IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/awi/wpaper/0759.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Measurement of Changes in Distributional Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Cui, Chi
  • Dai, Ming
  • Alevy, Jonathan

Abstract

This study explores the way in which social information about giving impacts the stability of distributional preferences. We designed a two-stage treatment which varied the information participants received about the maximum amounts given to recipients. Information on maximum giving can significantly increase giving share compared to the control group, especially when the relative price of giving is low. However, with a rise in the relative price,the giving decreases significantly. Applying measures of consistency with the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference (GARP) and non-linear Tobit estimates of preferences, we observe changes in distributional preferences indicating that more fairness and efficiency are considered in distributions when social information is provided. Type changes in distributional preferences at an individual level provide evidence that there is one substitution relationship with context to fairness-selfishness and efficiency-equality tradeoffs. People’s preferences can change due to environmental factors, which are less equalityfocused and more efficiency-oriented. It provides evidence for heterogeneity in preference stability by studying distribution stability causal effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Cui, Chi & Dai, Ming & Alevy, Jonathan, 2025. "The Measurement of Changes in Distributional Preferences," Working Papers 0759, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0759
    Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-359473
    File Function: Frontdoor page on HeiDOK
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/35947/7/Cui_Dai_Alevy_Measurement_dp759_2025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    2. Keigo Inukai & Yuta Shimodaira & Kohei Shiozawa, 2022. "Empirical properties of an extended CES utility function in representing distributional preferences," ISER Discussion Paper 1199, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    3. Gächter, Simon & Gerhards, Leonie & Nosenzo, Daniele, 2017. "The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 72-86.
    4. Tanya O’Garra & Valerio Capraro & Praveen Kujal, 2019. "The Effect of Social Information in the Dictator Game with a Taking Option," Working Papers 19-13, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    5. Duffy, John & Kornienko, Tatiana, 2010. "Does competition affect giving?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(1-2), pages 82-103, May.
    6. Rachel Croson & Jen Shang, 2008. "The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 221-233, September.
    7. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    8. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    10. James Murphy & Samiran Banerjee, 2015. "A caveat for the application of the critical cost efficiency index in induced budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 356-365, September.
    11. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    2. Cristina Bicchieri & Eugen Dimant & Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo, 2020. "Observability, Social Proximity, and the Erosion of Norm Compliance," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 009, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    3. Rigdon, Mary & Ishii, Keiko & Watabe, Motoki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Minimal social cues in the dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 358-367, June.
    4. Timo Goeschl & Sara Elisa Kettner & Johannes Lohse & Christiane Schwieren, 2018. "From Social Information to Social Norms: Evidence from Two Experiments on Donation Behaviour," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-25, November.
    5. Dimant, Eugen, 2019. "Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-88.
    6. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    7. Pamela Jakiela, 2013. "Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 208-221, June.
    8. Potters, Jan & Xu, Yilong, 2020. "Social information and selfishness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 327-340.
    9. Robert Neumann, 2019. "The framing of charitable giving: A field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(1), pages 98-126, February.
    10. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    11. Dimitri Dubois & Stefano Farolfi & Phu Nguyen-Van & Juliette Rouchier, 2020. "Contrasting effects of information sharing on common-pool resource extraction behavior: Experimental findings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Lucas C. Coffman & Clayton R. Featherstone & Judd B. Kessler, 2017. "Can Social Information Affect What Job You Choose and Keep?," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 96-117, January.
    13. Sánchez, Ángela, 2022. "Group identity and charitable contributions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 542-549.
    14. O'Garra, Tanya & Sisco, Matthew R., 2018. "Redistribution and Social Information (ReSoc)," SocArXiv 28xwv, Center for Open Science.
    15. Mir Adnan Mahmood & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Correcting for Random Budgets in Revealed Preference Experiments," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, April.
    16. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Zhang, Jianlin, 2013. "The impact of social comparison of ability on pro-social behaviour," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-46.
    17. Anna Lou Abatayo & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2017. "One-shot exogenous interventions increase subsequent coordination in Denmark, Spain and Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Mitra, Arnab & Shahriar, Quazi, 2020. "Why is dishonesty difficult to mitigate? The interaction between descriptive norm and monetary incentive," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "The development of consistent decision-making across economic domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 217-240.

    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:awi:wpaper:0759. 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: Gabi Rauscher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/awheide.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.