IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v63y2017i11p3672-3690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Waiting To Give: Stated and Revealed Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Ashley C. Craig

    (Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Ellen Garbarino

    (Discipline of Marketing, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia)

  • Stephanie A. Heger

    (School of Economics, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia)

  • Robert Slonim

    (School of Economics, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia)

Abstract

We estimate and compare the effect of increased time costs on consumer satisfaction and behavior. We are able to move beyond the existing literature, which focuses on satisfaction and intention, and estimate the effect of waiting time on return behavior. Further, we do so in a prosocial context and our measure of cost is the length of time a blood donor spends waiting. We find that relying on satisfaction data masks important time cost sensitivities; namely, it is not how the donor feels about the wait time that matters for return behavior, but rather the actual duration of the wait. Consistent with theory we develop, our results indicate that waiting has a significant longer-term social cost: we estimate that a 38% increase (equivalent to one standard deviation) in the average wait would result in a 10% decrease in donations per year.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashley C. Craig & Ellen Garbarino & Stephanie A. Heger & Robert Slonim, 2017. "Waiting To Give: Stated and Revealed Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3672-3690, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:11:p:3672-3690
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2504
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2504?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fehr, Ernst & Falk, Armin, 2002. "Psychological foundations of incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 687-724, May.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier & Gautam Rao, 2013. "The Importance of Being Marginal: Gender Differences in Generosity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 586-590, May.
    3. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-881, September.
    4. James Andreoni & Eleanor Brown & Isaac Rischall, 2003. "Charitable Giving by Married Couples Who Decides and Why Does it Matter?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 38(1).
    5. 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.
    6. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    7. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2012. "Will There Be Blood? Incentives and Displacement Effects in Pro-social Behavior," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 186-223, February.
    8. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    9. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K., 2014. "Recency, Consistent Learning, and Nash Equilibrium," Scholarly Articles 13477947, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
    12. Conlin, Michael & Lynn, Michael & O'Donoghue, Ted, 2003. "The norm of restaurant tipping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 297-321, November.
    13. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2010. "Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 225-237, November.
    14. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    15. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
    16. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    17. A. Colin Cameron & Douglas L. Miller, 2015. "A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 317-372.
    18. Stephan Meier, 2007. "Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(6), pages 1203-1222, December.
    19. Patricia Funk, 2010. "Social Incentives and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the Swiss Mail Ballot System," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(5), pages 1077-1103, September.
    20. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "When Are Women More Generous than Men?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 587-598, October.
    21. Robert Slonim & Carmen Wang & Ellen Garbarino, 2014. "The Market for Blood," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 177-196, Spring.
    22. Lancaster,Tony, 1992. "The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521437899, January.
    23. George Loewenstein, 2000. "Emotions in Economic Theory and Economic Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 426-432, May.
    24. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman, 2008. "Subsidizing charitable contributions: a natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 234-252, September.
    25. Cairns, Jason & Slonim, Robert, 2011. "Substitution effects across charitable donations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 173-175, May.
    26. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    27. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    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. Briscese, Guglielmo & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario & Tonin, Mirco, 2023. "Expectations, reference points, and compliance with COVID-19 social distancing measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Christine L. Exley & Stephen J. Terry, 2019. "Wage Elasticities in Working and Volunteering: The Role of Reference Points in a Laboratory Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 413-425, January.
    3. Ferreira, Claudio M. & Vieites, Yan & Goldszmidt, Rafael & Barros, Lucia S.G. & Andrade, Eduardo B., 2024. "Short- and long-term effects of incentives on prosocial behavior: The case of ride vouchers to a blood collection agency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 352(C).
    4. Nagurney, Anna & Dutta, Pritha, 2019. "Competition for blood donations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 103-114.
    5. Linda Dezso & Gergely Hajdu & Yossef Tobol, 2024. "Unexpected Waiting Corrupts," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp358, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    6. Rafaï, Ismaël & Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Stated preferences outperform elicited preferences for predicting reported compliance with COVID-19 prophylactic measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Michael Haylock & Patrick Kampkötter & Mario Macis & Jürgen Sauter & Susanne Seitz & Robert Slonim & Daniel Wiesen & Alexander H. Schmidt, 2022. "Improving the Availability of Unrelated Stem Cell Donors: Evidence from a Major Donor Registry," NBER Working Papers 29857, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Anna Nagurney & Pritha Dutta, 2021. "A Multiclass, Multiproduct Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma Donor Equilibrium Model," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-30, September.
    9. Josefa D. Martín-Santana & Lucía Melián-Alzola, 2022. "The influence of service quality and anticipated emotions on donor loyalty: an empirical analysis in blood centres in Spain," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 623-648, December.
    10. Lucía Melián-Alzola & Josefa D. Martín-Santana, 2020. "Service quality in blood donation: satisfaction, trust and loyalty," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 14(1), pages 101-129, March.
    11. Robert Gillanders & Glenn McNamara, 2024. "Smartphones and attitudes to intimate partner violence: Evidence from Africa," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(2), pages 411-427, May.
    12. Robaina-Calderín, Lorena & Martín-Santana, Josefa D. & Melián-Alzola, Lucía, 2023. "Prosocial customer in the public sector: A PLS-SEM analysis applied to blood donation (active donors)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    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. Christine Exley, 2013. "Incentives for Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Reputations," Discussion Papers 12-022, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    2. Goette, Lorenz & Stutzer, Alois, 2020. "Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 52-74.
    3. Stephanie A. Heger & Robert Slonim & Ellen Garbarino & Carmen Wang & Daniel Waller, 2020. "Redesigning the Market for Volunteers: A Donor Registry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3528-3541, August.
    4. Christine L. Exley & Stephen J. Terry, 2019. "Wage Elasticities in Working and Volunteering: The Role of Reference Points in a Laboratory Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 413-425, January.
    5. Christine Exley, 2018. "Incentives for Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Reputations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2460-2471, May.
    6. Tanjim Hossain & King King Li, 2014. "Crowding Out in the Labor Market: A Prosocial Setting Is Necessary," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1148-1160, May.
    7. Craig, Ashley C & Garbarino, Ellen & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Waiting To Give," IZA Discussion Papers 8491, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Huber, Laura Rosendahl & Sloof, Randolph & Van Praag, Mirjam, 2017. "The effect of incentives on sustainable behavior: evidence from a field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 92-106.
    9. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Joan Costa-Font & Mireia Jofre-Bonet & Steven T. Yen, 2013. "Not All Incentives Wash Out the Warm Glow: The Case of Blood Donation Revisited," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 529-551, November.
    11. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    12. Timothy Gubler & Ian Larkin & Lamar Pierce, 2016. "Motivational Spillovers from Awards: Crowding Out in a Multitasking Environment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 286-303, April.
    13. Anya Savikhin Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2014. "Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690, December.
    14. Ashraf, Nava & Bandiera, Oriana & Jack, B. Kelsey, 2014. "No margin, no mission? A field experiment on incentives for public service delivery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-17.
    15. Sun, Tianshu & Lu, Susan Feng & Jin, Ginger Zhe, 2016. "Solving shortage in a priceless market: Insights from blood donation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 149-165.
    16. Boyer, Pierre C. & Dwenger, Nadja & Rincke, Johannes, 2016. "Do norms on contribution behavior affect intrinsic motivation? Field-experimental evidence from Germany," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 140-153.
    17. Kotsadam, Andreas & Somville, Vincent, 2024. "Wealth and charitable giving – Evidence from an Ethiopian lottery," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Anya Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2013. "Recognizing Contributors and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Artefactual Field Experiments 00430, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Knutsson, Mikael & Martinsson, Peter & Persson, Emil & Wollbrant, Conny, 2019. "Gender differences in altruism: Evidence from a natural field experiment on matched donations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 47-50.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:11:p:3672-3690. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.