IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aho/journl/v14y2019i2p47-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Becoming generous and respecting honor: An experiment based on donation and trust-game with multiple trustees

Author

Listed:
  • Gulnaz Anjum

    (Institute of Business Administration)

  • Werner Gueth

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Public Goods, Bonn-Germany)

Abstract

This research explores the reoccurring conflict of speculations and explanations among social scientists regarding why people do charity or behave generously. Our participants were 256 subjects, 34% males and 65.2 % females. Based on a donation task we elicit the most honorable member in a group of four participants. This participant receives a substantial monetary reward and recognition as the most generous donor in the group. An unannounced subsequent phase confronts the honor participant with the task of a single contributor in a best-shot trust game. Without knowing what this honor participant has contributed, the three other participants independently compensate the contributor. We view the contribution level as measuring honor and compensations as measuring respect of honor. With the help of these choice data and additional information from the initial phase as well as from post experimental questionnaires, we assess whether respect of honor reacts monotonically to contributions and how aspects deciding who is honored influence contribution levels and respective compensations. Treatments vary in the (non) linearity of contribution costs. In both treatments we find that honor participants contribute generously to increase their group’s welfare, even at the cost of their own profit. Honor participants seem to care for their role and justify their entitlement to this position. Other participants reward respect to honor participants by compensating them.

Suggested Citation

  • Gulnaz Anjum & Werner Gueth, 2019. "Becoming generous and respecting honor: An experiment based on donation and trust-game with multiple trustees," Business Review, School of Economics and Social Sciences, IBA Karachi, vol. 14(2), pages 47-64, July-Dece.
    • Handle: RePEc:aho:journl:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:47-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://businessreview.iba.edu.pk/articles/becoming-generous-respecting-honour.pdf
    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. Ernst Fehr & Georg Kirchsteiger & Arno Riedl, 1993. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(2), pages 437-459.
    3. David Masclet & Charles Noussair & Steven Tucker & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2003. "Monetary and Nonmonetary Punishment in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 366-380, March.
    4. Lara Aknin & Elizabeth Dunn & Michael Norton, 2012. "Happiness Runs in a Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop between Prosocial Spending and Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 347-355, April.
    5. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    6. Andrew Schotter & Barry Sopher, 2006. "Trust and trustworthiness in games: An experimental study of intergenerational advice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 123-145, June.
    7. Carlsson, Fredrik & He, Haoran & Martinsson, Peter, 2009. "Easy come, easy go - The role of windfall money in lab and field experiments," Working Papers in Economics 374, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. Kovacs Tamas & Willinger Marc, 2013. "Are Trust and Reciprocity Related within Individuals?," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Fabian Bornhorst & Andrea Ichino & Oliver Kirchkamp & Karl Schlag & Eyal Winter, 2010. "Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 260-283, September.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    11. Espín, Antonio M. & Exadaktylos, Filippos & Neyse, Levent, 2016. "Heterogeneous Motives in the Trust Game: A Tale of Two Roles," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 141321, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nihan TOMRİS KÜÇÜN & Sezen GÜNGÖR, 2020. "Victim Identification, Framing Heuristic And Stress Effects On The Donation Decision," Prizren Social Science Journal, SHIKS, vol. 4(2), pages 22-29, August.

    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. Arnstein Aassve & Pierluigi Conzo & Francesco Mattioli, 2021. "Was Banfield right? New insights from a nationwide laboratory experiment," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1029-1064, November.
    2. Tamás Kovács & Marc Willinger, 2010. "Is there a relation between trust and trustworthiness?," Working Papers 10-03, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Mar 2010.
    3. Antonio M. Espín & Dolores Moreno-Herrero & José Sánchez-Campillo & José A. Rodríguez Martín, 2018. "Do Envy and Compassion Pave the Way to Unhappiness? Social Preferences and Life Satisfaction in a Spanish City," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 443-469, February.
    4. Ananish Chaudhuri, 2016. "Recent Advances in Experimental Studies of Social Dilemma Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    6. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2011. "Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements?," Department of Economics University of Siena 617, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    7. Israel Waichman & Ch’ng Kean Siang & Till Requate & Aric P. Shafran & Eva Camacho-Cuena & Yoshio Iida & Shosh Shahrabani, 2015. "Reciprocity in Labor Market Relationships: Evidence from an Experiment across High-Income OECD Countries," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Anya Savikhin Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2014. "Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690, December.
    9. Mateus Joffily & David Masclet & Charles N Noussair & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Emotions, Sanctions, and Cooperation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(4), pages 1002-1027, April.
    10. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    11. Erik O. Kimbrough & Vernon L. Smith & Bart J. Wilson, 2008. "Historical Property Rights, Sociality, and the Emergence of Impersonal Exchange in Long-Distance Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1009-1039, June.
    12. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 66, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    13. Redzo Mujcic & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2018. "Indirect Reciprocity and Prosocial Behaviour: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1683-1699, June.
    14. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga, 2014. "Playing the trust game with other people’s money," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 615-630, December.
    15. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Grimalda, Gianluca, 2016. "Groups and trust: Experimental evidence on the Olson and Putnam hypotheses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 38-54.
    16. Nikos Nikiforakis & Helen Mitchell, 2014. "Mixing the carrots with the sticks: third party punishment and reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Dürsch, Peter & Servátka, Maros, 2007. "Risky punishment and reward in the prisoner's dilemma," Papers 07-62, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    18. Fehr, Ernst & Falk, Armin, 2002. "Psychological foundations of incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 687-724, May.
    19. Astrid Hopfensitz & Ernesto Reuben, 2009. "The Importance of Emotions for the Effectiveness of Social Punishment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1534-1559, October.
    20. Kirchsteiger, G. & Rigotti, L. & Rustichini, A., 2000. "Your Morals are Your Moods," Discussion Paper 2000-122, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    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:aho:journl:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:47-64. 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: sshabbar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibakapk.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.