IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0468.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Windfall vs. Earned Money in the Laboratory: Do They Affect the Behavior of Men and Women Differently?

Author

Listed:
  • Carlsson, Fredrik

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

  • He, Haoran

    (School of Economics and Business Administration, Beijing Normal University)

  • Martinsson, Peter

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

Abstract

We experimentally investigate, using a dictator game, if the effects of windfall and earned endowments on behavior differ between men and women genders. In line with previous studies, we find that windfall endowments significantly increase the amount donated. The impact of moving from earned to windfall endowment on behavior is larger for females, yet the gender difference is statistically insignificant. Thus, we do not find evidence that the change in how the endowment is obtained in a laboratory experiment affects male and female behavior differently.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlsson, Fredrik & He, Haoran & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Windfall vs. Earned Money in the Laboratory: Do They Affect the Behavior of Men and Women Differently?," Working Papers in Economics 468, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0468
    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 search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    2. Lucy Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 5-16, April.
    3. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1218-1221, September.
    4. Oxoby, Robert J. & Spraggon, John, 2008. "Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 703-713, March.
    5. Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 1998. "Are Women Less Selfish Than Men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 726-735, May.
    6. Cherry, Todd L. & Kroll, Stephan & Shogren, Jason F., 2005. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 357-365, July.
    7. Keasey, Kevin & Moon, Philip, 1996. "Gambling with the house money in capital expenditure decisions: An experimental analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 105-110, January.
    8. Jeremy Clark, 2002. "House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, December.
    9. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.
    10. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    11. Spraggon, John & Oxoby, Robert J., 2009. "An experimental investigation of endowment source heterogeneity in two-person public good games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 102-105, August.
    12. Bolton, Gary E. & Katok, Elena, 1995. "An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(3-4), pages 287-292, June.
    13. Glenn Harrison, 2007. "House money effects in public good experiments: Comment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(4), pages 429-437, December.
    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. Heinz, Matthias & Juranek, Steffen & Rau, Holger A., 2012. "Do women behave more reciprocally than men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 105-110.
    2. Barber IV, Benjamin S. & English, William, 2019. "The origin of wealth matters: Equity norms trump equality norms in the ultimatum game with earned endowments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 33-43.

    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. Uchida, Emi & Swallow, Stephen K. & Gold, Arthur J. & Opaluch, James & Kafle, Achyut & Merrill, Nathaniel H. & Michaud, Clayton & Gill, Carrie Anne, 2018. "Integrating Watershed Hydrology and Economics to Establish a Local Market for Water Quality Improvement: A Field Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 17-25.
    2. Astrid Dannenberg & Thomas Riechmann & Bodo Sturm & Carsten Vogt, 2012. "Inequality aversion and the house money effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 460-484, September.
    3. Antinyan, Armenak & Corazzini, Luca & Neururer, Daniel, 2015. "Public good provision, punishment, and the endowment origin: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 72-77.
    4. Daniel Houser & Erte Xiao, 2015. "House money effects on trust and reciprocity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 187-199, April.
    5. Hackinger, Julian, 2016. "Not All Income is the Same to Everyone: Cognitive Ability and the House Money Effect in Public Goods Games," MPRA Paper 70836, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kidwai, Abdul H. & Portillo, Javier E., 2022. "Ours, not yours: Property rights, poaching and deterrence in common-pool resources," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Klaser, Klaudijo & Mittone, Luigi, 2022. "Can the rawlsian veil of ignorance foster tax compliance? Evidence from a laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 99-113.
    8. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 229-240, March.
    9. Michalis Drouvelis & Adam Isen & Benjamin M. Marx, 2019. "The Bonus-Income Donation Norm," CESifo Working Paper Series 7961, CESifo.
    10. Curtis R. Price & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2015. "Endowment Origin, Demographic Effects, and Individual Preferences in Contests," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 597-619, September.
    11. Spraggon, John & Oxoby, Robert J., 2009. "An experimental investigation of endowment source heterogeneity in two-person public good games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 102-105, August.
    12. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán, Roberto & Porter, David, 2013. "The effect of earned vs. house money on price bubble formation in experimental asset markets," UC3M Working papers. Economics we1304, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    13. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 736-754, September.
    14. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha, 2015. "Only Mine or All Ours: Do Stronger Entitlements Affect Altruistic Choices in the Household," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 363-375.
    15. Umer, Hamza, 2020. "Revisiting generosity in the dictator game: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    16. Fredrik Carlsson & Haoran He & Peter Martinsson, 2013. "Easy come, easy go," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 190-207, June.
    17. Christoph Engel & Peter G. Moffat, 2012. "Estimation of the House Money Effect Using Hurdle Models," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2012_13, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    18. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    19. Robert J. Oxoby & John Spraggon, 2013. "A Clear And Present Minority: Heterogeneity In The Source Of Endowments And The Provision Of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(4), pages 2071-2082, October.
    20. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2022. "Can charitable appeals identify and exploit belief heterogeneity?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 631-649.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    dictator game; experiment; earned endowment; gender; windfall gain;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    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:0468. 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: 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.