards snowballing technique to arrive at a review sample of 39 experimental papers published in 2000–2020 that have compared money and time donation, or at least analyzed them as two parallel entities. We examine the issues that are predominantly considered in these experimental papers and summarize the general directions of their findings. We also point out certain gaps in the existing literature and posit some potentially fruitful directions for future experimental research regarding money and time donation.

scholarly journals Institutions, Opportunism and Prosocial Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Cabrales ◽  
Irma Clots-Figueras ◽  
Roberto Hernán-González ◽  
Praveen Kujal
Keyword(s):  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Experimental Evidence

Are Millennials Really Particularly Selfish? Preliminary Evidence From a Cross-Sectional Sample in the Philanthropy Panel Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (14) ◽  
pp. 1965-1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Koczanski ◽  
Harvey S. Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Panel Data ◽  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Panel Study ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Demographic Variables ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Charitable Donations ◽  
Causal Mechanisms

We use panel data on charitable donations to analyze how the philanthropic behavior of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) compares with that of earlier generations. On the basis of a multivariate analysis with a rich set of economic and demographic variables, we find that conditional on making a gift, one cannot reject the hypothesis that Millennials donate more than members of earlier generations. However, Millennials are somewhat less likely to make any donations at all than their generational predecessors. While our data do not allow us to explore causal mechanisms, our findings suggest a more nuanced view of the Millennials’ prosocial behavior than is depicted in popular accounts.

scholarly journals Pronoun drop and prosocial behavior: experimental evidence from Japan

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-25
Author(s):  
Tai-Sen He ◽  
Yohanes E. Riyanto ◽  
Saori C. Tanaka ◽  
Katsunori Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Experimental Evidence

scholarly journals Stylized and photographic eye images do not increase charitable donations in a field experiment

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-31
Author(s):  
Paul Lennon ◽  
Rachel Grant ◽  
V. Tamara Montrose
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Prosocial Behavior ◽  
Charitable Giving ◽  
Shape Control ◽  
Geometric Shape ◽  
Charitable Donations ◽  
Evil Eye ◽  
Honor System ◽  
Eye Imagery ◽  
Eye Of Horus

The effects of watching eyes upon prosocial behavior have been explored in various contexts, for example, in relation to charitable donations, honor-system payments and littering. Whilst studies have explored the effects of both photographic and stylized eyes upon prosocial behavior, no study, to our knowledge, has compared stylized eyes to photographic eyes. Here we explored the effects of stylized and photographic eye images upon prosocial behavior assessed via charitable donations in a ‘free cakes’ field experiment. Charitable giving was assessed under six eye image conditions, three stylized eye images (evil eye, eye of Horus, all-seeing eye), one photographic eye image (human eye image) and two control images (geometric shape control and blank control). No difference in the amount of money donated was found between any of the eye image conditions. These results suggest that watching eyes, whether stylized or photographic, are not effective at eliciting prosocial behavior via charitable giving. However, further study contrasting single and paired eye imagery, and exploration of the effects of stylized eye imagery in deterring littering and crime, would be beneficial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document