IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0460.html

Paying the Price of Sweetening Your Donation - Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Alpízar, Francisco

    (Environment for Development Center for Central America, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica)

  • Martinsson, Peter

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

Using a natural field experiment in a recreational site, a public good almost fully dependent on voluntary donations, we explored the crowding-out effect of gift rewards. First, we investigated whether receiving a map in appreciation of a donation crowded out prosocial behavior and found no significant effect of giving the map. Second, we explored the effect of adding the map to a treatment designed to increase donations. Interestingly, when the gift was combined with our attempt to trigger reputational and self image motives, the probability of donating decreased significantly, compared to the social reference treatment alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Paying the Price of Sweetening Your Donation - Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Working Papers in Economics 460, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0460
    Note: Published in Economics Letters, 2012, Vol 114, pp. 182-185.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Alem, Yonas & Eggert, Håkan & Kocher, Martin G. & Ruhinduka, Remidius D., 2018. "Why (field) experiments on unethical behavior are important: Comparing stated and revealed behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 71-85.
    3. Claudia Townsend & Darren DahlEditor & Page MoreauAssociate Editor, 2017. "The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements with and without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 794-815.
    4. Fredrik Carlsson & Haoran He & Peter Martinsson, 2013. "Easy come, easy go," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 190-207, June.
    5. Fang, Xing, 2022. "Why we hide good deeds? The selfless and anonymous donation behavior in crowdfunding," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    6. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter & Nordén, Anna, 2015. "Do entrance fees crowd out donations for public goods? Evidence from a protected area in Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 311-326, June.
    7. Asiedu, Edward & Ibanez, Marcela, 2014. "The weaker sex? Gender differences in punishment across Matrilineal and Patriarchal Societies," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 165743, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    8. Zhang, Wanqing, 2025. "Influence of stress, perceived control, and intrinsic motivation on individual economic decision-making," Other publications TiSEM 7a3c490f-d92c-47cf-92fb-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Kubo, Takahiro & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2018. "Voluntary Contributions to Hiking Trail Maintenance: Evidence From a Field Experiment in a National Park, Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 124-128.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    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:hhs:gunwpe:0460. 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: Jessica Oscarsson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.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.