Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out

References

• Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J. Public Econom. 92(5):1047–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Bernheim BD (2009) Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica 77(5):1607–1636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Petrie R (2004) Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. J. Public Econom. 88(7):1605–1623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):544–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Fryer RG (2005) An economic analysis of “acting white”. Quart. J. Econom. 120(2):551–583.Google Scholar
• Bardsley N, Sausgruber R (2005) Conformity and reciprocity in public good provision. J. Econom. Psych. 26(5):664–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. J. Political Econom. 82(6):1063–1093.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bekkers R, Wiepking P (2011) A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quart. 40(5):924–973.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bénabou R, Tirole J (2006) Incentives and prosocial behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1652–1678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernheim BD (1994) A theory of conformity. J. Political Econom. 102(5):841–877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bohnet I, Frey BS (1999) The sound of silence in prisoner's dilemma and dictator games. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 38(1):43–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Katok E, Ockenfels A (2005) Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation. J. Public Econom. 89(8):1457–1468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bond R, Smith PB (1996) Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psych. Bull. 119(1):111–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Myers CK (2010) Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. J. Public Econom. 94(11): 911–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Harper FM, Konstan J, Li SX (2010) Social comparisons and contributions to online communities: A field experiment on Movielens. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(4):1358–1398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox JC, Deck CA (2006) When are women more generous than men? Econom. Inquiry 44(4):587–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Shang JY (2008) The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions. Experiment. Econom. 11(3): 221–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Handy F, Shang J (2009) Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management Leadership 19(4):467–489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U, Rao G (2013) The importance of being marginal: Gender differences in generosity. Working Paper w18748, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w18748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Muren A (2006) Generosity, anonymity, gender. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 61(1):42–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH (1978) Sex differences in influenceability. Psych. Bull. 85(1):86–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Carli LL (1981) Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psych. Bull. 90(1): 1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam), 509–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engel C (2011) Dictator games: A meta study. Experiment. Econom. 14(4):583–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):980–994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2):117–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econom. Lett. 71(3):397–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Quercia S (2012) The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments. J. Econom. Psych. 33(4):897–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey BS, Meier S (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(5):1717–1722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Fehr E (1999) Collective action as a social exchange. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 39(4):341–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goeree JK, Yariv L (2007) Conformity in the lab. Unpublished working paper, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2004) Gender and competition at a young age. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(2):377–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(3):1049–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall H (2004) Gender differences in giving: Going, going, gone? New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 2004(43):71–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herrmann B, Thöni C, Gächter S (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319(5868):1362–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanthak K, Woon J (2012) Women don't run? Gender differences in candidate entry. Unpublished working paper, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
• King AJ, Wilson AM, Wilshin SD, Lowe J, Haddadi H, Hailes S, Morton AJ (2012) Selfish-herd behaviour of sheep under threat. Current Biology 22(14):R561–R562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kottasz R (2004) How should charitable organisations motivate young professionals to give philanthropically? Internat. J. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 9(1):9–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krupka EL, Weber RA (2013) Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11(3):495–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacetera N, Macis M (2010) Do all material incentives for pro-social activities backfire? The response to cash and non-cash incentives for blood donations. J. Econom. Psych. 31(4):738–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Linardi S, McConnell MA (2008) Volunteering and image concerns. Working Paper 1282, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
• Linardi S, McConnell MA (2011) No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment. J. Public Econom. 95(5):445–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meier S (2005) Conditions under which women behave less/more pro-socially than men. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122(3): 1067–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noussair C, Tucker S (2007) Public observability of decisions and voluntary contributions in a multiperiod context. Public Finance Rev. 35(2):176–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pan XS, Houser D (2011) Competition for trophies triggers male generosity. PloS one 6(4):e18050.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parsons PH (2004) Women's Philanthropy: Motivations for Giving Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
• Peacey MW, Sanders M (2013) Masked heroes: Endogenous anonymity in charitable giving. Working Paper 13/303, Centre for Market and Public Organisation, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
• Rege M, Telle K (2004) The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. J. Public Econom. 88(7):1625–1644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reinstein D, Riener G (2012) Reputation and influence in charitable giving: An experiment. Theory and Decision 72(2):221–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salmon TC, Serra D (2013) Does social judgment diminish rule breaking? CSAE Working Paper 2013-05, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
• Shang J, Croson R (2009) A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Econom. J. 119(540):1422–1439.Google Scholar
• Shi L (2011) Monetary rewards, image concern, and intrinsic motivation: Evidence from a survey on blood donation. Unpublished working paper, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
• Smith S, Windmeijer F, Wright E (2014) Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. Econom. J. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Soetevent AR (2005) Anonymity in giving in a natural context—A field experiment in 30 churches. J. Public Econom. 89(11): 2301–2323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor MA, Kaminski AR (1997) Women as philanthropists: Leading the transformation of fundraising. Internat. J. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2(2):107–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wedekind C, Braithwaite VA (2002) The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology 12(12):1012–1015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zetland D, Della Giusta M (2011) Focal points, gender norms and reciprocation in public good games. Unpublished working paper, University of Reading, Berkshire, UK.Google Scholar