Charity in the Laboratory: Matching, Competition, and Group Identity

References

• Ai W, Chen R, Chen Y, Mei Q, Phillips W (2016) Recommending teams promotes prosocial lending in online microfinance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(52):14944–14948.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof G, Kranton R (2000) Economics and identity. Quart. J. Econom. 115(3):715–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock P, Bedard K, Charness G, Hartman J, Royer H (2015) Letting down the team: Evidence of social effects of team incentives. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 13:841–870.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battigalli P, Dufwenberg M (2007) Guilt in games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97:170–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin D, Choi J, Strickland A (2010) Social identity and preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100:1913–1928.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billig M, Tajfel H (1973) Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 3:27–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. J. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90:166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornstein G, Ben-Yossef M (1994) Cooperation in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 30:52–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornstein G, Gneezy U, Nagel R (2002) The effect of intergroup competition on group coordination: An experimental study. Games Econom. Behav. 41:1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown A, Meer J, Williams J (2017) Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74:1579–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117:817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rigotti L, Rustichini A (2007) Individual behavior and group membership. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97:1340–1352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Li S (2009) Group identity and social preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99:431–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (1996) Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games Econom. Behav. 16:181–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (2003) Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? J. Public Econom. 87:681–701.Crossref, Google 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 Voluntary Sector Quart. 33(2):271–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (2005) Managing diversity by creating team identity. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 58(3):371–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (2006a) Do donors care about subsidy type: An experiment study. Isaac RM, Davis DD, eds. Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 11 (Emerald Insight, Bingley, UK), 157–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (2006b) Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. Southern Econom. J. 72(4):794–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel C, Grossman P (2008) Subsidizing charitable contributions: A natural experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies. Experiment. Econom. 11:234–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erev I, Bornstein G, Galili R (1993) Constructive intergroup competition as a solution to the free rider problem: A field experiment. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 29:463–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Heckman J (2009) Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social science. Science 326(5952):535–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt K (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114:817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fershtman C, Gneezy U, List J (2012) Equity aversion: Social norms and the desire to be ahead. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 4:131–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gee L, Schreck M (2018) Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory. Games Econom. Behav. 107(January):282–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1:114–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grosskopf B (2003) Reinforcement and directional learning in the ultimatum game with responder competition. Experiment. Econom. 6:141–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huck S, Rasul I (2011) Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 5:351–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List J (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97:1774–1793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krieg J, Samek A (2017) When charities compete: A laboratory experiment with simultaneous public goods. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:40–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin R, Randal J (2008) How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 67:228–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Putnam R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Shuster, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A, Bornstein G (1987) Intergroup competition for the provision of binary public goods. Psych. Rev. 94:291–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rondeau D, List J (2008) Matching and challenge gifts to charity: Evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Experiment. Econom. 11:253–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth A, Prasnikar V, Okuno-Fujiwara M, Zamir S (1991) Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81:1068–1095.Google Scholar
• Train K (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar