IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbt/econwp/09-16.html

Gender and Generosity: Does Degree of Anonymity or Group Gender Composition Matter?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Employing a two-by-two factorial design that manipulates whether dictator groups are single or mixed-sex and whether procedures are single or double-blind, we examine gender effect in a standard dictator game. No gender effect was found in any of the experimental treatments. Moreover, neither single- versus mixed-sex groups nor level of anonymity had any impact on either male or female behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Bram Cadsby & Maroš Servátka & Fei Song, 2009. "Gender and Generosity: Does Degree of Anonymity or Group Gender Composition Matter?," Working Papers in Economics 09/16, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:09/16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.canterbury.ac.nz/cbt/econwp/0916.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jan Stoop, 2014. "From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 304-313, June.
    2. Smriti Sharma, 2015. "Gender and Distributional Preferences: Experimental Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-062, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Morita, Hodaka & Servátka, Maroš, 2013. "Group identity and relation-specific investment: An experimental investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 95-109.
    4. Boschini, Anne & Dreber, Anna & von Essen, Emma & Muren, Astri & Ranehill, Eva, 2018. "Gender and altruism in a random sample," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 72-77.
    5. Gianna Lotito & Matteo Migheli & Guido Ortona, 2015. "An Experimental Inquiry into the Nature of Relational Goods, and Their Impact on Co-operation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 699-722, July.
    6. Boschini, Anne & Dreber, Anna & von Essen, Emma & Muren, Astri & Ranehill, Eva, 2014. "Gender and economic preferences in a large random sample," Research Papers in Economics 2014:6, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    7. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    8. Subhasish M Chowdhury & Philip J Grossman & Joo Young Jeon, 2020. "Gender differences in giving and the anticipation regarding giving in dictator games," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(3), pages 772-779.
    9. Lotito, Gianna & Migheli, Matteo & Ortona, Guido, 2011. "An experimental inquiry into the nature of relational goods," POLIS Working Papers 160, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    10. Luke Lillehaugen & Porter Ludwig & Robert L. Mayo, 2023. "Demographic differences in the effect of price on giving in a diverse population," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 157-175, December.
    11. Hsieh, Chih-Sheng & Lin, Xu, 2024. "Gender and racial disparities in altruism in social networks," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    12. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon & Bibhas Saha, 2017. "Gender Differences in the Giving and Taking Variants of the Dictator Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(2), pages 474-483, October.
    13. Miller, Luis & Ubeda, Paloma, 2012. "Are women more sensitive to the decision-making context?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 98-104.
    14. Rudolf Vetschera & Guenther Kainz, 2013. "Do Self-Reported Strategies Match Actual Behavior in a Social Preference Experiment?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 823-849, September.
    15. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha, 2015. "Only Mine or All Ours: Do Stronger Entitlements Affect Altruistic Choices in the Household," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 363-375.
    16. Du, Ninghua & Song, Fei & Cadsby, C. Bram, 2022. "You cannot judge a book by its cover: Evidence from a laboratory experiment on recognizing generosity from facial information," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    18. Doñate-Buendía, Anabel & García-Gallego, Aurora & Petrović, Marko, 2022. "Gender and other moderators of giving in the dictator game: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 280-301.
    19. Grüner Sven, 2020. "Sample Size Calculation in Economic Experiments," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 240(6), pages 791-823, December.
    20. Baltrusch, Maximilian & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2024. "Gender effects in dictator game giving under voluntary choice of the recipient’s gender: Women favour female recipients," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    21. Ece Yagman & Malcolm Keswell, 2015. "Accents, Race and Discrimination: Evidence from a Trust Game," SALDRU Working Papers 158, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    22. Umer, Hamza, 2020. "Revisiting generosity in the dictator game: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    23. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    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:cbt:econwp:09/16. 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: Albert Yee (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decannz.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.