IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v192y2020ics0165176520301051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From lab to field: Social distance and charitable giving in teams

Author

Listed:
  • Gee, Laura K.
  • Schreck, Michael J.
  • Singh, Ankriti

Abstract

Laboratory evidence suggests that team members behave more altruistically when they have closer social connections to their teammates. Despite the potential significance of this finding for fundraising practice, it has gone largely untested in the applied setting of charitable giving. Following the rich tradition of converting “proofs of concept” in the laboratory to novel implementations in the field, we use a 6,471-person field experiment to test whether reducing social distance within a team increases donations to a non-profit university. We reduce social distance by informing team members that they participated in the same college organization (Greek life, athletics, or a specific volunteering organization). We find no evidence that this leads to greater altruism, but we caution that further studies are needed to understand how to best leverage the findings from the laboratory in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J. & Singh, Ankriti, 2020. "From lab to field: Social distance and charitable giving in teams," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:192:y:2020:i:c:s0165176520301051
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176520301051
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109128?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Hopfensitz, Astrid & Lorini, Emiliano & Moisan, Frédéric, 2016. "Social connectedness improves co-ordination on individually costly, efficient outcomes," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 86-106.
    2. Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J., 2018. "Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 282-297.
    3. Meer Jonathan & Rigbi Oren, 2013. "The Effects of Transactions Costs and Social Distance: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 271-296, July.
    4. Andreoni, James & Petrie, Ragan, 2004. "Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1605-1623, July.
    5. Ajay Agrawal & Christian Catalini & Avi Goldfarb, 2015. "Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 253-274, June.
    6. Giuseppe Attanasi & Astrid Hopfensitz & Emiliano Lorini & Frederic Moisan, 2016. "Social connectedness improves co-ordination on individually costly, efficient outcomes," Post-Print hal-03188214, HAL.
    7. Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "Selective Recognition: How to Recognize Donors to Increase Charitable Giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1489-1496, July.
    8. Roth, Alvin E., 1986. "Laboratory Experimentation in Economics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 245-273, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Meer Jonathan & Rigbi Oren, 2013. "The Effects of Transactions Costs and Social Distance: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 271-296, January.
    11. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2005. "Managing diversity by creating team identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 371-392, November.
    12. Chen, Yan & Li, Sherry Xin & Liu, Tracy Xiao & Shih, Margaret, 2014. "Which hat to wear? Impact of natural identities on coordination and cooperation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 58-86.
    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. Li, Sherry Xin & Wang, Shengzhe & Yang, Shuo, 2023. "What is in Local Dialects? A Field Experiment on Social Distance and Human Capital Development in Job Training," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Gee, Laura K. & Kiyawat, Anoushka & Meer, Jonathan & Schreck, Michael J., 2024. "Pivotal or popular: The effects of social information and feeling pivotal on civic actions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 404-413.
    3. Lijun Yin & Ruzhen Mao & Zijun Ke, 2021. "Charity Misconduct on Public Health Issues Impairs Willingness to Offer Help," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-14, December.

    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. (Charlie) Chen, Zhuoqiong & Ong, David & Sheremeta, Roman, 2022. "Competition between and within universities: Theoretical and experimental investigation of group identity and the desire to win," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Ross Hickey & Bradley Minaker & A. Abigail Payne, 2019. "The Sensitivity of Charitable Giving to the Timing and Salience of Tax Credits," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 72(1), pages 79-110, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Francesca Lipari & Massimo Stella & Alberto Antonioni, 2019. "Investigating Peer and Sorting Effects within an Adaptive Multiplex Network Model," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Mathieu Lefebvre & Lucie Martin-Bonnel de Longchamp, 2022. "Knowledge acquisition or incentive to foster coordination? A real-effort weak-link experiment with craftsmen," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 93-107, July.
    6. Bronchal, Adrià, 2023. "Better the devil you know: The effects of group identity uncertainty on coordination efficiency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 634-656.
    7. Meer, Jonathan, 2017. "Does fundraising create new giving?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 82-93.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:284-314 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Deng, Weiguang & Jiang, Shengjun & Li, Xue & Ye, Maoliang, 2024. "Peer effects in donations: Evidence from random assignment of college roommates," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 631-644.
    10. Lian Xue & Stefania Sitzia & Theodore L. Turocy, 2017. "What’s ours is ours: An experiment on the efficiency of bargaining over the fruits of joint activity," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 17-12, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    11. 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.
    12. Thom, James Matthew & Afzal, Uzma & Gold, Natalie, 2022. "Testing team reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination games," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 284-314, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    15. Drouvelis, Michalis & Malaeb, Bilal & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Wahba, Jackline, 2021. "Cooperation in a fragmented society: Experimental evidence on Syrian refugees and natives in Lebanon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 176-191.
    16. Renaud Foucart & Jonathan H. W. Tan, 2024. "A test of loyalty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 109-137, August.
    17. Fuhai Hong & Yohanes E. Riyanto & Ruike Zhang, 2022. "Multidimensional social identity and redistributive preferences: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 151-184, July.
    18. Gee, Laura K. & Kiyawat, Anoushka & Meer, Jonathan & Schreck, Michael J., 2024. "Pivotal or popular: The effects of social information and feeling pivotal on civic actions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 404-413.
    19. Pietro Battiston & Simona Gamba & Sharon G. Harrison, 2024. "My Poor(er) Friend: (Non-)Economic Integration in Public Good Games," Discussion Papers 2024/305, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Dimant, Eugen, 2015. "On Peer Effects: Behavioral Contagion of (Un)Ethical Behavior and the Role of Social Identity," MPRA Paper 68732, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Dominique Cappelletti & Luigi Mittone & Matteo Ploner, 2015. "Language and intergroup discrimination. Evidence from an experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1504, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Charitable giving; Field experiment; Public goods; Social distance; Social information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • H6 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design

    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:ecolet:v:192:y:2020:i:c:s0165176520301051. 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/ecolet .

    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.