Getting the Rich and Powerful to Give

References

• Anderson C, Berdahl JL (2002) The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 83(6):1362–1377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J (2006) Philanthropy. Kolm S, Ythier JM, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, vol. 2 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1201–1269.Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Payne AA (2013) Charitable giving. Auerbach A, Chetty R, Feldstein M, Saez E, eds. Handbook of Public Economics, vol. 5 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Nikiforakis N, Stoop J (2017a) Are the rich more selfish than the poor, or do they just have more money? A natural field experiment. Working paper, University of California San Diego, San Diego.Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Rao JM, Trachtman H (2017b) Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. J. Political Econom. 125(3):625–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson AB, Piketty T, Saez E (2011) Top incomes in the long run of history. J. Econom. Literature 49(1):3–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker G, Gibbs M, Holmstrom B (1994) The internal economics of the firm: Evidence from personnel data. Quart. J. Econom. 109(4):881–919.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A (2000) Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 9(3):75–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A (2009) Agency. Carr D, Crosnoe R, Hughes ME, Pienta AM, eds. Encyclopedia of the Life Course and Human Development, vol. 1 (Macmillan Reference, New York), 8–11.Google Scholar
• Bricker J, Henriques A, Krimmel J, Sabelhaus J (2016) Measuring income and wealth at the top using administrative and survey data. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity Spring: 261–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butera L, Houser D (2018) Delegating altruism: Toward an understanding of agency in charitable giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 155(November):99–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• The Center on Philanthropy, Indiana University (2007) Patterns of household charitable giving by income group, 2005. Report, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
• Chuan A, Kessler JB, Milkman KL (2018) Field study of charitable giving reveals that reciprocity decays over time. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(8):1766–1771.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress (2011) Options for changing the tax treatment of charitable giving. Report, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Cox D (1984) Raising revenue in the underground economy. Natl. Tax J. 37(3):283–288.Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):1–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Herberich D, Meer J (2017) A field experiment on directed giving at a public university. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66:66–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg RG, Smith CL (2003) The sources and uses of annual giving at selective private research universities and liberal arts colleges. Econom. Ed. Rev. 22(3):223–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erkal N, Gangadharan L, Nikiforakis N (2011) Relative earnings and giving in a real-effort experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(7):3330–3348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Exley CL (2017) Incentives for prosocial behavior: The role of reputations. Management Sci. 64(5):2460–2471.Google Scholar
• Exley CL, Petrie R (2018) The impact of a surprise donation ask. J. Public Econom. 158:152–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A (2007) Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica 75(5):1501–1511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST (1993) Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. Amer. Psych. 48(6):621–628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey BS, Meier S (2004) Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 54(1):65–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Rucker DD, Magee JC (2015) Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, eds. American Psychological Association Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 3 (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC), 1–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gee LK, Schrek MJ (2018) Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory. Games Econom. Behav. 107:282–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosal S, Jana S, Mani A, Mitra S, Roy S (2017) Stigma, discrimination, and self-image: Evidence from Kolkata brothels. Working paper, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
• Gilens M, Page BI (2014) Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspect. Politics 12(3):264–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giving USA Foundation (2015) Giving USA 2015 report highlights. Report, Giving USA Foundation, Chicago. Accessed May 19, 2016, https://store.givingusa.org/products/giving-usa-2015-report-highlights?variant=34503696649/.Google Scholar
• Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Nelson LD, Brown A (2010) Shared social responsibility: A field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science 329(5989):325–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy A, Gneezy U, Riener G, Nelson LD (2012a) Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(19):7236–7240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy A, Imas A, Brown A, Nelson LD, Norton MI (2012b) Paying to be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Sci. 58(1):179–187.Link, Google Scholar
• Harbaugh WT, Mayer U, Burghart DR (2007) Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316(5831):1622–1625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• James RN III, Sharpe DL (2007) The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quart. 36(2):218–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(5):1774–1793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, McConnell MA (2014) Hey look at me: The effect of giving circles on giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 106:402–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karlan D, Wood DH (2017) The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 66:1–8.Google Scholar
• Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C (2003) Power, approach, and inhibition. Psych. Rev. 110(2):265–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessler JB (2018) Announcements of support and public good provision. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(12):3760–3787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessler JB, Leider S (2016) Procedural fairness and the cost of control. J. Law Econom. Organ. 32(4):685–718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kessler JB, Milkman KL (2018) Identity in charitable giving. Management Sci. 64(2):845–859.Link, Google Scholar
• Kipnis D (1972) Does power corrupt? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 24(1):33–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kipnis D, Castell PJ, Gergen M, Mauch D (1976) Metamorphic effects of power. J. Appl. Psych. 61(2):127–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraus MW, Piff PK, Mendoza-Denton R, Rheinschmidt ML, Keltner D (2012) Social class, solipsism, and contexualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psych. Rev. 119(3):546–572.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacetera N, Macis M, Slonim R (2014) Rewarding volunteers: A field experiment. Management Sci. 60(5):1107–1129.Link, Google Scholar
• Lamberton C, Neve JED, Norton MI (2018) The power of voice in stimulating morality: Eliciting taxpayer preferences increases tax compliance. J. Consumer Psych. 28(2):310–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landry CE, Lange A, List JA, Price MK, Rupp NG (2006) Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):747–782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landry CE, Lange A, List JA, Price MK, Rupp NG (2010) Is a donor in the hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(3):958–983.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee F, Tiedens LZ (2001) Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders. Res. Organ. Behav. 23:43–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leventhal GS (1980) What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness is social relationships. Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis RH, eds. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research (Plenum, New York), 27–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin T, Levitt SD, List JA (2016) A glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Working paper, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Li SX, Eckel C, Grossman PJ, Brown TL (2015) Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government. Econom. Lett. 133:51–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lind AE, Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2011) The market for charitable giving. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(2):157–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Lucking-Reiley D (2002) The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. J. Political Econom. 110(1):215–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2011) Brother, can you spare a dime: Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. J. Public Econom. 95(7–8):926–941.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J (2013) The habit of giving. Econom. Inquiry 51(4):2002–2017.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meer J, Rosen HS (2011) The ABCs of charitable solicitation. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):363–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JG, Kahle S, Hastings PD (2015) Roots and benefits of costly giving: Children who are more altruistic have greater autonomic flexibility and less family wealth. Psych. Sci. 26(7):1038–1045.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mullainathan S, Shafir E (2013) Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How It Defines Our Lives (Times Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Nikiforakis N, Oechssler J, Shah A (2014) Hierarchy, coercion, and exploitation: An experimental analysis. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 97:155–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piff PK, Kraus MW, Côté S, Cheng BH, Keltner D (2010) Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 99(5):771–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rucker DD, Galinsky AD, Magee JC (2018) The agentic–communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Olson JM, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 58 (Academic Press, Cambridge), 71–125.Google Scholar
• Saez E (2015) Striking it richer: The evolution of top incomes in the United States. Accessed December 6, 2017, https://eml.berkeley.edu/saez/saez-UStopincomes-2013.pdf.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
• Smeets P, Bauer R, Gneezy U (2015) Giving behavior of millionaires. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(34):10641–10644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whillans A, Caruso E, Dunn E (2017) Both selfishness and selflessness start with the self: How wealth shapes responses to charitable appeal. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 70:242–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wunnava PV, Okunade AA (2013) Do business executives give more to their alma mater? Longitudinal evidence from a large university. Amer. J. Econom. Soc. 72(3):761–778.Crossref, Google Scholar