IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1712.02926.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Online Red Packets: A Large-scale Empirical Study of Gift Giving on WeChat

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Yuan
  • Tracy Xiao Liu
  • Chenhao Tan
  • Jie Tang

Abstract

Gift giving is a ubiquitous social phenomenon, and red packets have been used as monetary gifts in Asian countries for thousands of years. In recent years, online red packets have become widespread in China through the WeChat platform. Exploiting a unique dataset consisting of 61 million group red packets and seven million users, we conduct a large-scale, data-driven study to understand the spread of red packets and the effect of red packets on group activity. We find that the cash flows between provinces are largely consistent with provincial GDP rankings, e.g., red packets are sent from users in the south to those in the north. By distinguishing spontaneous from reciprocal red packets, we reveal the behavioral patterns in sending red packets: males, seniors, and people with more in-group friends are more inclined to spontaneously send red packets, while red packets from females, youths, and people with less in-group friends are more reciprocal. Furthermore, we use propensity score matching to study the external effects of red packets on group dynamics. We show that red packets increase group participation and strengthen in-group relationships, which partly explain the benefits and motivations for sending red packets.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Yuan & Tracy Xiao Liu & Chenhao Tan & Jie Tang, 2017. "Online Red Packets: A Large-scale Empirical Study of Gift Giving on WeChat," Papers 1712.02926, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1712.02926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.02926
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewer, Joshua J. & Van den Berg, Hendrik, 2008. "A gravity model of immigration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 164-167, April.
    2. Harbaugh, William T., 1998. "What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 269-284, February.
    3. 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).
    4. Sherry, John F, Jr, 1983. "Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(2), pages 157-168, September.
    5. Uri Gneezy & John A List, 2006. "Putting Behavioral Economics to Work: Testing for Gift Exchange in Labor Markets Using Field Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1365-1384, September.
    6. Armin Falk, 2007. "Gift Exchange in the Field," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1501-1511, September.
    7. Akerlof, George A, 1984. "Gift Exchange and Efficiency-Wage Theory: Four Views," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 79-83, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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," Working Papers 19-31, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    2. Solimine, Philip & Isaac, R. Mark, 2023. "Reputation and market structure in experimental platforms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 528-559.
    3. Peter Cappelli & Martin Conyon & David Almeda, 2020. "Social Exchange and the Effects of Employee Stock Options," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(1), pages 124-152, January.
    4. Grund, Christian & Minten, Axel & Toporova, Nevena, 2017. "The Motivation of Temporary Agency Workers: An Empirical Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 11229, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Sandrine Frémeaux & Grant Michelson, 2011. ""No Strings Attached": Welcoming the Existential Gift in Business," Post-Print hal-00797037, HAL.
    6. Sandrine Frémeaux & Grant Michelson, 2011. "‘No Strings Attached’: Welcoming the Existential Gift in Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 99(1), pages 63-75, March.
    7. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2011. "Rewarding Altruism? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 17636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Saima Mahmood & Asad Zaman, 2010. "Monetary and Non-monetary Gift Exchange," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 719-740.
    9. Sascha O. Becker & Dolores Messer & Stefan C. Wolter, 2013. "A Gift is Not Always a Gift: Heterogeneity and Long-term Effects in a Gift Exchange Experiment," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 345-371, April.
    10. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    11. Meer, Jonathan, 2017. "Does fundraising create new giving?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 82-93.
    12. Andreas Lange & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Charitable Memberships, Volunteering, and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-Scale Online Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Akinori Tomohara & Akihiko Ohno, 2013. "What are Relevant Work Incentive Models? Shirking Model, Gift Exchange Model, or Reciprocity Model," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 241-252, June.
    14. Leonardo Becchetti & Emanuele Bobbio & Federico Prizia & Lorenzo Semplici, 2022. "Going Deeper into the S of ESG: A Relational Approach to the Definition of Social Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Andreas Nicklisch & Tobias Salz, 2008. "Reciprocity and status in a virtual field experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_37, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    16. Craig Landry & Andreas Lange & John List & Michael Price & Nicholas Rupp, 2011. "Is There a 'Hidden Cost of Control' in Naturally-Occurring Markets? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00593, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Michel André Maréchal & Christian Thöni, 2019. "Hidden Persuaders: Do Small Gifts Lubricate Business Negotiations?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3877-3888, August.
    18. Chmura, Thorsten & Goerg, Sebastian J. & Weiss, Pia, 2016. "Natural groups and economic characteristics as driving forces of wage discrimination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 178-200.
    19. Gächter, Simon & Kessler, Esther & Königstein, Manfred, 2011. "The Roles of Incentives and Voluntary Cooperation for Contractual Compliance," IZA Discussion Papers 5774, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2010. "Is a Donor in Hand Better Than Two in the Bush? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 958-983, June.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:1712.02926. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.