IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v205y2025i1d10.1007_s11127-025-01270-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When efficient help is perceived as greed: experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Andrej Angelovski

    (Middlesex University)

  • Werner Güth

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Simón Lodato

    (Middlesex University)

  • Christos Mavridis

    (“Gabriele d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara)

Abstract

We study charitable behaviour when genuine donations can be misinterpreted as being greedy. This is relevant when private benefits from donating, like tax exemptions, bring into question whether donors are truly altruistically motivated. In our experiment, a potential donor, the distributor, decides how to split a sum of money between themselves, a paired non-distributor, and a charity of their choice. Choosing to donate part of the sum to charity is socially efficient because the charity receives four times the amount, with the difference covered by the experimenters. Our conditions vary in the choice set available to the distributor and whether the choice set becomes known to the non-distributor. With the choice set unknown, the distributor may be concerned that the non-distributor will believe the money has been split unfairly, with the distributor keeping a larger share. Overall, we find this not to be the case: the number of individuals who donate to charity is not significantly lower when donating could be perceived as greedy.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrej Angelovski & Werner Güth & Simón Lodato & Christos Mavridis, 2025. "When efficient help is perceived as greed: experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 205(1), pages 219-235, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:205:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-025-01270-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-025-01270-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-025-01270-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-025-01270-9?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.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:205:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-025-01270-9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.