IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/wcbess/21-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are you worthy of my help? An experiment in worthiness framing on charitable donations

Author

Listed:
  • Rhosyn A. Almond

    (School of Economics and Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich)

Abstract

We investigate the effect of worthiness framing on donation behaviour – both the propensity to donate and magnitude of donation. People prefer to donate to ‘worthy’ causes. Prosocial behaviour is strongly influenced by value judgements based on the individual’s perception of a situation and are therefore highly context-dependent. In this experiment, the target of manipulation is the context of a donation decision. We invited participants to donate to the local food bank and used selected questions from the World Values Survey to measure perceptions about the context of inequality. We find a treatment effect of worthiness framing– but only for those with certain beliefs about the context of inequality. We use hardworking and unlucky frames to highlight the worthiness of the recipient group and find this framing is only effective in increasing donations if it challenges an individual’s prior beliefs. Framing a recipient as worthy only increases donations from those whose beliefs suggest they consider the poor less worthy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhosyn A. Almond, 2021. "Are you worthy of my help? An experiment in worthiness framing on charitable donations," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 21-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    • Handle: RePEc:uea:wcbess:21-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/cbess/UEA-CBESS-21-03.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. G. B. Dantzig & J. H. Ramser, 1959. "The Truck Dispatching Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 80-91, October.
    3. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    4. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    5. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    6. Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
    7. Alexander W Cappelen & Karl Ove Moene & Siv-Elisabeth Skjelbred & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "The Merit Primacy Effect," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(651), pages 951-970.
      • Alexander Cappelen & Karl Ove Moene & Siv-Elisabeth Skjelbred & Bertil Tungodden, 2017. "The Merit Primacy Effect," Working Papers 2017-047, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    8. Jeremy Clark, 2002. "House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, December.
    9. Paul J Zak & Angela A Stanton & Sheila Ahmadi, 2007. "Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-5, November.
    10. Kellner, Christian & Reinstein, David & Riener, Gerhard, 2019. "Ex-ante commitments to “give if you win” exceed donations after a win," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 109-127.
    11. Edward C. Norton & Hua Wang & Chunrong Ai, 2004. "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(2), pages 154-167, June.
    12. Ulf Liebe & Andreas Tutic, 2010. "Status groups and altruistic behaviour in dictator games," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-380, August.
    13. James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
    14. Christina M. Fong, 2007. "Evidence from an Experiment on Charity to Welfare Recipients: Reciprocity, Altruism and the Empathic Responsiveness Hypothesis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(522), pages 1008-1024, July.
    15. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    16. Fong, Christina, 2001. "Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 225-246, November.
    17. Joseph Henrich & Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "Most people are not WEIRD," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7302), pages 29-29, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander W Cappelen & Johanna Mollerstrom & Bjørn-Atle Reme & Bertil Tungodden, 2022. "A Meritocratic Origin of Egalitarian Behaviour," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(646), pages 2101-2117.
    2. Pedro Rey-Biel & Roman Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2018. "When Income Depends on Performance and Luck: The Effects of Culture and Information on Giving," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 167-203, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Bohmann, Sandra & Kalleitner, Fabian, 2023. "Subjective Inequity Aversion: Unfair Inequality, Subjective Well-Being, and Preferences for Redistribution," SocArXiv g8arw, Center for Open Science.
    4. Grundmann, Susanna, 2020. "Do just deserts and competition shape patterns of cheating?," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-79-20, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    5. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Cappelen, Cornelius & Tungodden, Bertil, 2018. "Second-best fairness under Limited information: The trade-off between false positives and false negatives," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 18/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    6. Grimalday, Gianluca & Karz, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, 2012. "Everyone Wants a Chance: Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 93, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    7. Vanessa Valero, 2022. "Redistribution and beliefs about the source of income inequality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 876-901, June.
    8. Roland Iwan Luttens & Marie-Anne Valfort, 2012. "Voting for Redistribution under Desert-Sensitive Altruism," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(3), pages 881-907, September.
    9. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    10. Hennighausen, Tanja & Heinemann, Friedrich & Bischoff, Ivo, 2008. "Individual Determinants of Social Fairness Assessments: The Case of Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Michele Bernasconi & Enrico Longo & Valeria Maggian, 2023. "When merit breeds luck (or not): an experimental study on distributive justice," Working Papers 2023:02, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    12. Akbaş, Merve & Ariely, Dan & Yuksel, Sevgi, 2019. "When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 114-127.
    13. Alexander W Cappelen & Karl Ove Moene & Siv-Elisabeth Skjelbred & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "The Merit Primacy Effect," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(651), pages 951-970.
      • Alexander Cappelen & Karl Ove Moene & Siv-Elisabeth Skjelbred & Bertil Tungodden, 2017. "The Merit Primacy Effect," Working Papers 2017-047, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    14. Paetzel, Fabian & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2018. "Cognitive ability and in-group bias: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 280-292.
    15. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Ilpo Kauppinen & Panu Poutvaara, 2019. "Preferences for Redistribution and International Migration," ifo Working Paper Series 283, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    17. Tonin, Mirco & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2017. "Sharing one’s fortune? An experimental study on earned income and giving," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 112-118.
    18. Eisenkopf, Gerald & Fischbacher, Urs & Föllmi-Heusi, Franziska, 2013. "Unequal opportunities and distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 51-61.
    19. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.
    20. Ku, Hyejin & Salmon, Timothy C., 2013. "Procedural fairness and the tolerance for income inequality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 111-128.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    prosocial behaviour; charity; worthiness; framing; deservingness;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uea:wcbess:21-03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Cara Liggins (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.