IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chieco/v94y2025ipbs1043951x25002457.html

Social norms alleviate the disadvantaged positions of elderly people in charity markets

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Xinrui
  • Liu, Ziming
  • Feng, Shuyi

Abstract

Charitable giving is an important supplement to social insurance programs. However, potential recipients of different ages may have unequal access to charitable donations. This study uses discrete choice experiments to investigate how the age of potential recipients may affect individuals' willingness to donate, and it uses survey experiments to examine the nudge effects of social norms on individuals' preferences for donating to elderly people. The results from 1146 Chinese internet users show that a one-year increase in the age of potential recipients decreases individuals' willingness to donate by approximately 2.094 CNY. Relative to a 20-year-old potential recipient, donors' willingness to give decreases by 54.358, 98.028, and 152.862 CNY for recipients aged 45, 70, and 90, respectively. Descriptive social norms and injunctive social norms can nudge individuals' willingness to donate to elderly people, increasing the marginal willingness to pay by 1.487 and 0.803 CNY, respectively. This work documents the disadvantaged positions of elderly people in charity markets and provides insights for promoting donation to elderly people in aging societies.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, Xinrui & Liu, Ziming & Feng, Shuyi, 2025. "Social norms alleviate the disadvantaged positions of elderly people in charity markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PB).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:94:y:2025:i:pb:s1043951x25002457
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2025.102587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X25002457
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chieco.2025.102587?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph E. Aldy & W. Kip Viscusi, 2008. "Adjusting the Value of a Statistical Life for Age and Cohort Effects," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 573-581, August.
    2. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    4. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    5. Baert, Stijn & Norga, Jennifer & Thuy, Yannick & Van Hecke, Marieke, 2016. "Getting grey hairs in the labour market. An alternative experiment on age discrimination," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 86-101.
    6. Berliner, Lauren S. & Kenworthy, Nora J., 2017. "Producing a worthy illness: Personal crowdfunding amidst financial crisis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 233-242.
    7. Xianmin GongPhD & Fan ZhangPhD & Helene H FungPhD, 2019. "Are Older Adults More Willing to Donate? The Roles of Donation Form and Social Relationship," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 74(3), pages 440-448.
    8. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Houser, Daniel & Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Social environments with competitive pressure: Gender effects in the decisions of German schoolchildren," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 634-641, August.
    10. Chengxiang Tang & Yucheng Zhang, 2016. "Using discrete choice experiments to value preferences for air quality improvement: the case of curbing haze in urban China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(8), pages 1473-1494, August.
    11. John A. List, 2011. "The Market for Charitable Giving," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 157-180, Spring.
    12. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2021. "An experimental test of fundraising appeals targeting donor and recipient benefits," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 1339-1348, October.
    13. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    14. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    15. Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2023. "Sample size selection for discrete choice experiments using design features," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    17. Bhanot, Syon P., 2021. "Isolating the effect of injunctive norms on conservation behavior: New evidence from a field experiment in California," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 30-42.
    18. Zarghamee, Homa S. & Messer, Kent D. & Fooks, Jacob R. & Schulze, William D. & Wu, Shang & Yan, Jubo, 2017. "Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 137-149.
    19. Richard Blundell, 2014. "Income Dynamics and Life‐cycle Inequality: Mechanisms and Controversies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(576), pages 289-318, May.
    20. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    21. Yongzheng Yang & Sara Konrath, 2023. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between economic inequality and prosocial behaviour," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(11), pages 1899-1916, November.
    22. Mariel, Petr & Khan, Mohammad Asif & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2022. "Valuing individuals’ preferences for air quality improvement: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in South Delhi," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 432-447.
    23. Bodo Aretz & Sebastian Kube, 2013. "Choosing Your Object of Benevolence: A Field Experiment on Donation Options," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(1), pages 62-73, January.
    24. Matthew R. Sisco & Elke U. Weber, 2019. "Examining charitable giving in real-world online donations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    25. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    26. Bethany Burum & Martin A. Nowak & Moshe Hoffman, 2020. "An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(12), pages 1245-1257, December.
    27. Brown, Caitlin & Calvi, Rossella & Penglase, Jacob, 2021. "Sharing the pie: An analysis of undernutrition and individual consumption in Bangladesh," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    28. Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 926-941.
    29. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Le, Thanh Ha & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Estimating economic benefits associated with air quality improvements in Hanoi City: An application of a choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 420-433.
    30. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    31. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kong, Fanmin & Putterman, Louis, 2004. "Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 581-589, October.
    32. Lili Wang & Peiyao Li, 2023. "Government assistance and family charitable giving: Comparing urban and rural residents in China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(3), pages 209-219, August.
    33. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    34. Agerström, Jens & Carlsson, Rickard & Nicklasson, Linda & Guntell, Linda, 2016. "Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 147-153.
    35. Chen, Siwei & Liu, Chengfang & Huang, Jikun & Zhi, Huayong, 2023. "Can social capital facilitate households' donations in rural China?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    36. Yu Hua & Haiyan Zhang, 2023. "Internet Penetration and Income Inequality: Evidence from the Chinese Young Labor Market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(54), pages 6444-6458, November.
    37. Chen, Yutong, 2024. "Does the gig economy discriminate against women? Evidence from physicians in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    38. Oedingen, Carina & Bartling, Tim & Schrem, Harald & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Krauth, Christian, 2021. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    39. Johannes Diederich & Catherine C. Eckel & Raphael Epperson & Timo Goeschl & Philip J. Grossman, 2022. "Subsidizing unit donations: matches, rebates, and discounts compared," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 734-758, April.
    40. repec:feb:framed:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    41. Yan Chen & Sherry Xin Li, 2009. "Group Identity and Social Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 431-457, March.
    42. Paul Hansen & Nicole Kergozou & Stephen Knowles & Paul Thorsnes, 2014. "Developing Countries in Need: Which Characteristics Appeal Most to People when Donating Money?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(11), pages 1494-1509, November.
    43. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    44. Hennessy, Jack & Mortimer, Duncan & Sweeney, Rohan & Woode, Maame Esi, 2023. "Donor versus recipient preferences for aid allocation: A systematic review of stated-preference studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).
    45. Adrian Rinscheid & Rolf Wüstenhagen, 2019. "Germany’s decision to phase out coal by 2038 lags behind citizens’ timing preferences," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 856-863, October.
    46. Ye, Nan & Teng, Lefa & Yu, Ying & Wang, Yingyuan, 2015. "“What's in it for me?”: The effect of donation outcomes on donation behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 480-486.
    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. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    2. Valeria Fanghella & Lisette Ibanez & John Thøgersen, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Post-Print hal-04982503, HAL.
    3. Valeria Fanghella & Lisette Ibanez & John Thøgersen, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-04982503, HAL.
    4. Bolton, Gary & Dimant, Eugen & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2021. "Observability and social image: On the robustness and fragility of reciprocity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 946-964.
    5. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2018. "Prosociality spillovers of working with others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 205-216.
    6. Chen, Josie I. & Foster, Andrew & Putterman, Louis, 2019. "Identity, trust and altruism: An experiment on preferences and microfinance lending," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Qian Weng & Haoran He, 2018. "Geographic Distance, Income And Charitable Giving: Evidence From China," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(05), pages 1145-1169, May.
    8. Mabit, Stefan E., 2026. "Mixed logit applications in travel behaviour research," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Edwards, James T. & List, John A., 2014. "Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-13.
    10. Krieg, Justin & Samek, Anya, 2017. "When charities compete: A laboratory experiment with simultaneous public goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 40-57.
    11. John A. List & James J. Murphy & Michael K. Price & Alexander G. James, 2019. "Do Appeals to Donor Benefits Raise More Money than Appeals to Recipient Benefits? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Pick.Click.Give," NBER Working Papers 26559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Schulz, Jonathan F. & Thiemann, Petra & Thöni, Christian, 2018. "Nudging generosity: Choice architecture and cognitive factors in charitable giving," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 139-145.
    13. Ike Silver & Deborah A. Small, 2024. "Put Your Mouth Where Your Money Is: A Field Experiment Encouraging Donors to Share About Charity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 392-406, March.
    14. Judd B. Kessler & Katherine L. Milkman & C. Yiwei Zhang, 2019. "Getting the Rich and Powerful to Give," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4049-4062, September.
    15. Bašić, Zvonimir & Verrina, Eugenio, 2024. "Personal norms — and not only social norms — shape economic behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    16. Michalis Drouvelis & Benjamin M. Marx, 2021. "Dimensions of donation preferences: the structure of peer and income effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 274-302, March.
    17. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Jeppesen, Lars Bo & Reichstein, Toke & Rullani, Francesco, 2021. "Crowdfunding as Donations to Entrepreneurial Firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    18. Kessler, Judd B. & Low, Corinne & Singhal, Monica, 2021. "Social policy instruments and the compliance environment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 248-267.
    19. Natalia Candelo & Rachel T. A. Croson & Sherry Xin Li, 2017. "Identity and social exclusion: an experiment with Hispanic immigrants in the U.S," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 460-480, June.
    20. Meer, Jonathan, 2017. "Does fundraising create new giving?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 82-93.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:chieco:v:94:y:2025:i:pb:s1043951x25002457. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/chieco .

    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.